Yes it's Official! It is Three Months. Temporary Care Ends June 2, 2011 / 503

Written on behalf of the Bayne Family and looking forward to the day of their reunion.

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?

For some time we all thought that the Baynes three children would remain in government care for another six (6) months. That is because six months was expressly stated in the concluding remarks of Judge Thomas Crabtree's case decision. “[257] In the circumstances of this case I conclude that an order pursuant to s. 41 (1 )(c) for a period of 6 months is warranted.”

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,...”