Friday, April 1, 2011


Acknowledgement: Four individuals supplied me with accounts of Friday's court proceeding. Thank you.
Surrey Provincial Court Building Entrance
Preface: This was a hearing specific to Josiah Bayne, who is now several weeks old and who was removed from his parents' custody on the day of his birth February 10, 2011. His three siblings are the subject of a case that was decided on March 2, 2011 with an outcome that they remain in foster care for six months. The case files for all three Bayne children have been transferred from the Hope Team to the Guildford (Surrey) Team and Matthew Walker is now the primary caseworker with the Bayne family. On this day the court was to hear and make a ruling on MCFD's application for an Interim Custody Order for Josiah. Loren Humeny (Hope Office) has been the primary case worker for the past 3.5 years and he was present to give testimony. Paul Bayne whose failure to testify during the 2010 court case was noted by Judge Crabtree, did testify today, as did Zabeth. Doug Christie was present to represent the Bayne family.
The Hearing took place in the Surrey Provincial Court House in room 313 on Friday, April 1, 2011, 9:30 AM.

MCFD Spoke First: Legal counsel Dean Tate (not Finn Jensen), stated that this was a Presentation Hearing and as such it is a summary hearing and must be dealt with summarily without any cross examination. Any cross examination today was supposed to be of a limited nature because whether Josiah needs protection would be a matter to be heard at a later date. (MCFD wanted to limit Christie's involvement as much as possible). Then Mr. Tate began a history of Josiah's sister, Bethany. Social Worker Loren Humeny's affidavit was submitted. Doug contested the fact that the defense (he and the Baynes) had not seen this to review it ahead of time. Dean Tate said he sent it to Doug on Monday. Doug said he had not seen it and court recessed long enough for Doug to review it.

Seeking an Interim Order at this Presentation Hearing, counsel Dean Tate gave an overview of the court case of 2010 in which MCFD sought a Continuing Care Order (CCO) for Josiah's three siblings. To support MCFD's claim that the infant, Josiah, should not be returned to the Baynes, Tate pointed to Judge Thomas Crabtree's ruling that he deemed there was still some risk and that the three children should remain in care for six months. This showed reasonable risk exists, and he referenced the fact that Josiah is now the age that Bethany was when she was injured. (The relevance of that comment is lost to most of us and hopefully to the Judge as well).

Doug Christie Spoke: He informed the court that he would show that the Bayne's are capable of effectively caring for Josiah. He underscored that this hearing concerning this baby was extremely important because the other three Bayne children were in MCFD care for three years before their case even came to court. He informed the judge that Bethany (age 3) had not grown up with her parents and that the two boys knew their parents and wanted to be back home with them. This same painful separation should not happen to Josiah. Christie said that the baby belongs with his mother who is still breastfeeding him. (Imagine that! The child is transported to feedings).

Loren Humeny took the stand: Legal counsel Dean Tate established that Mr. Humeny became involved with the Bayne case on October 1, 2007. Then Tate with questions dialogued with Mr. Humeny to review the case and to reinforce the MCFD position that risk still exists to have the three children and Josiah returned to their parents.

Doug Christie then cross examined Mr. Humeny. During the course of this, Mr. Humeny admitted that Judge Crabtree did not find any form of intentional injury to Bethany; agreed that it was an unexplained accident; admitted that MCFD removed the baby before knowing the Judge's decision concerning the other three children. Mr. Humeny also said that he removed the infant on the order of Martin Bartel, Berhe Gulbot and Bruce McNeill, and concurred that he removed the child based upon a suspicion. He acknowledged that he had permitted the Baynes to live with the two boys in a supervised situation previously and that they had been removed because of a TV program about the case. Mr. Humeny confirmed that Josiah had been involved in a car accident while being transported by MCFD contracted supervisor and responded to queries about whether the accident was reported to police and whether the child was taken to hospital. Mr. Christie raised the matter of injuries sustained by the second child, Baden before the birth of Bethany, and Mr. Humeny agreed that Baden had been diagnosed by MCFD's own medical experts as being extremely premature, and affected by osteopenia of prematurity and that on that occasion a full investigation was done and the parents were absolved. He answered affirmatively that he had never seen any injuries on Baden or Kent and also that there had never been any problems during the period of the supervised access with the two boys. Mr. Humeny also concurred that he had acted on the presumption of non accidental injury prior to any ruling by a judge and that he relied solely upon Dr. Margaret Colbourne's shaken baby syndrome diagnosis with respect to Bethany's injuries.

