Tuesday, June 28, 2011


Judge Crabtree noted in the report that accompanied his conclusion, that from the outset of the Ministry’s involvement with the Bayne children, the parents were devoted to having access to their children and dedicated to asking for as much time as possible. He noted that they had applied several times for more time than the Ministry wanted to provide and they continued to pressure for more time and Crabtree saw this as a positive indicator. However, it also strained relations with Ministry personnel as he perceived it. (Now whose fault is that?)

Judge Crabtree gave indication that he understood the parents’ reluctance to be involved in a parental capacity assessment by the Ministry because he could appreciate that parents might feel this was an admission of guilt for an abuse alleged against them already. Even Judge Crabtree could discern and then write in his report that the relationship between the Baynes and the social workers had deteriorated so much that there was no longer trust, and communication was eroded. Neither party wanted any longer to deal with the other.

And Judge Crabtree also said something telling which I quote here. “[253] There is some basis for this reticence to work with the social workers. The failure of the Ministry to live up to the spirit of the mediation agreement contributed to the belief that the social workers were not there to work toward the reintegration of the family.” And then Judge Crabtree stated what we all now know to be the textbook axioms about the biological family and protection. He wrote, “[255] 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.

Then two clauses summed up the Judge’s conclusion, leaving the Baynes where they are today.
Conclusion – Stage Two
[256] In the circumstances of this case I conclude that an order pursuant to s. 41(1)(c) for a period of 3 months is warranted.
[257] In the event that further directions are required the matter should be set down before me through the Judicial Case Manager at the Chilliwack Courthouse.

So, June 2, 2011 was the end of the three months order term. The new baby’s case was subsumed through later court appearances, in the same file as the three siblings. The file was transferred from the Hope MCFD office to new case workers in Surrey. The Baynes have participated in all the extensive tests required by the MCFD. Reports from these tests will determine the next steps.


  1. Featured tonight on Roadkill radio is Derk Hoare, the father of his 9-year old autistic daughter Ayn removed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.


  2. Thank you Anon for the notice of the Roadkill show with Derek Hoare today. I will post it on the front page.

  3. It is likely a good thing the Baynes did not do the PCA and Project Parent before the protection hearing. I do suspect the PCA would have been more at risk in terms of usefulness to their case. The caseworkers could easily have forced the Baynes to submit to a psychological examination, but they didn't, because they knew they would pass with flying colors.

    If a PCA was positive for example, MCFD could have rejected the report, not shown it to the Baynes, and ordered another.

    If negative, the Baynes might well be facing a CCO now based on the fact their children have been in care so long and have aclimatized to their new home, even allowing for the fact that SBS was discounted as removal justification.

    This Judge Crabtree, because he used a formulaic decision, might justly be villified for letting the Ministry get off scott free, but he did use what power he had to grant the Baynes that invaluable 9 hours weekly visitation in the home and in the community.

    This decision alone might very well set a precedent for other parents suffering from limited visitations.

    The Baynes did everything parents should do and far more. They are in a very good position compared to most other parents who are not even facing a CCO.

    Take a look at a recent BC case of a Salmon Arm mom and dad who had their newborn apprehended at birth. The parents have not yet had access. I was astounded to hear the social worker stated that switching from formula to breast milk would not be in the best interests of the child because the infant had become used to formula.

    The parents went to Roadkill radio for help and an interview is posted on the above page, and at Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fvls-sIjrF8

    This video features a recording of a shrewish sounding social worker whose voice sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. Truly a nightmare for any parent.

    There are certain people that should not be in their chosen profession, and this lady is definitely one of those individuals.

    Getting back to Judge Crabtree's use of the word 'reticence' in his observation that the family 'did not work with' the social worker, I find it appalling that he made no mention of the pure hell these workers put this family through.

    On the flipside, the Baynes organized several protests, perhaps 8 or 9, some in front of Premier Campbell's constituency office. The judge did not mention any of this.

    This 'reticence' term would be more accurately characterized as all out war by government representatives on a family they are supposed to be helping them.

    Hopfully blogs like this will wake up the general public to the fact that Baynes case is a perfect example of government who is at the forefront of denying citizen's rights using child protection as a strategy for the purpose of justifying further growth and self enrichment.

  4. Oh come on anon 11.57, give me a break. The judge made a protection finding precisely because he neglected to us his powers appropriately. When he found slender grounds for making a protection finding he was merely covering his own butt. He had allowed the case to drag on for three years and more. Had he said there was no cause for protection at that time how would he explain his collusion in letting the case drag out? How would he explain his failure to rope in the director and oblige him to shorten his witness list. A judge I used to work with would have stopped every witness cold if they had nothing more than hearsay.
    Now to caseload sizes.
    Let me tell you a story. I started work in Smithers BC in late June 1957. I was the only social worker for Smithers, Hazelton and the surrounging rural area. My supervisor supervised the Burns Lake office 160 km to the east and picked up the caselosd in the small communities east of Smithers; Telkwa, Houston etc. I had 8 aboriginal communities. The Carrier communities at Moricetown and Hagwilget and the Gitskan villages at Kispiox, Hazelton, Glen Vowell Kitwanga, Kitwancool and Kitseguecla. Kitwancool was about 110 Km.
    I was responsible for all child welfare matters, such as protection, unmarried parent services, adoptions and foster homes. I was responsible for financial services to needy individuals and families, except on reserves. There were four types of pension, all means tested. Blind and disabled persons allowances. There was a federal old age pension at age 70. At 65 one could get an equivalent amount under what was called old age assistance. This was subject to proof of age and a means test. Needy pensioners over 70 could get a supplement. Medical cards were issued to all pensioners and unemployable assistance cases.
    The caseload had about 250 cases. Maybe 90 pensioners, about 100 social asistance cases, a dozen children in care and about 8 foster homes. I occasionally acted as probation officer and also as medical social worker to the two small hospitals. There were a number of family service cases. On my weekly caseload journey, I stayed overnight in Hazelton and sometimes travelled about 400 km. If I got a letter by Wednesday morning asking for assistance and giving directions as to how to find the dwelling (No street addresses) I would usually make a home visit and do an eligibility study that day or the next. For the most part a cheque would be in the mail the next day and could be picked up at the post office on Saturday. (No mail delivery.) I called on all my foster homes regularly, making a point of seeing at least two a week.
    Today there are now thirty staff members. There are separate financial and child welfare services in Smithers and Hazelton as well as First Nations family welfare services. The area population has about doubled, so this means that the staff has had a proportional increase of about 800%. I now takes weeks to get a cheque and foster parent advocates report that it is very difficult to get social workers to return a phone call. You can draw your own conclusions from this story. More tomorrow.


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise