Yes we have known for a couple of weeks now. The word is official that the temporary custody order that Judge Crabtree granted to the Ministry of Children with regard to Kent, Baden and Bethany Bayne, an order which began therefore on March 2, 2011, the day the judge's ruling was released, will come to an end on June 2, 2011. That's right, three (3) months of further care for the children outside the Bayne home. The date has been quietly changed. What happens next?
That section of the Child, Family and Community Services Act states: “41 (1)Subject to subsection (2.1), if the court finds that the child needs protection, it must make one of the following orders in the child's best interests: (c)that the child remain or be placed in the custody of the director for a specified period in accordance with section 43;” and section 43 states: “43 If a temporary custody order is made, the term of the order must not exceed (a)3 months, if the child or the youngest child who is the subject of the hearing is under 5 years of age when the order is made, (b) 6 months, if the child or the youngest child who is the subject of the hearing is 5 years of age or over but under 12 years of age when the order is made, or (c)12 months, if the child or the youngest child who is the subject of the hearing is 12years of age or over when the order is made.”
But Judge Crabtree was in error. Reference to six months appears frequently in these related subsections and it is understandable that the specification for the term relative to these children aged as they are, might be confused. I understand that the Baynes' Legal Counsel Doug Christie discreetly communicated to Judge Crabtree his concern about this possible error.
The TCO (Temporary Care Order) duration is now technically true, having been altered from the mistaken time allowance of six months that was cited in Judge Crabtree's conclusion, to the time prescribed for a TCO in the Child, Family and Community Services Act. This is now official. Mr. Finn Jensen communicated this to the Baynes' legal counsel, Mr. Doug Christie. It was also stated in the affidavit presented by Loren Humeny at the April 1st 2011 court hearing regarding custody for Josiah Bayne. Further it has been changed for the official and published copy of Crabtree's 'Reasons' ruling that appears on the Provincial Court site. And why was Doug Christie not notified personally by the Judge to whom he respectfully drew attention to the clerical error?
What happens on June 2nd?
Do you realize that no one outside the MCFD and/or its legal counsel knows the answer to that question. Well perhaps Judge Crabtree knows but then why did he not communicate more intelligibly in his conclusion? Why is something so consequential to the Bayne family left in indiscernible cloud. After all, it is toward the end of the time of the temporary care order that the Baynes are working hard to demonstrate their earnestness and purpose to be regarded as parents deserving of the custody of their children. They want to know what happens when the term of the order runs out. They were not even giving up hope when they thought that the judge truly meant six months. Yet in even that instance, they did not know how it would be determined and by whom it would be determined that they are fit parents.
Can someone tell me why we do not know this? This is yet another feature of our present system that is wrong and must be improved.
Perhaps we are making it more complicated than it actually is. In his 'Reasons' document, Judge Crabtree stated that it was the Court that had to be satisfied that the children should be returned to the care of the parents. Here is the way he wrote that. “[256] As s. 2 of the Act provides, the family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the children, but children are entitled to be protected from abuse and neglect and this must be the overriding concern of the Court. The opportunity is now in the hands of the parents. The children are in need of protection. Now is the time to move beyond this question and to take the appropriate steps to address and remedy the situation to satisfy the Court that the children should be returned to their care and custody.” (the underlined is my emphasis)
So, if it is the court that must be satisfied, that is presumably Judge Crabtree who is seized with this case, will he set a court date for a report? Or will it be the MCFD counsel's responsibility to ask for a date? Are we to assume that MCFD must decide by then, either to return the children or to seek an extension of time of care, and for either decision to make application for a hearing? Why must Doug Christie make inquiry about the next steps? Why was he not already informed? Why is this not clear? How feeble-minded is this system? We have a family here. The best interests of the children is paramount. It has been evidenced by now that the best interests of these three children has not been served for the three and one half years that they have been withheld from their parents. As Crabtree's own 'Reasons” document restated, “[256] As s. 2 of the Act provides, the family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the children,...”
