The Canucks are on the verge of celebrating a Game Seven Stanley Cup Victory. Or, the Canucks are on the edge of the greatest disappointment in the 40 year history of this franchise.
Stay with me now. There’s a child welfare application here somewhere.
Some fans would challenge me right there. How dare I even suggest the possibility that the Canucks might lose tonight’s game. They might even revoke my fan credential and criticize my lack of faith. Please understand that I do not lack the confidence that the Canuck Team has a roster of players that can beat any other team in the league on any given day. They were the team that finished the regular season with the best win/loss record. Tops!
I want the Canucks to win tonight! Oh, how I want them to win. I
could hardly control my enthusiasm before Monday’s game, and after the first
goal high to Luongo’s glove side, my blood pressure jumped and stayed there for
a while. I want them to win the Cup. I wear Burrow’s #14 sweater for each game -
a gift from my son and daughter in law.
And I read and I hear the calls for “Believe.” I listen to
the fan affirmations, “I believe” and “we believe.” I have paid attention to the
entreaties shoring up any faltering hope. “Nothing is impossible if you
believe.” “They can do it, keep believing!”
But don’t give me that Disneyworld
nonsense that the outcome of Game Seven will depend upon the collective
strength of our fan base’s belief. Of course there is an advantage in having
home ice with a boisterous home crowd waving towels and screaming support. Yet
ultimately this game will be decided by the players on the ice tonight who put
pucks past a crazily good Thomas or block and stop shots at the Vancouver
net. The Canucks to a man must themselves believe every second of this game that they are
destined to be champions and will be champions tonight and are going to expend
everything they have to make it so, tonight! That’s what I believe. And if the
Canucks lose, I won’t whip myself for not having believed strongly enough. That
result does not depend upon me. The game is not decided by the power of you and me.
Nice song sentiment by Nikki Yanofsky but fanciful.
And when it comes to children’s welfare in B.C., and child
care and protection, and doing the right things at the right time for children,
parents and families, the best outcomes do not depend upon my belief in the
newly selected Minister of Children and Family Development, Honourable Mary
McNeil, or her colleagues. The best outcomes depend upon them. My belief in
their good intentions will not change a thing.The track record of the MCFD personnel and legal reps for MCFD with regard to the Bayne Case do not engender belief in their commitment to affect the best interests of the four Bayne children. That of course is the ultimate goal, rather than a puck across the line and a red light.
Youtube Video: I Believe: The CTV Anthem For The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games
8:30 PM Addendum: I have just hung up my No. 14 Burrows sweater until next year. We missed a party this year. But it's merely a sport. The Bayne Campaign will not end now however. This Christy Clark led government must pay attention to this family and order a party for them.
Yesterday I explained that the judge would have made the director and the ministry look very bad if he had made no protection finding. I also pointed out that he would have made himself look bad for presiding over a case that dragged on for three and a half years, with the kids in limbo. He completely lost control of his court and allowed atrocious amounts of hearsay, opinion and allegation. He heard very little evidence based on fact. Should he make no protection finding, how would he justify his own role as an enabler?
ReplyDeleteHe lost focus and lost track. The issue was simple. The director filed a complaint that the Bayne children were at such dire risk as to merit a continuing care order. The onus was on the director to prove it.The onus was not on the parents to disprove it. Certainly they should dispute the evidence brought in by the director, but this is to make him establish his case through due process. The director failed to make a convincing case. Once this is known, there is no need for the Baynes to prove their innocence. There is nothing to prove.
The judge decided that no case had been made to support the director's application. The evidence simply would not support it. He had to make a decision. Was there a deliberate injury or not. He decided that a deliberate injury had not been proved. If it has not been proved then there has been no deliberate injury. If he decides that he cannot tell the cause from the evidence, then he has to say cause not known. There was no proof of deliberate injury and when he dismissed the director's case he should have returned the children immediately. The director and the judge would both look bad, but it was the courageous and proper thing to do.
It is the responsibility of the court to make such decisions. Instead, he sat on the fence and made a non-decision. Instead of 'cause of injury unknown', he came up with 'cause of injury unexplained'. What a weasel word. He buried his head in the precedents in order find something that allowed him to assess a small degree of risk. Did he base it on factual evidence? Certainly not, that would have been a terrible precedent in the case. He based it on a very subjective opinion of Mrs. Bayne on the witness stand.