Doug submitted that it was now an impossible task for the Baynes to prove that they are competent parents, capable of looking after our children. His question was, how can they demonstrate this if they are provided with the opportunity. When asked, Loren agreed that MCFD opposes the parents having the unsupervised care of their children in their home. He further explained that among their reasons is that social workers have had no meaningful dialogue with the Baynes and no insight into Bethany's injuries. They have no working relationship and meaningful communication.

He said they wanted a reasonable explanation for Bethany's injuries and that the Baynes had been inconsistent with two explanations though the latter one is most consistent now. He referred to the fact that the Baynes referenced the fall of one child on the infant girl as one explanation and the car ride to the hospital as the second explanation. That was viewed as inconsistent. (What appears to be forgotten is the emotion and worry of those hours and days when the parents themselves were seeking to understand what was happening to their girl and scrambling for the plausible cause.) Doug submitted that the Baynes had voluntarily taken Bethany to four different hospitals seeking help for her. Loren agreed it had been voluntary.

Social Worker Matthew Walker took the stand: He gave testimony as to the current social work relationship with the Baynes and the meetings that have already been held with them and the programs in which the Baynes have agreed to participate. He said Josiah is thriving. As to the minor vehicle accident in which Josiah was a passenger, the RCMP didn't feel a report was warranted. The baby received medical review and there were no concerns. He did not feel it safe to return Josiah at this point as there is still some question of risk.

Paul Testified: Paul was asked plainly, “Did you shake Bethany?” Paul answered “No.” He was asked whether Zabeth had shaken Bethany. Again Paul answered, “No.” When he was asked what happened, Paul gave a summary of the events, how they had sought help but to no avail; the trips to the hospital where no help was given and then the last trip to Children's Hospital. Then Paul was asked what they have done to prepare for Josiah as well as the other children to come home. Doug led Paul through the floor plans of their home and provisions that they have made for their children. Paul went through pictures of their home, 60 pictures taken professionally by Realtor Jim Gammer, Floor plans that were written by Roy Ingbre, and this was presented on a DVD as evidence for the Judge to review. Doug discussed Paul's custodial business and the amount of income derived. Doug asked who would be caring for the children if they were to come home. Paul said Zabeth would be a stay at home mom and that they have a network of supportive friends upon whom they can rely. Moreover, he and Zabeth have enrolled in several courses, a First Aid Course, the Project Parent and a couple of others.

Ray Ferris' Parental Capacity Test: Doug tried to file Ray Ferris' PCA but lawyer Dean Tate strongly opposed this, citing guidelines for submitting such evidence had not been followed. Most importantly, Ray Ferris is an advocate for the family and has demonstrated that bias, Tate declared. He would need to go through a voir dire for qualifications and must appear in person. Dean Tate submitted the letter Ray wrote to Bruce McNeill and also an email to this lawyer himself which he argued, showed bias. Doug countered this by demonstrating how MCFD only submits reports that support their opinion and that could similarly appear biased. Doug said he never submits a report that is unsupportive of his client. Is that bias? He also pointed out the strong qualifications and experience that Ray Ferris has to do the report. The Judge ruled that Ray Ferris was most biased and would not accept the filing of his parental capacity test report.

Zabeth's Testimony: Mr. Christie asked Zabeth how her children were doing in care and whether there had been incidents of concern. She responded that Bethany had displayed bruises on her arm at one time that looked like finger marks. She said the boys had been disciplined in the second home by spanking and cold showers. She told about the vehicle accident in which Josiah was involved and the concerns she had and the time taken before notifying her of details. She was asked about Josiah's removal from hospital, and whether she was breastfeeding and how the removal had affected the feedings. She was asked whether the Baynes would be willing to have Josiah back home under the supervision of the Ministry to which she said “Yes.” Would they be willing to have a social worker drop in at any time to see them, to which she said, “Yes.” Would they be willing to have a ministry nanny come to live in the home with them, to which she said, “yes.” She was asked about the Baynes' relationship with MCFD and she said it had not been a good one but she was hopeful that with the new social worker they would be able to have a better working relationship. Doug Christie asked her why they had been categorized as unwilling to cooperate with MCFD in the past and she said it was because the Ministry wanted them to admit that they had shaken Bethany and then the Ministry would work with them. They did not admit to something that they did not do and they found that the Ministry was unwilling to work with them. MCFD also cross examined her briefly reviewing incidents that Zabeth said had happened in the foster homes.

Both Tate and Christie had summation opportunities in late afternoon.