This is fantastic news, although I have mixed emotions and thoughts.
ReplyDelete1) How much longer must Paul, Zabeth and the kids live in legislated emotional purgatory. It's heartbreaking to have to watch and see a family live through such adversity.
2)It simply shows that we need keep the feet of our civil servants' (yes, even a Supreme Court judge) feet to the fire. Yes, they are human and fallible, however, when it is something so consequential as the Bayne's case and decision, shouldn't there be some sort of check on these sorts of things? I guess that's why we have lawyers.
3) I can't help but think that the MCFD has something else up their sleeve - perhaps more delays and more accusations? I would like to think not, but there will always be a cloud of anxiety until the final decision is made. Even then, I'm sure Paul and Zabeth will always be looking over their shoulders.
I pray for a quick resolution at the end of this TCO.
Cheers,
Jim
This blog has been immensely helpful to the Baynes, I am sure. At some point the powers that be, will, if they get enough heat, back off and give the children back to their rightful parents. How much heat is the question.
ReplyDeleteWhen my PCA was completed, I was warned that anything the psychologist said could result in a return to court. I already got my kids back because the psychologist had such a long waiting list to see him and I was awarded my kids if I would do a PCA. Right now I am waiting to see how my SW takes the report. But, my innocence has been proven and I do not think that the insults about my personality will result in further court. Still, it is wrenching and nerve wracking.
ReplyDeletePCA's by overpriced overblown psychologists are an incredible waste of money.
ReplyDeleteThis is supposed to be the job of the social worker.
Speaking of PCA's, the Baynes' has not yet started, and the 3-month term of interim custody expires June 2nd. MCFD will renew, the Baynes will not agree, and the cycle begins anew.
MCFD DELIBERATELY chooses "busy" people and services to ensure lengthy retention of children so they can tell the even more busy court system they need more time. Most parents just don't know they can make alternate choices and fast track returns.
What happens next is very simple, we wait. And wait. There is no point in parents quoting CFCSA scripture. This is just for MCFD to use against parents, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteMCFD can withdraw at anytime because there is no issue with the Bayne's parenting skills or ability to house and support their children.
It is quite a simple matter for MCFD to construct a supervision order with terms that include a promise to continue any "special services" the children are currently receiving. Lengthy counselling is not necessary to "correct" that for which no problem has yet been identified.
MCFD will return the children eventually, there is little doubt of that in my mind. However, in my experience, this will be done at MCFD's leisure.
Any perception of expediency on MCFD's part may imply a lack of thoroughness or guilt. After all, their pet judge found their medical basis for removal was wrong.
ANON 4:37 PM re PCA
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Speaking of PCA's, the Baynes' has not yet started, and the 3-month term of interim custody expires June 2nd. MCFD will renew, the Baynes will not agree, and the cycle begins anew."
Actually the Baynes have begin their PCA, and yes the psychologist who is testing will take until July it appears to produce results. He will work to get it done sooner if possible.
Ron; I am glad you are focusing on the legal side a bit. Anyone who has read todays blog would not make the same mistake as Crabtree.
ReplyDeleteYesterday I concentrated on law and said that the MC&FS is a colendar because it is so full of holes. Today I want to explain how those holes are made. The loopholes are not so much in the act itself, but in the common habits and practices of lawyers. The big, big hole is because of the heavy use of adjournments. Adjournments are beloved of lawyers, because you can bill for a court appearance, without having to do any work. It is a good source of revenue. If anything at all crops up out of the ordinary they always ask for an adjournment. Judges are very obliging; especially family court judges with a list to get through. The more lawyers are involved the harder it is to find a date of continuance.It is not just finding time when prosecutor and defence are free at the same time. Ministry lawyers often appear on regular days.If parents are separated and each has a lawyer it is more complicated and if a child advocate is appointed,it is even worse.
As with the Baynes, adjournments can prolong cases ad nauseam and can completely derail the best interests of the children. Never mind all the admonitions of the law, because they just seem to be an inconvenience, which every one easily forgets. They are so used to the way the court operates, that they take it for granted and do not modify their habits to expedite decisions on young children
We have got used to protection hearings being adjourned, which might be reasonable up to a point, but stretching adjournments until children are in care far beyond the allowable limits of temporary care makes a mockery of the act. What is worse that this is done before there has been any opportunity to hold the social workers to account. If they adjourn for a year or so and then find out that their evidence is not going to hold up, all they have to do is withdraw complaint and the judge will comply, often with no questions asked. This is known as taking the line of least resistance,or laissez faire judging. Probably, had it not been for the media scrutiny, the Fraser director might well have taken the easy way out by withdrawing complaint. That TV interview really did in the Bayne children when they incurred the wrath of the all too mighty director.
Holes in the law to be continued.
Holes in the law continued.
ReplyDeleteNow to me the law seems pretty straightforward. A presentation hearing is summary and must be concluded as soon as possible. Following that the director must set a hearing date to take place within 45 days and ten days written notice must be served on the parents and the intentions of the director must be stated. The purpose of this is that the matter cannot be dragged out and parents must get their day in court within about six weeks. Also that they are given clear and unequivocal information about what the director is up to. Note that no such written notice was ever served on the Baynes, so they never knew from one week to the next what the director was really after. You can see the sneaky control there.
Now it seems that they are exploiting the presentation hearings by adjourning over and over again. I never ever knew a presentation hearing to be adjourned in all the years I did the work. The judges simply would not have allowed it. A protection hearing is not and adjournment of a protection hearing, but it is a completely separate hearing and proper procedure must be followed. Even when parents were in court when a date was set, our regular family court judge wanted proper notice serving and he wanted it done by personal service wherever possible and he wanted sworn affidavits of service. Why? Because a notice of hearing is more than just giving notice of a date. It is a clear statement of the intentions of the director, leaving nothing in doubt. In other words, it is a just measure. Also full disclosure is needed and of course if there is to be a hearing within 45 days the disclosure must be prompt. Not nine months, as with the Baynes.
Of course all this went out of the window with Josiah Bayne. He was born on Feb 10 and went to presentation a week later. Then the presentation hearing was adjourned three times and a hearing did not take place until April 1st. Then it got adjourned again until April 21st. By this time Josiah will have been kept in care for two and a half months on adjourned presentation hearings. By May 10th he will have exceeded the time in care for a maximum temporary order. There will be no protection hearing within 45 days and no proper notice will be served, because the lawyers will argue that the Baynes were in court and no notice is needed.
Josiah has been pitched head first into one of the gaping fisssures in the system at a very tender and fragile age. Does the judge, or anyone else in the court system care? Judges place great importance on procedures. Things like just outcomes and child welfare are nether matters and in no way can they be allowed to upset procedures.
Ray, you have done it again, exposed the rottenness of the way the law is abused with respect to child protection cases, and the hypocrisy of salaried and contracted 'children's best interest' people who heedlessly delay and extend custody of children by caregivers other than the biological parents. You stirred the pot of my upset again, just when I think I am coming to terms with this bad situation.
ReplyDeletethe liberal party convention is coming up in may in Kelowna--we need to have a presence thier with signs so that we get the media attention that will come automatically---there is also an ndp leadership convention in Kelowna later this month people should be there with signs too--let's get organized and get off of our typewritersand fannies and do some serious acting out of our beliefs!!!!!
ReplyDeleteA question for Ray Ferris
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comment on Post #501, April 12, 7:26 pm.
Could you please identify the statements appearing, then disappearing from Judge Crabtree's report?
And Roy, What would you suggest that these signs say?
ReplyDeleteRay, you say that "judges place great importance on procedures. Things like just outcomes . . . " How is the importance of procedures demonstrated here? Whose procedures . . . can't be procedures of the Act!
ReplyDeleteExcellent stuff, Ray Ferris!
Leona M - see this post:
ReplyDeletehttp://ronunruhgps.blogspot.com/2011/04/judge-crabtrees-ruling-online-501.html