WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD? / 525

The ‘interests of a child’, the very best interests of children should naturally be the concern of each one of us. Parents in particular are expected to care for their children according to this standard. In societies like ours, the collective, the people, citizens, have elected representatives to institutionalize this standard of care for children. When parents or other caregivers appear not to be acting in the best interests of a child, then government authorized social workers intervene.

Curiously, ‘the best interests of the child’ has become a virtual dogma within our courts and child protection systems, yet there is no standard definition of ‘best interests of the child.’ Notwithstanding, this phrase customarily refers to the court’s consideration of the kinds of orders, actions and services that will best serve a child, as well as taking into consideration the person(s) best suited to care for the child. The child’s fundamental safety and welfare is the principal concern.

Consequently, courts render a range of judgments that affect children, including placement and custody, safety and permanency planning, and even proceedings for termination of parental rights. It was this latter decision for which the Ministry of Children and Family Development was pressing during the ten-month-long 2010 court case against Paul and Zabeth Bayne. When a court of law makes such a determination, it has to weigh whether its decision will be in the "best interests" of the child. In the Bayne case, the Director and his team and their legal counsel pushed an agenda that I do not believe was in the best interests of the children. As these forty-two months have crawled on, it has become progressively more obvious to me that the motivation for a permanent care order was unrelated to the best interests of the four Bayne children. It appears to me to have been provoked by a determination to be vindicated in the face of adverse publicity. During the court case, Judge Crabtree on a couple of occasions gave rulings which granted improved access between the children and their parents. Clearly he saw their best interests being served by more visitation time and time spend within the family home. In his final ruling on the CCO application, the judge did not agree with the MCFD’s premise that the Baynes had harmed their daughter by shaking her in 2007 when she was seven weeks of age. Yet he did not conclude that it was yet in the best interests of the children to return them to their parents at least for another three months. That is, until at least June 2, 2011. I construe his ruling as a mistake, and I concede this is a subjective and biased opinion.

Nonetheless, my view stems from some of the ‘best interest’ determinates stated within the child protection material. Principles that should guide MCFD and the court are such things as the importance of family integrity and the preference for avoiding removal of a child from home; the importance of timely permanency decisions; the emotional ties and relationships between the children and their siblings and their parents and grandparents; and the capacity of the parents to provide an adequate and safe home, nutrition, clothing and medical care.

I am trusting that the Surrey child protection team, Dr. Conrad Bowden and ultimately the Director will conclude at the end of this most recent temporary care order, that the best interests of these four children is to be returned to Paul’s and Zabeth’s parental care. There is so much love between these six individuals and together they represent human rights that must be acknowledged.