Conclusion: The Judge said that he was not ready to give an order and required time to read the necessary documentation and submitted evidences, and did say that he would give a written decision quickly. It would appear that he considers his options to be granting an Interim Order so MCFD keeps Josiah in care, OR, he grants a Supervision Order which would return Josiah to the Baynes with conditions. A meeting is scheduled for April 21. Court concluded at 3:55 PM


  1. An Anonymous wrote a two part comment on Today's proceedings, thanks.

    1 of 2 Presentation Hearing today - summary
    The hearing went on today as scheduled with Mr. Doug Christie in attendance and Mr. Dean Tate representing MCFD.

    This was in a smaller courtroom #314 with less seating capacity. It looked as if there were about 14 Bayne supporters, and one bench filled with several social workers/MCFD all-day observers. (Don't these people have work to do?)

    Both Paul and Zabeth testified, as well as the removal social worker from Chilliwack Loren Humeny, and the current social worker from the Surrey Guildford office, Matthew Walker.

    Humeny rehashed past trial testimony. He was "under orders" remove Josiah. Matthew testified next to say he did not think downgrading the removal to a supervision order was appropriate.

    Paul testified, addressing his omitted testimony from the trial. He displayed photos of the home using his laptop computer while on the stand which was generously allowed by the judge. Paul submitted a CD of about 60 photos for the judge as "Exhibit 2."

    A Parental Capacity Report produced by Ray Ferris was thrown out due to vehement objection by Mr. Tate. Although the Ministry produced an affidavit that very morning that was entered, Christie was not accorded the same privilege with the PCA.

    Christie pointed out the Ministry previously allowed the parents to live with their two boys for six months (before a TV news show upset MCFD and they removed the boys in retaliation), so, Christie reasoned, given the same zero evidence of harm, so what was the difference with Josiah using the same supervision arrangement now?

    Christie was in fine form this day. He stated the many concessions the family was willing to accept should Josiah be returned. They would accept random visits by MCFD, the PCA and Project Parent would be done, the several other parenting improvement courses were underway, they would accept a 24-hour live-in nanny, daily Ministry checks on Josiah, friends would help. Christie further pointed out the slightest violation of any terms the Ministry would instantly snap up the child anyways.

    The judge did take exception to Christie mentioning that one special needs child which Josiah is classified, pays the foster parents $2,500. Also that the 50+ aged foster parents hired a live-in nanny to care for the four children. The question went unanswered as to whether or not the designated foster parents were even around at all times to care for the children.

    The unspoken answer to the question of allowing supervision was that such a decision would be seen as undermining Crabtree's order and MCFD's entire game plan of keeping ALL children in expensive care for as long as they wished.

  2. 2 of 2 Presentation Hearing today - summary
    The male judge (I didn't catch his name) reserved his decision, which will be written before Thursday April 21st, at which date the parties will appear before the judge for further direction and possibly a date for a protection hearing.

    This outcome today (or lack of) is unusual, in that generally the decision at this type of summary hearing is pronounced immediately. There is rarely a basis on which to take two or three weeks produce a written decision.

    Generally speaking, MCFD only needs to meet a tiny threshold of evidence and any difference in facts is always found in favour of the Director.

    The day ended at 3:35 PM, so there would have been plenty of time for the judge to read Crabtree's judgment and render the decision.

    The choice left with this judge was an interim order to allow MCFD to keep Josiah and stick with the current supervised access regime, or to return Josiah under a supervision order. The latter choice would open the door as to why the other three children should not then be returned. It's "right" and lawful, but it makes MCFD and Crabtree look bad.

    Presentation Hearings are against parents 98% of the time, so the Baynes are hoping and praying they fall into that 2%.

    In this case, it was abundantly clear Josiah suffered no injury and that there was no evidence of injury.

    Mr. Tate stated that there existed the "possibility" of danger stemming from the unknown/unexplained/non-accidental cause of Bethany's injury 3-1/2 years ago.

    Doug Christie put a very convincing argument that there was not an ounce of evidence produced by MCFD. Meaning, if the court does not follow the law, and chooses to make an error of law in order to save face (again) it would be appealable.

    MCFD lawyer Mr. Dean Tate response was that Judge Crabtree made the decision to retain all three children, even though there was no evidence, unexplained or otherwise, regarding the boys.

