Friday, March 4, 2011


Check out Tim Amey, from 895 The Hawk Radio wrote this... 
Hope Couple Not Getting Their Kids Yet, By Tim Amey Friday, March 04, 2011 12:00 PM


  1. All your efforts with this heartrending case is so appreciated Ron as you have sought to bring balance and justice so consistently. God Bless you.
    So many of us are truly praying that the end of this saga is in sight...........and then will come a brand new beginning for the Bayne family.

  2. hi, could you post a link to the trust fund?

  3. Donations will be accepted by deposit to this trust account at any branch of TD Canada Trust.

    TD Canada Trust [bank # 004]
    Continental Centre Branch [branch # 9713]
    Account Number [6415554]
    Cheques should be made payable to: "Charter Lau, Kenny Chiu, Marvin Hunt In Trust For Paul and Zabeth Bayne" ; OR "Lau, Chiu, Hunt ITF Bayne"

    Cheques can also be posted to

    Lau, Chiu, Hunt in trust for Bayne
    9406 Pauleshin Cres, Richmond, BC V7E 6P2

    Thank you on behalf of Paul and Zabeth and their children,
    Dr. Ron Unruh

  4. Ron,
    Thank you again for helping us all understand and be more aware of what's happening. You are a big help and encouragement to Paul and Zabeth as well as all of us readers. Have a great weekend!

  5. I just want to add my own comment of appreciation, Ron. Thank you for the time and dedication you've put into this.

  6. Another reason that the judge may be getting the Baynes to think that they can work with MCFD for 6 months and possibly get their children back is that if the judge were just to state that the children are never coming back, then it is more likely that there would be more outrage against Crabtree and MCFD, and more support for the Baynes - and more likely that the Baynes would appeal, because obviously if they are told there is no hope, then they are going to appeal, or try at least to raise funds to appeal.

    But by giving the Baynes, and much of the (duped) public hope, the judge accomplishes this: he doesn't look so bad (because people think he's more "reasonable"), and therefore gets the media to tone it down (think of the response if his decision had been to severe parental rights forever, versus giving them this 6 months time to "work it out"). He has essentially pacified people who don't want to face the reality of MCFD's cruel and unjust ways.

    But the really important thing is this: when the judge gets the Baynes to think that if only they work with MCFD, there is a chance, maybe a good chance, they will get their kids back, then the Baynes get conned into NOT appealing, and therefore lose their right to appeal, forever. Which is EXACTLY what the Ministry wants.

    People need to remember what this Ministry has done to the Baynes and others, and how vindictive, deceptive, manipulative and cruel they are. Do you really think they are going to give the children back, especially when they now have even more proof that the judiciary is solidly on their side? The Chief Justice of the court where they do most of their business (i.e., taking away people's children) has just rubber stamped their atrocities. Why on earth then would we trust MCFD or the provincial court to give the children back?

    We should be working to fundraise for the Baynes, and simultaneously working to create a media firestorm, so that we can launch an appeal that will show MCFD that parents and citizens who care about democracy are not going to stand for this insane tyranny. The clock is ticking, and MCFD is hoping like hell that we are gullible enough to believe they might suddenly change their stripes.

    The question is - are we?

  7. And if the Baynes launch an appeal, I pledge to raise at least $500 (five hundred) dollars myself.

    I believe that we have enough people who care, so that if each of us raises that amount ($500.00), or even 1/5 of that amount ($100.00), we will have more than enough to launch an effective appeal, pay for transcripts, etc.

    One of the first things we could do, is start a blog or facebook page or website - which could be easily linked to this blog and that just deals with the fundraising, and where the trust fund details are clearly laid out, so that people never have to ask - where do I send my money?

    Loren Humeny and Bruce McNeill are not suddenly going to become compassionate. They will never change. And I believe they will never give these children back, unless forced to by a higher court.

  8. The relevant paragraphs with awarding a CCO and the rationale with also giving a 6-month redemption period is found on the last two pages:

    [251] Where the CCO is sought pursuant to the s. 41 (1) of the Act, both the protections issue and the permanent custody issue are addressed at the same time. When proceeding in this fashion there is no opportunity for the parents to reflect on the finding made at the Protection hearing. It leaves no opportunity to consider whether they are prepared to take such action to address the concerns giving rise to the finding at the Protection hearing.

    [252] Participating or cooperating in the preparation of a parental capacity assessment may be seen as acknowledgment or an admission. This is something parents are often not prepared to do, based on their belief as to what happened.

