The Regional Director in the Bayne Case is the final authority with respect to the work of the team of social workers assigned to this case. In 2010 he took the case to court to obtain a Continuing Care Order for three Bayne children. His position was clear. Because of the nature and extent of the injury sustained by the infant Bayne child (the Director would prefer to call it harm suffered by) and also because of the length of time that this matter has been outstanding, he wanted the children to be placed in his office’s continuing care.
As Judge Crabtree interpreted it, the Director argued that the time (in excess of three years) that these children have been in care was due to the parents’ position of innocence steadfastly maintained since the removal of the children. (That opinion is debatable. This CCO application was not presented by the Director until 2010 nor was there any court opportunity afforded to the Baynes prior to that to defend themselves against suspicion and allegation. And it may be argued, “well, that’s simply the way it is.” Then something within this system must be changed.)
The Director also made the case that the Baynes presented no in-court evidence from family members and other community and friend networks who would be prepared to support the family if and when a temporary order were granted to the parents. (That too should be qualified by explanation. As a matter of fact, there were hundreds of letters written by supporters affirming the characters and trustworthiness of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and some indicating offers of their practical assistance but the case worker on the stand under cross examination admitted he had not read them. Further the Director’s lawyer and the judge stated that such signatories should be called to the stand to validate their identities and be questioned. That might have been possible because so many of them are local residents but the case would have dragged on for many more weeks, eaten up much more money, and the Judge had already told counsels to speed it up. Hindsight and the Judge’s ruling reveal that this was a missed opportunity. How unfortunate. Scores of people could have been paraded to the witness box just as so many attended every day of the court sessions.)
And the Director alleged that the Baynes made no effort to cooperate with social workers specifically with regard to parental assessment or risk assessment and the Director felt that these reports would have been beneficial as a planning tool in an effort to seek the return of the children. (Yes, I suppose the Bayne reluctance cannot be denied but it might have been explained as the outcome of the resistance, combativeness and opposition that the Baynes felt from MCFD with each contact). But now I want you all to be reminded that since the Crabtree ruling in March 2011, the Baynes have been fully cooperative with MCFD expectations with regard to these assessments because he inferred this was like a last chance.
The Director also maintained at the time of the court case that there was little prospect that it was in the children’s best interests to be returned to the parents. Moreover, he had been informed that Zabeth had become pregnant in 2010 during the months that this court case was going on and she would give birth likely in early 2011, and in his view the birth of this child exacerbated the situation – How? Well, with respect to the financial pressures the Baynes were previously under when they were living in Hope. (That’s a meddlesome and uninformed approach, since he had no idea about their present financial status. They are solvent, viable, working their tails off – albeit at an after hours custodial business with numerous contracts – a business owned by them and growing. There was even an allusion to Zabeth’s health concerns back in 2007 and a suggestion that her current ability to care for the three children plus the new baby was questionable. This is 2011 but the director had no knowledge nor was there any inquiry as to her health status now four years later. So the Director took care of that concern. He had the child removed from Zabeth four hours after he was born.) There is so much about the way this case and others like it are processed outside of court and in court that offend me and percolate a cynicism with which I prefer not to live. I would much rather have a ministry that is investigation competent, protective, transparent, communicative, compassionate, patient and fair.
Ron you are so right. The director pulled out every dirty trick in the book in order to try to win this case. The only relevant witnesses were medical. They had Dr. Colbourne,the accuser and her sidekick, Dr. Gardner, who always supports her. Not one of the local doctors supported a deliberate injury claim. Then of cours there was the hired gun from Texas who makes a career out of shaken baby claims.
ReplyDeleteApart from the the court was stacked with a string of witnesses who had not one relevant piece of evidence to give. In effect they jammed the Baynes out of court time. They even managed to pull a stunt to prevent bio-mechanics expert Dr. Van Ee from testifying by videolink. Jensen scotched the morning testimony by falsely claiming that they had not received a copy of his report. By the time they found it half the day had gone. Although the judge allowed the report to be filed as evidence he made no subsequent reference to it.
Had the Baynes brought on half their witnesses, the evidence would not have finished before the end of this year and you can be sure that the cross-examinations would have been lengthy and abusive. Then of course there was the three day filibuster by the director in summing up his case and he wasted another two months of the children's lives that way.
Never did the director or his staff acknowledge any responsibility for any delays, nor admit any reason why the Baynes should not trust them. They could not find one good thing to say about the family and were blatantly hostile. No dirty trick was beneath them
That was not the worst of it. The judge aided and abetted them all the way. Gruesome.
One of these days I will get around to writing about the false concepts around casel load size. You keep distracting me with your trenchant comments which demand support.
Thank you, Ron Unruh, Ray Ferris, and others, for your unwavering dedication to the return of the Bayne children to their parents. To the Baynes for your example of patient endurance--most of us will only imagine the heartache and have no idea of just how difficult it has been. I pray for justice and mercy for all those unjustly accused and poorly treated by Child Protection across our country.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly like to hear of this business of case load and how this figure is counted.
ReplyDeleteMany places I read of social workers having 25-30 simultaneous "clients." Is a foster care worker a client? Individuals children counts as one client?
MCFD intervention means that in a single court file number, a typical famliy might be a mom, dad, extended family such as grandparents or other relatives, children, foster parents usually come in pairs, that is another two numbers. Then there is the endless list of outside consultants, the lawyers, the doctors, psycholgists, counsellors, 'special needs' consultants.
ONE single family can provide a SINGLE social worker with an armful of paperwork. I am eager to learn some truth about where this figure of 25-30 clients for each of the 2600+ social workers comes from.
The "director," or representatives thereof, would simply have said any witnesses that show up on behalf of the Baynes could not be credible because they are have no personal knowledge of any harm that may have occurred to any of the children because the parents simply concealed this unknowable harm.
ReplyDeleteThe fact the litany of doctors who should
Even then, these supporters would be accused of being motivated do downplay or not mention any negative information. Character witnesses are regarded as hearsay.
It is enough to say the social workers ignored the duties of their job and refused to talk to anyone that supported the Baynes position.
The Baynes have been presented as master manipulators responsible for a lengthy trial; people who have successfully hidden their sins from their network of supporters, even from their detractors who initially helped them, the Hoffman's.
A finding that SBS did not occur, in my mind, is a monumental admission by this whacked out system. They are eager to exit, but the priority is to save face and justify this massive and highly distructive intervention.
In my experience, parading non-expert witnesses would have simply resulted in more billable hours for Mr. Finn Jensen. All such testimoney would have been ignored as equally as that of all the social workers and foster parents who were on the stand.
Anon 1:36 - "25-30 simultaneous clients" refers specifically to a file number. Each member of the family doesn't receive a file number but rather the entire family falls under one file number and thus each worker would have 25-30 families, based on your example.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a foster care worker?
Where did you learn there are 2600+ social workers?