    Mr. Tate further explained that the opportunity for Crabtree was clearly there for him to return just the boys but he chose not to. Therefore, Mr. Tate argued this judge (unspoken, was "junior judge") should follow suit and keep Josiah in care along with his three older siblings. His only rebuttal was to clarify the many injuries to the children (not including the car accident Josiah was in) occurred in "other" foster homes, not the current placement.

    It should be noted Mr. Dean Tate is the fellow lost an appeal on the far more contentious Rahman shaken baby case (2009 BCSC 1073 / E083988 Vancouver) to Mr. Rob Hamilton.

  3. Well Ron; here we go again. How on earth does this prolonged and resolutely adversarial process serve the best interests of the children? Can anyone tell me that?
    As to bias. Ofcourse I anticipated that objection so I took great care that my PCA would be fact-based, fair and objective. I just let the facts speak for themselves.
    Let us assmume that we accept the 10%risk that Judge Crabtree deemed existed. Nice to have the right formula. I am glad that it was not 9% or 11%. What then is the real issue here, which has been totally ignored by the ministry and the judge? With this low level of risk, what is the risk in the alternative of foster care? All authorities agree that the chief risk in foster care is inatability and the emotional damage that this does to children. The younger the child, the greater the damage. This is known attachement deficit syndrome or attachent deficit disorder.The risk of destabilisation in foster care is generally reckoned as about 50%. However, with the Bayne children it is already 100%, or close to it.They are already showing the symptoms.
    They are now in their fourth year of destabiliataion, but this apparently carries no weight with the ministry staff or with the judge. What the court should be considering is to decide which course offers the least risk and act on it as soon as possible. We should be deeply concerned about Josiah. Now to me this seems to be a no-brainer. However, I am biased and I admit it. I am biased towards diligently seeking what is in the best interests of these children.
    Now what I really call bias is people passing judgement on my report without even bothering to read it. Read it and then form an opinion.
    What do you think Ron?

  4. I think that you are absolutely bang on, as to the bias demonstrated by the MCFD counsel and by MCFD Fraser Valley as to the value and content of your PCA. I did read it. I know where you stand on this family's dilemma, but your assessment was true to your professionalism when it comes to doing the objectivity and accuracy. It was wrong for the judge to summarily dismiss the report without reading it. And it is very unfortunate that even if MCFD wanted to have another one done by someone of their choice, that they didn't retain yours so they could have the added resource of comparative assessments.

  5. This one is a catch 22 for the children still in care if Josiah goes home to the parents the foster "parents" could start head games with the other children "Your parents want the baby but not you." etc. They have said things like this to the children before why stop at that. Although Josiah also needs to come home so that he can bond with his parents.
    Have the parents been able to start talking freely with their children about coming home or future plans with their children? So that the children know that they are wanted at home? Or is it still limited?

  6. Did anyone catch the judge's name? It was not written on the trial schedule sheet at the courthouse and I forgot to ask. I would like to look the fellow up and see what his CFCSA/MCFD visibility is in posted judgments.

    The Baynes should get the clerk notes for this case (all all other past hearings) which documents the judge and counsel names, clerk, and durations.

    While Mr. Christie makes an exceptionally strong argument for an outright return, he states the family would be happy with just a supervision order. Interim custody is clearly unjustified.

    In my mind, the correct way to prepare and approach this is to acquire decisions from past Presentation hearings of similar decisions to suggest appropriate outcomes for this judge.

    Because no Presentation Hearing reasons for decisions are published, it is impossible to derive legal guidance and precidence for similar situations. This is what makes MCFD's process so insidious.

    Watching this case yesterday reminds me of a double jeopardy situation, being tried again on the same matter. It is not even a crime for which full charter right protections apply.

    There are checkboxes on reasons for removal forms. This form and this process is a joke. An unskilled worker can mark a checkbox, the judge has to defer to this decision, and the government can keep children in care for years without criminal conviction, just a "suspicion."

    The removed child Josia was not harmed in any way shape or form. The parents proved they were willing to take care and showed their preparations and supervision notes prove there are no issues. The Ministry provided no hint of evidence otherwise. The Ministry rested entirely on the ruling of Judge Crabtree. No one mentioned the fact the ruling was under appeal.

    This case is a clear example of unwanton villification of a family and unilaterial action of individuals who have full government support protecting them from liability.

    The Baynes are essentially being told they cannot have children. By association, the inference is neither parent can be alone with ANY children until this matter is resolved.

    If the outcome of this Presentation Hearing is not a return, I hope the Baynes appeal this decision. It is necessary to keep that fire lit under MCFD in order to make sure they return the children ASAP. Otherwise, MCFD will try and drag this out long past the 6-month estimated return date.