    [253] In addition, the relationship between the social workers and Mr. and Mrs. B. had deteriorated to the point where communication had broken down and the relationship lacks trust. There was a reluctance to deal with them.

    [254] There is some basis for this reticence to work with the social workers. The failure of the Ministry to live up to the spirit of the mediation agreement contributed to the belief that the social workers were not there to work toward the reintegration of the family.


    If you think about the sequence of events that is SUPPOSED to happen, is the protection hearing happens in 45 days. Usually there is a 3 or 6-month TCO (temporary custody order). During this time, the parents are obligated to work with the Ministry because of a finding of protection.

    In this case, the Baynes correctly maintained from the outset they did not shake their infant, and the Judge agreed this did not happen.

    I do agree the Bayns should appeal. The first level of appeal to the BC Supreme Court (not the Court of Appeal) is a simpler process. An hour or two to illustrate the error of law. I am not sure the entire set of transcripts needs to be ordered, just portions in question. Appeals on such relatively simple matters are only heard for an hour or two.

    At the Court of Appeal, the process is much more formal and may require the entire set of transcripts. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure on this point. This is still an error of law issue. I appealed an interim application from Provincial to BC Supreme Court, and was shocked at the relative informality of the exercise.

    Extracts of transcripts are used to illustrate the point of error of law. A Court of Appeal is a short process, regardless. Again, I refer to the Rahman case which was much more contentious than this case, and an appeal was successful. (However the Provincial Judge in that case was not very good, Crabtree, spent a good deal of time to polish his ruling.)

    A CCO should not have been the first finding at the protection hearing stage. This really is equivalent to sterilizing parents, a massive violation of their rights. A CCO is supposed to come later, and only after the parents have proven in the 6-months they refuse to be "rehabilitated." The Baynes have commmitted to participate in all required services in order to have their children returned. The thought that MCFD HAS services that actually produce measurable results is a subject for another blog.

    The judge seems to think a 10% threshold of danger is just fine to award a CCO, when in fact a higher threshold than reasonable doubt should be found to justify taking a child from their parents permanently AND simultaneously ruling the parents can no longer have children. This is a massive violation of a child's right to their natural parents, and in this case, four children are involved. Since CCO's are reversable with services, the Baynes should have no difficulty with this. MCFD is the one on the hook at this stage.

    To illustrate one point, the judge said the Baynes did not cooperated with a risk assessment; he made the mistake of reading Finn's closing argument transcript rather than referring to the numbered evidence.

  9. The argument that while waiting for trial, parents should knuckle under and submit to invasive examination ahead of a protection hearing (which is supposed to occur in 45 days, in which no PCA would have time to be completed), is poor justification to use to award MCFD a CCO.

    The usual Ministry justification is the children have bonded to foster parents and it is no longer in their best interests to have sporatic visits with their biological parents.

    In this case the Baynes have had many times the number of hours normally allotted to parents for supervised visits, so very little degradation of attachment has occurred.

    Speculation may be pointless in second guessing what the Ministry might do with the coming six months, because the Baynes do intend to participate in services and cooperate fully with the reunification process.

  10. do they still have the same visitation with the children as before the ruling?

  11. For 10:20 PM re Visitation
    Presently they have the same visitation with all 4.

  12. Anon at March 6, 2011 8:17 PM -

    Thank you very much - that is extremely useful information regarding appeals, and good news as well, as it suggests that an appeal would be much less expensive.

    I remember reading - I think on this blog - that parents (victims of MCFD) should always try to get their case bumped up to Supreme Court, as they have much better luck there.

    And if they fail at the Supreme Court level, then they would have another kick at the can, would they not, with the Court of Appeal?

    I know that it must be unfathomably painful for the Baynes at this point, but I don't feel that we are helping anything by sugar coating and pretending that compliance will lead to the return of their children.

  13. Thanks for the info re donations, however is there an easier way for people like myself who are overseas?

  14. Anon march 7 at 4:43 PM OVERSEAS

    I will refer your comment to the trustees of the Bayne Trust Fund, for a final word, but I suspect other than a cheque (check) or money order there may not be another way. I will see,

  15. The last post I can find is from Ron on March 7th. When I click on 'newer posts' I am brought back to an earlier one. I click again on 'newer posts' it comes back to march 7th. so is this the latest info?

  16. Marie, you just wrote moments ago, an I am unsure of your question. Posts were published March 8,9, and today 10th.

    If you go to the top of the page to the GPS title and click it, you should be taken immediately to today's post. And besides, have you looked at the right hand side to the index of titles and tried tapping the topmost title?


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise