His Honour rejected the SBS theory but in making his ruling he also spurned the natural judgement to return the children to their parents. Many of you have felt that this conclusion defied logic, because he ruled to continue the government care of all three children without supportive evidence. He had just thrown it out.
Okay, so make the best of it. It is ostensibly three more months of care. Zabeth and Paul must show themselves clean, concerned, cooperative, capable and they have three months in which to do that and this is precisely the type of case for which the Ministry requests a Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA). PCA's are medico-legal reports and most PCA’s do not end up in court, but result in a plan of action agreed upon by both parties yet nevertheless they are prepared with the expectation that they may be examined in a court of law.
Paul and Zabeth Bayne are engaged in a colossal child custody case involving all four of their children. The Case has for the past 3.5 years contested the plans of the Baynes against those of the Ministry of Children. In the process of the contention the family has been rendered apart. It has been far too long. The Baynes' plan has always been and is now to recover what was taken from them in October 2007. Beginning in 2009, and throughout the court case initiated by MCFD to acquire a Continuing Care Order, and continuing until two months ago, the Ministry plan has been to prevent the Baynes from ever having the children returned. Seriously! Then Judge Crabtree squashed the Ministry's foundation – the claim that Zabeth or Paul had shaken a seven week old baby girl. A medical theory that a set of three distinct symptoms predictably and invariably point to abuse is what started this and the Ministry workers became creative scriptwriters to support a storyline that parents of two boys would find reason sufficient to damage so severely a tiny infant to whom they had looked forward with great thankfulness to God.
Customarily as in the Bayne case the PCA is initiated and paid for by MCFD. The psychologist's job, in this case Dr. Conrad Bowden, is to study the parent's full situational circumstances including their relationship with MCFD. He will be expected to increase understanding about the Baynes so that a more constructive working relationship can be developed between social worker and clients that can lead to the return of the children. To do this, special expertise with regard to mental and behavioural issues relative to the parents and the children will be consulted and provided to MCFD and court. It is supremely invasive. None of the results are confidential and the clients are informed of this and agree to it nonetheless. As the Baynes have found, what other choice do castigated parents have but to comply.