  7. People can address this deplorable situation by:
    - writing to MP's and MLA's,
    - click the 'Donate' button above left for the Baynes Legal Defence Fund, even $10 and thousand people, it adds up.
    - write newspapers,
    - write the BC Civil Liberty Association to express complaints and become members,
    - write the BC College of Social Workers to ask how they can help politicians force MCFD workers to become accountable members,
    - write to Mary Turpel Lafond to tell her to keep up the good work, and CC other government leaders to ask to expand her mandate
    - write to the current MCFD Minister and
    - write to all opposition parties and give them ammunition to use against their opponents who are not properly overseeing MCFD
    - write to the social worker's union, tell them they can double the number of social workers if they stop needless removals and paying foster homes so much money. Removal of one foster home will provide funding for one or more social workers.
    - write to the Health Ministry, tell them social workers for the Ministry are doing a poor job, so more funding for social workers under their Ministry is better.
    - write the BCTF heads and school trustees to illustrate how MCFD is canabilizing education funding for costly child protection schemes,
    - get more social workers and psychologists in schools where they have more contact with children and more opportunities to address issues on a day to day basis
    - write the university professors who are writing reports about children in care and poor outcomes
    - Every mistake MCFD makes, jump on the bandwagon to help others condem their actions by writing in the comments section provided by news stories
    - Publish all social worker names and allow people to anonymously submit interaction history with these people to warn other parents of any derogatory history
    - Complain to the Pivot society about the disparity in support provided to children only when removed, as opposed to using the same funds to help parents
    - Become members of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation and let them know the huge waste of dollars being spent on the 85,000 children in care and the poor outcomes, and the fact children spat out at age 19 become a guaranteed taxpayer burden
    - make youtube movies, watch and add comments to locally made movies
    - teach your children, teach them their rights, teach them to watch out for other chidren in Ministry care, and learn from that
    - Write film makers such as Micheal Moore to produce a documentary about the business of child removal, and mention Nancy Scheafer.
    - acquire emails of all the Province's social workers and send them yearly reminders with photos of the children they removed and returned.
    - Ask for Freedom of Information statistics and publish those on a website; legal costs, durations of children removed and subsequently returned, costs associated, nannys paid by MCFD, the number of "special needs" children in care, income reports of foster homes
    - write comments in the blog, not just support or to deride MCFD (otherwise the audience will stagnate), but to provide useful information for this case and that other parents can draw from.
    - submit "win" stories, as opposed to how child protection has negatively affected you (although these are good too, more examples of wins against child protection are needed.)
    - keep posting useful links to youtube and other sites. Remember google ranks links to such sites higher so they get more traffic and appear first in search results.

    I can certainly go on, but I suspect readers will get the idea.

  8. If you watched the process by which Mr. Tate demonized Mr. Ferris in court, he went back to his office to get past letters and emails from Ray to his office and the judge, and read for the court record in great deal, offending fragments for the purpose of convincing the court NOT to read the report and to NOT have it entered into the record. So much effort expended simply tells me they were afraid of the contents of the report.

    This tactic ensures the court record has ONLY negative, ministry-supplied information with respect to Ray's report. This discounts in advance his expertise.

    All this means is that Ray would have to appear in person to defend his report. Experts have the privilege of being able to submit a report sight unseen, and they are NOT required by the court to testify. However, those who oppose a designated expert MUST bring that person into court and pay the fees, usually $250/hr or higher. The difference in this case is Ray would get only a $20 witness fee.

    Ray's report can still be physically entered into evidence by attaching it as an exhibit to one of the Bayne's affidavits or even as his stand-alone affidavit sworn by himself. Additionally, the report can be submitted to the designated PCA psychologist.

    Interestingly, what the MCFD lawyer indignantly points out former MCFD social worker is "biased" towards the family. Christie responds that ALL MCFD staff and their hired experts are biased against the family. Touche.

    As I read through the report as well, I can additionally suggest that it be broken up into three sections and resubmitted directly to the social workers immediately, and also entered into the court record so it cannot be ignored.

    1. Risk assessment, using the Ministry's own checkbox form, and putting into the comments section Rays text from his PCA that relates to each subsection,
    2. Resume of qualifications in a matching format to that of a typical PCA psychologist, 3. Home study assessment, including the photos and site/home plan drawings

    While the court might rightly question 'expert' status, they cannot dispute Ray's qualifications and knowledge of MCFD procedure and the CFCSA and real-world application of said law.