When he made a temporary order he suggested that the children could go back home, subject to a satisfactory parental capacity assessment. In effect he passed off his judicial responsibilites onto the shoulders of any psychologist that the director would choose. He would trust the future of the children to psychometric testing, reading inkblots, personality assessment tests and whatever pet theory the psychologist happened to promote. What does the judge think a parental capacity assessment should consist of? As I have said before, it does not consist of a highly theoretical assessment, but on known and proven facts. It should be an inventory of the skills and achievements of the parents. It should accurately record education and work histories. It should look at health history, financial management and record proven behaviours. It should look to see if their are any high risk behaviours such as substance abuse, criminal behaviour or any record of family violence. If there is no evidence of such behaviours, then no risk exists. If, as in the Bayne case, there is a very positive profile with no evidence of any high risk behaviours and numerous positive references, then the parental capacity is only positive.
Continued.
Continuing my blog on the court process.
ReplyDeleteIf I were talking to Judge Crabtree, I would say to him. "Good heavans man. Get your nose out of the process books and put your brain in gear. Look at what has been before you day after day in court. You have seen all the parental capacity assessment that you need. In fact you alluded to the many positive qualities of the Baynes in your judgement. You \mentiioned the many sacrifices they had made and their constancy in pursuing more access and in providing a nice home for the children. You knew of their work history and life-skills. You could see how they came to court promptly and neatly dressed. Did this not tell you anything. Did you not notice the many supporters in court, who were obviously convinced that these were good people? Would you rather believe the spiteful evidence that these are social isolates? Oh yes, I know that the packed court room is not evidence, but the act does not bind you strictly to sworn testimony. Nor does your job forbid you to be a human being, or to use common sense now and then. Do you really think that the best interests of the children demand that they be in limbo for four years? This is what your proven behaviour suggests when you tried to make a further six months order. "
Yes Ron I believe the Baynes will get back the children, because they will jump through all the required hoops, so that the director can claim his pound of flesh. I believe that they will comply with whatever nonsense is foisted on them, because the reality is that the director has all the power. In any case, what is the alternative? The temporary orders will eventually expire and once more the director must return the children or re-open the case for a continuing care order. Nobody wants that, so the matter will quietly expire. The ministry could not risk conclusion of the appeal, because they would be bound to lose it.
Will anything be learned from all this? Don't bet on it. You would be safer betting on a Canuck's win.
The losing: 4-0 against the Canucks. Oh, so close! (the proximity to the cup, not these last two games!)
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to view the team roster (http://bruins.nhl.com/club/roster.htm) and see the majority of the players are Canadians.
I think "Hope" was the operative word during this seventh and last game. The same as with the Baynes these past four years. Patience, I suppose, is a virtue.
I personally witnessed the 1994 riot downtown when I lived at Thurlow and Robson when the Canucks lost their first bid for the Cup. It was quite a spectacle.
Considering that last year, the Canucks beat the Chicago Blackhawks, four-time cup winners, their path to this point has been awe-inspiring. One has to pay their dues, and this the Canucks are certainly doing.
Comparing this with the Baynes ordeal, their trials and tribulations have certainly made them far stronger and more resilient. They too, will eventually reach their goal of having their children returned. Fortunately for the rest of us, they are blessed with a social conscience. MCFD has created warriors of them and their many followers.
Consider what this family is up against: an unscrupulous government adversary who has unlimited resources, rules they can flout with impunity and clearly, no conscience. Unlike the Boston Bruins, there is nothing to admire about this adversary, the MCFD.
The Baynes accomplishments should be celebrated. They have stood strong where other families have long disintegrated when confronted with the relentless onslaught of the Ministry.
The Baynes are an inspiration for families everywhere. In my mind, they have already "won" many times over. Their children will eventually be returned. Fortunately, these children are young enough that this memory will subside.
Three cheers for the Baynes, the Canucks, and the Bruins. Neverending boos for the evil hoards of MCFD.
I feed sorry for and apprehensive of anyone who aspires to be part of this reprehensible Ministry.