First, GOOD NEWS! Judge Crabtree's
ruling of March 2, 2011 granted to MCFD a TCO (temporary care order)
which initially was timed for six (6) months. Ray Ferris noted that a
TCO is for three (3) months according to the CFCSA (Child, Family and
Community Services Act). Doug Christie was informed and drew this to Judge Crabtree's attention. I have confirmed
that the TCO term has been corrected and it runs out on June 2, 2011.
Second, GREAT REPORT! Zabeth wrote:
"Saturday's visitation was wonderful. We had a time change
this week from 12:00 to 7:00 instead of the 10:00 am time and so we
were able to spend two meals together. Josiah never left my arms for
seven hours. I was able to get a sling for him and some of the time
he rested against me even as I prepared the table and did some crafts
with our children. For seven hours we were complete and utterly happy
together. We carry that in our hearts until next time."
Encouraging news is always good, especially for Paul and Zabeth because there has been precious little of that. They are working hard to do everything they can to ensure the children's return within the allotted TCO period.
ReplyDeleteSo glad, Zabeth that you had such a nice prolonged snuggle time with Josiah and a great visit with all the children on Saturday.
One has to highlight the relative positives in order to continue functioning. I commend this family for their unbelievable ability to continue doing this for so long. It speaks volumes of their strength and character.
ReplyDeleteTo any other parent used to having their children 24 hours a day, to suddenly be told by someone they are "allowed" to have 7 hours with their four children once a week for whatever reason would drive most people blind with rage.
Good news in this situation is rare, indeed. What an encouragement these two developments must be to their hearts!
ReplyDeleteI am curious know how a NEW court file for Josiah's removal could possibly be justified. The lawyer went on and on about the judge's decision of a finding of protection as the primary basis for the removal, but the child was removed before the ruling was delivered, so that is a bogus excuse.
ReplyDeleteIf this new judge rules to keep the infant, this Presentation Hearing sounds like it would be much easier (and cheaper) to appeal than an appeal on Judge Crabapple's ruling.
After that, file a lawsuit against MCFD. Make sure a lawsuit is filed against that Dr. Colbourne and the Children's hospital for malpractice. That should be an easy win because I heard Social Worker Humeny testify that the decision to remove rested entirely on that wrong opinion.
For Anon 10:00 AM
ReplyDeleteYour first query is apt. The judgement was still out, and MCFD knew that Crabtree would release his ruling any day, yet still they moved forward with an apprehension. The baby was going to remain in hospital for a few days anyway because he was only 3 lbs. 15 oz. He didn't have to be formally removed from Bayne's custody the day of his birth. Even though the Director might justify his haste by pleading his genuine and continued belief that the Baynes were a risk because of the prior diagnosis and their unconfessed abuse, his action was unnecessary and it was blatantly textbook and worse, it was vindictive. It was also unprofessional and stupid, because the baby when released was 4 lbs, and placed into the ridiculous routine of transporting him by car several times each week for visitations and feedings.
The correcting of the time period from 6 months to 3 months, is indeed, very good news!
ReplyDeleteI am wondering what is expected to happen as the expiration date approaches? Is the Director able to further delay this process? Is he likely to do so? How will it be determined that the parents have taken full advantage of their "opportunity," that they have taken "the appropriate steps to address and remedy the situation" in order "to the satisfy the Court?"
At the end of 3 months, if the director is bent on extending the interim order, he must apply for a court order and that also requires a several day notification of such to the parents, which from past experience we know, is not always observed. And how MCFD will assess the readiness of the Baynes by June 2 we can only guess. If the Baynes experience any difficulty, they have an open door with Judge Crabtree who stated at the end of his ruling that either party could call him regarding questions pertaining to his ruling. He perceived the 3 months as the parents' opportunity and they are doing everything that is asked and more.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ron. I note, however, that Judge Crabtree's Ruling states, "to satisfy the Court," not to satisfy the Director. I see that as being in the Baynes' favour. It is also positive for them that they are able to return to Judge Crabtree for further direction.
ReplyDeleteLeona, I believe that you are correct about the satisfaction factor. That indeed may be the calculated proviso that Judge Crabtree had in mind as he ruled a modest 10% risk factor because he had an unexplained injury with which to deal, yet he would not accept that the parents had willfully shaken their child and short of giving them back immediately he allowed for this window of temporary care during which the Baynes could satisfy him that they had done all that could be reasonably expected of them by which to reinforce their desire and ability to have their children returned so that they can raise them in the best interests of the children. Thanks for reminding me Leona.
ReplyDeleteAt the three month mark (a month and a half from now), the requested Project Parent will be well underway, the Baynes will have completed other parenting improvment programs. However the parental capacity assessment with the MCFD expert might not have started, let alone be completed by June.
ReplyDeleteThe missing PCA may well become the sticking point of deciding whether to return the children and renew another 3-months of MCFD involvment under a supervision order or 3-months more of continued interim care and ongoing supervision-only access.
Josiah, oddly enough, is being treated separately from his three siblings. It would make sense to simply join the two separate file numbers and have this addressed together at the three month mark since this is commonly done with concurrent FRA and CFCSA matters.
Having concurrent cases sets up a double-jeopardy situation, which I believe the Baynes would have the advantage if they chose to fight back hard with Josiah. This family MUST keep up the pressure on MCFD to return, because this organization is very good at lengthening their involvment.
The Baynes also have the option, filing another appeal with respect to Josiah if necessary. There is no question a finding of protection would be found with him.
The standard MCFD tactic when a return is the ultimate goal, is to delay the onset of services such as Project Parent and the PCA. For me, the Project Parent did not begin until about 6 months after MCFD had my children in care, the PCA did not happen until the 8-month mark (but was completed quickly in less than a month because I paid up front for it). The wind-down process, unsupervised access, overnight access, multi-days/holiday access, then the return, to MCFD's final withdrawal took a further 8 months.
If the Baynes get a questionable psychologist, that individual can "recommend" another full year of MCFD services and supervision before they would be obligated to withdraw.
Remember, as Humeny said, MCFD social workers simply listen to and defer to their paid experts who supply them with the reason for taking various actions, they do not make return decisions without experts first giving them justification.
Lastly, the judge is told what is satisfactory to MCFD. Rarely will a judge override a recommendation from MCFD to NOT return children if they deem services have not been completed to their satisfaction.
Thank you for this last insightful comment. It contains ideas and suggestions of enough importance in my mind that I have insured that they will be read carefully by the Baynes and their counsel.
ReplyDeleteWonderful, wonderful news!
ReplyDeleteI don't trust anything MCFD does or says or promises or pretends. The proof is in the pudding, and there is no pudding until the children are home with their parents, for good.
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to have hope, I understand and agree with that. But it is also wise to be deeply cynical about this operation called MCFD, as they have proven time and again how duplicitous they are.
And these judges must be held accountable for the damage they are doing to families. MCFD could never get away with what they do if it weren't for the judges rubber stamping their lies.