    It is useful to expose MCFD's fighting tactics when they are placed into reactive mode, which was exactly what happened when the lawyer received the PCA document in the courtroom. It is a win anytime you get an experienced MCFD lawyer flustered, as was the case here.

    This is simply a warning shot that the longer MCFD chooses to drag on this case, the worse for them it is going to get.

    The message to MCFD should by now be very clear, get out now and give this family's children back as they said they were going to do or the entire Ministry will suffer the consequences.

    If the individuals involved continue to play games and drag this on, they will personally have their names plastered all over the internet in connection with this case, and their association with other families who search their names will question their impartiality.

  9. Wow, how fantastic that Zabeth is able to breastfeed her baby boy :)

  10. To Anon 10:57 AM

    Thank you for your comment. That is an encouragement and I will insure that Doug, Ray and the Baynes see your remarks as a stimulus for a possible resubmission of the PCA.

  11. Anon 10.57. Thank you for your helpful suggestions and I hope we will still find a way to file my assessment. However, I have no intention of splitting up my report. It is a whole piece and it is carefully constucted so that all the parts only make sense if taken together. I got a chuckle out of the suggestion that I should transpose it into the ministry risk assessment checklist. This is the ignorant bureaucratic mind thinking that you can get any ministry monkey to fill out a check list and that is good social work. Especially as I mention in my assessment why the ministry risk assessment is only as good as the person who completes it. In any case, I have heard that the staff are not supposed to be using it any more, but it takes a while for the word to get around. The ministry risk checklist was never meant to be used for child welfare and it was not designed for that purpose. It was designed for self-evaluation for people with alcohol and drug addictions. The highly subjective nature is acceptable for such a purpose, but it is too defective to use for risk assessment. The ignorant bureaucrats tend to believe that any problem can be solved by simply designing a new form. Just look at the one presented in the Bayne case. There is a check list with a rating scale from one to ten or something. There is no requirement to provide any facts to back up the rating. They can get away with writing any garbage they like. After all the time he had been on the case, Loren Humeny had never even made a home visit. So he had nothing to say about the home, the furniture the housekeeping standards and so on. The home visit is one of the most important tools of the social worker. I do not think you will find many psychologists visiting homes either.
    I really have little need to spend time claiming expert opinion, because in my report the facts speak for themselves and anyone that reads it finds it very convincing, whether I qualify myself or not. People have such tunnel vision tend to do everything the hard way.

  12. I gather the glass-half-full comment from Alison regarding breastfeeding (well, let's say glass 4.8% full) as opposed to having visitation but not allowing breastfeeding is better. Why not allow 100 percent supervised access given the government has already given MCFD a blank cheque and unlimited time?

    I still can't get over the fact social workers instructed hospital personnel to refuse to provide Josiah with expressed milk from mom to reduce the reliance on formula. Were they afraid she would spike the milk to harm the baby? What doctor would approve this order?

    I know with each of my children we refrigerated expressed milk constantly so both parents could contribute to feeding.

    Personally, I shiver at the thought of a supervision person in my home watching breastfeeding.

    It is an insult to my sensibilities to have an individual arbitrarily dole out time with my own infant child and I am still supposed to smile and thank them for this small privilege. How incredibly invasive.

    Apparently the visit schedule given in court for Josiah's visitation in the home is four times per week two hours per visit, Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

    The other three children have a Wednesday evening in-the-community visit and 7 hours in the home on Saturdays to make up 9 hours total.

    The foster home apparently has a suitably qualified live-in Filipino nanny paid by us taxpayers. It would seem to make better sense have this nanny placed in the Baynes home if MCFD is so insistant on 24/7 supervision, then mom and dad can do their job raising their own children while satisfying the safety concerns of the Ministry. This was one of the proposals put before the judge by Mr. Christie.

    I would well imagine that since the Nanny is likley not being paid $2,500 for each of the four children, the government can cut their foster care costs by at least 75%.

    I am curious what would possibly possess a government to be so willing spend money hand over fist over a four year period and not order social workers to resolve matters simply on a cost-saving aspect alone. Project Parent is standard fare service, and so are court-ordered PCA's.

