This writer also drew attention to the editorial changes from the first draft of the document to which until now we have been referring. On the ruling's first page is a qualifying statement, "A corrigendum was released by the Court on March 29, 2011; the corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document." You will notice the deletion of a paragraph 248 on page 38 which was a duplication of a previous point, and then the correction from 6 months of care to 3 months which is prescribed in the CFCSA.
CORRIGENDUM – Released March 29, 2011
In the Reasons for Judgment dated March 2, 2011, the
following changes have been made:
[1] On
page 38, paragraph 248 should be deleted in its entirety. All subsequent
paragraphs would then also be renumbered.
[2] On
page 39, paragraph 257 (newly renumbered as paragraph 256) should now read as
follows:
[256] In the circumstances
of this case I conclude that an order pursuant to s. 41(1)(c) for a period of 3
months is warranted.
Well, I'm happy to see the judge can admit to making an error, although error seems the wrong word when referring to a time period (3 months) that is so difficult for this family to endure.
ReplyDeleteNow wouldn't it be nice if MCFD and the social workers and the directors could admit they also made mistakes, in the same way the judge has admitted, and corrected, his mistake.
I note the only other difference between the privately released version and this publicly posted version is that all names of the five family members are abbreviated, and the birthdates of the children are changed to [dob].
ReplyDeleteThis ruling has not yet made its way into the canlii.org database. When it does make it, all the judgments referred to by Crabtree would link back to this judgment.
Now let me get this straight. 6 months after the last day of evidence and four months after the director finally managed to get his butt out of the courtroom, the judge finally rules and screws up twice. First he made an order which the law does not allow and then he put some stuff in which he took out on reflection. He made some very biased comments that no longer appeared. Now why would he do that?
ReplyDeleteI am only guessing, but Doug Christie filed an appeal and this must have been known by the judge and by the AG department. No doubt they read the judgement as a matter of routine and the AG's lawyers probably had fits when they read it. If he did not expunge such passages, the judgement had no hope of surviving appeal. To leave it unaltered would open up the ministry to expensive and damaging actions.
He probably amended it on sound advice from the AG. Actually I think that the judgement was so blatantly biased that it could not withstand appeal anyway. I still shake my head in disbelief that the judge could rule a low level of risk solely on Zabeth's evidence and still condemn everyone to a further period of limbo. I think two goofs in his first judgement as chief judge does not speak well for the judge. I wonder if those who appointed him are biting their nails. Tomorrow---"The law is an ass."
So, we waited three years for trial, then the process takes about 15 months from January 2010 to the rendered decision in March 2011, for a mere three month interim care order.
ReplyDeleteWhy is no credit being given for the time that has elapsed? At what point does "best interest of the children" have some meaning for this extraordinary passage of time?
Most parents agree to interim orders at the beginning because they are told how far away a trial can be, how complex, and of course, how extremely expensive it is. When MCFD asks for a renewal, judges note that parents already agreed to let the state keep their children, which implies some level of guilt, then the judge finds it easier to renew.
My understanding of the CFCSA time limits is if the Baynes agreed to the initial three month interim custody, would not the one year countdown for the maximum time in care of Bethany have elapsed long ago?
It would seem to me this extraordinarily long passage of time is an error in law all by itself.
The corrected error amounts to an armed bank robber carrying bags of money as he leaves the bank, who is stopped by an alert police officer.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer informs the bad guy that his shoes are untied.
The crook thanks gives the officer for noting the problem, gives him a few dollars for his troubles.
The officer tips his hat to the thief and tells him to have a good day.
I wish I was an editorial cartoonist.
Well Anon 7:15 AM April 13th
ReplyDeleteYou have sustained the sense of concern with misapplied legislation and miscarried justice and unused prudence, by making the same observation as Ray Ferris in his preceding comment. You both make the excellent observation that more than enough time has been spent with the children in care. You both allude to the ludicrous application of regulations that can occupy a year of a child's life in a court case, another six months of that life in judge's deliberation, and then have the audacity to fix another three months of the child's life in foster care, and in fact to have actually ruled six months and been content with that before having it pointed out that 6 mo was not appropriate to the CFCSA. And then to think that the original 3 month removal was based on a medical diagnosis that was discounted by this judge, and then to sustain the removal even longer based on an arbitrary assessment of a modicum 10% risk factor pulled from who knows where, certainly not from evidence. And for a judge who placed so much weight upon evidence to be content with his own decision to assess that risk based on no evidence is a discredit to himself. This is all plainly wrong. And Anon the parents never agreed to the first three months. That was against their will. And now it is going on four years later this effrontery is still crippling a family of six. Moreover this mess of a Ministry who took the two boys without cause have taken a new baby as well, who has been sick and in a car accident since being in government care. Is it possible for the new Minister and Deputy Minister to look long and hard at the work that was done by this regional director and the Hope detachment of MCFD? It is necessary. Is it possible? This should never happen to another family! It has happened to this one, and that is easily enough to incense he social consciences of most BC citizens. It must be prevented from happening again.
The ruling link has changed:
ReplyDeletehttp://canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2011/2011bcpc72/2011bcpc72.html
http://canlii.ca/t/fkzdq
One case references the Bayne decision:
http://canlii.ca/t/fl7fg
This link no longer works (but is published here for posterity), as it appears the BC Provincial judgments database is now using Canlii.org:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2011/00/p11_0072.htm