  13. Anonymous has left a new comment at 12:12 AM (It has received minor content editing. It pertains to SUBJECT: NANNIES CARING FOR FOSTER CHILDREN - )

    "Sorry!! who qualified the nanny and apart from that qualification, why is she "supervised" by the foster parents, presumably, and they do not look after the children! What kind of a scam is this whole set up? Who approves such nonsense anyway. .... Did the nanny get some special approvals and upon what would they have been based. Did she get the parent assessment tests and did the foster parent. Qualifications!!! Indeed, will we soon need a special license doled out by some "social worker" who may or may not have children, or be over 25. The whole idea of supervised nanny business is an outrage but I am sure they know that the Baynes are desperately trying to accomodate in oder to have the sound of little feet pattering around their home. "

  14. It should be apparent now, that despite the extraordinary spin produced by judge Crabtree in his ruling, the end outcome is that he has essentially ordered the Ministry to return the children to their parents.

    The Ministry, in continuing to portray itself as unable to protect the children should they withdraw is truly laughable. The moment a child has a hickup, MCFD will use that as an excuse to remove. Possibly.

    The reality is the Baynes affair has cost the government (we the taxpayers) so much, once MCFD has withdrawn, they won't go near the family even if a child has an unexplained bruise and shows up in emergency one day.

    This is my prediction.

  15. KD here. Ummm, first, the nanny is not paid for by the govt. WE pay our own nanny. We hired her. It is none of anyone's business why we have her. She arrived before Bethany and the new baby. She is NOT the primary caregiver. I take great pride in the quality of care I provide, these children are flourishing, including Josiah. I am an "in-between" person here, taking the best care of children put in my care until the adults can sort out their business. Leave me and my family alone. All four children have excellent care, arrive at all their visits well fed, well groomed, well loved, well educated, all of their therapies are attended and constantly practised, their medical health is taken very seriously, their social skills with other children are excellent - check out the pictures that have been posted so eagerly on this website - as you say, words speak a thousand words.

  16. Martin Bartel, Berhe Gulbot and Bruce McNeill.

    These 3 are responsible for taking the Baynes' baby, Josiah, away from his mother and father. Who are these people? Why are they so cruel?

  17. A sincere Thank you KD. Readers and respondents do not know you and some sincerely question how fostering works in B.C., and today it relates to the use of nannies in foster homes. I understand that you have no option but to take this personally. I regret that the probing questions affect responsible foster parents like you. I hope you know that I know what you are saying is true. I am grateful that these four children have a careful home together while as you say being 'in between.'

  18. thanks Ron for your acknowledgement ... of course when I reread what I had written in frustration, I noticed I had mistyped ... I meant to say a picture is worth a thousand words ... :)

  19. According to the Vancouver Sun public sector salaries database, Marin Bartel lists a salary of $75,074 for 2008/09 and $76,708 for 2010/11 as a team leader. Bruce McNeill makes $105,355 ($98,267 in 2008/09).

    Gulbot and Humeny don't cross the $75,000 boundary for public reporting.

    In short, for the next six months the children continue to remain in care, the costs paid out to foster parents, supervision personnel, parenting assessment, parenting training, would pay the salary of likely two or three regular social workers for a year.

  20. Here is listing of the past five years 2003 to 2008 of wrongful death and child removal law suits and what MCFD pays in legal fees to third party firms:

    Years -- Legal Fees -- Settlments or Judgments
    2003/04 $ 647,057.06 -- $ 100,000.00
    2004/05 $ 843,026.88 -- $ 303,442.01
    2005/06 $ 1,00,372.54 -- $ 67,071.82
    2006/07 $ 1,548,723.65 -- $ 258,497.01
    2007/08 $ 1,250,8807.03 -- $ 6,000.00

    Total payments made to private law firms for 2008-09 was $9,195,919.68.

  21. To Anons April 3, 9:26 PM and 11:03 PM

    You have wanted to engage KD for her statement "It is none of anyone's business why we have her,"and I am not going down that road. I did not print your comments. While your comments were essentially polite, your issues as you have pointed out are not with KD personally but with the system that allows practices which you question. The direction of your comments implied that KD should provide answers to the questions you pose and the challenges you raise. I disagree because I am not allowing this blog to turn into that kind of contest. If you care enough to rewrite your pieces aiming them at the Ministry and its bureaucrats and managers, then it will get past this arbitrary filter. No specific foster parent is responsible to provide any of us with answers to your valid questions.

    Among the points/issues in question are:
    1. foster parents and the care provided by them are the business of taxpayers and parents
    2. Since the practice of employing nannies in foster homes is widespread, what document exists and who has endorsed the subcontracting of foster parenting to nannies?
    3. What if any training courses must nannies pass to qualify? What are the qualifications? Are police record checks and certification required?
    4. Previous incidents of poor care, even abuse in foster homes makes such questions relevant and necessary.
    5. What specs exist to determine whether a foster home is enough or too many children in care, specially when that care requires the employment of other caregivers i.e. nannies?
    6. What specs are there for foster parents themselves as to their ages and physical abilities to care for small and active children?
    7. Regardless of whether foster parents themselves pay nannies, the stipend is generated from income supplied by government/taxpayers.
    8. Is it appropriate that our system allows the primary caregivers in a foster home to work outside the home while children are in the care of a nanny or substitute caregiver who has no documented qualifications?
    9. Where is equity when biological parents have a need but cannot afford a nanny during day hours and MCFD does not kick in some support monies, yet a foster care home receives financial need $1,000 to $2,500 tax free dollars per child. It should not be missed that every parent in B.C. with two or more children who were to receive these amounts would not have to work and would still be able to pay a mortgage.

  22. Ok Ron, this will be my last comment. I have never felt the need to justify my income stream. This is my work - it is what I do. I was quite up front in court, gave whatever info Christie wanted, and answered to the best of my ability. Broken down, paid by the hour, foster parents are paid abysmally. My nanny, who is paid for through my husband's business, - we also have out own special needs child - makes about ten times/hour what I make. We felt, that with all the special needs/appts that two of the children have, we would be serving them best to ask our nanny to be available if I were out of the home at an appt with one of the other children. I am their caregiver. My husband is their caregiver. Our nanny spends much of her day doing laundry and cleaning for a very busy household. It comes as a huge surprise to me to hear that Many foster homes have nannies. I know many foster families and not one of them has a nanny. They cannot afford it. We are fortunate to have a more afluent life, one we've had long before the Baynes arrived into our homes, and nothing I feel prepared to discuss with your readers. I take great pride in the work I do, and again, it is my job. I've stated this before, but I believe very few of your readers know anyone who works for free - how much tax dollars pay for your child's teacher? Pre-school teacher? Day care worker? Social worker? I believe my job is at least as important as any of these, and yet there are questions as to whether I should receive any monies. If my job is no different than daycare, let me know how many daycares welcome little children into their families 24/7, take children to doctors appointments, therapies, practice their therapies, hair cuts, purchase all their needs, take them to their extracurricular activities, arrange their playdates and birthday parties, attend all their school appts, work on their homework, take the children on their family holidays, celebrate their birthdays and other special holidays, tuck them into bed at night, stay up all night when they're sick, etc, etc. And, do it for free. Ludicrous. Yes, parents do it for free. They made choices when they brought their children into the world. We did not bring these children into the world. We are trying to make a difference. If it appears like such a good job, I'm surprised more of your readers are not lining up to take advantage. I can tell you, my own personal friends think I'm crazy, and wouldn't foster for anything in the world. For me it is a calling. I believe in it.

  23. Ron, I want to commend you on the great job and balance you bring to this site. These are emotional and intense issues that we are all discussing and reading about and you do a very good job of filtering without taking away from the issues.

  24. Thanks K. Believe it or not, personal details do at times fill in the knowledge gaps people have. This has been helpful.

  25. Thank you KD. I am not a foster parent, but I did look into it a few years ago while looking for an additional source of income for our family to supplement my husband's income. Considering the challenges of fostering, I knew that for me it would also be a calling, and that I would plan to care for my foster kids as well as I do for my own. However, when I considered everything required to provide that kind of care, and compared it to the income received, the numbers did NOT add up very well. I did not pursue it further as it actually wouldn't have provided for what we would have needed (including a larger home with more bedrooms, a larger vehicle to accommodate everyone, etc).

    While the Bayne situation makes me sad for them and angry at the system, I admire you for your commitment to adding goodness to the lives of your foster kids, and thank you for adding to our knowledge here on this blog.

  26. MCFD is able to make contracts with specific homes that want to take care of a certain children.

    Ruth and Marvin Hunt are one such family that have offered, so why can't they take care of the Bayne children? Their credentials are impeccable.

    I also do not understand why the grandparents have been disqualified.

    The benefits would be very clear. No more costly professional supervision would be required.

  27. For Anon April 6, 2011 you wrote at 4:33 PM

    I have made it clear earlier that I am not publishing comments or questions directed to foster parent of the Baynes' three children. This trustworthy foster family just happens to be caregivers in a high profile, sometimes publicized case. You desire answers to reasonable questions from a foster parent. Please ask your questions without reference to a specific foster parent or situation and I may publish it.

    A nanny employed by a foster family may earn as little as $2000 per month.


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