As I begin today I want to dispense immediately with what will be the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s default response to what I have to say. That response will be, “The Baynes brought this upon themselves.” Readers, that is categorically untrue. Having made that clear I will get on with it.
 |
| random multi-generational no-name family photo |
I am a grandparent and our home is just convenient minutes away from both sets of grandchildren. The grandchildren often spend time at our home. They eat meals here. They have learned to strike plastic golf balls. They play soccer and bacci ball. We go for walks to the playground. We stop at the corner store for slushies. They try on clothes that Grandma makes for them. They permit arms around their shoulders, and they listen to soft instruction. Life lessons subtley slipped in while watching TV or sitting together are common.
When I think of the Bayne children’s grandparents I am struck again with the privilege that is mine to enjoy my grandchildren whenever they want to come over or whenever I want to ask them.
The Bayne kids’ grandparents are not permitted to do that. Thousands of formative hours have been lost to them, and all of the life modeling and teaching, the rights and wrongs, ethical and moral values, spiritual truths so important to this family, has either been abbreviated or minimized but unpressured moments certainly gone. Grandparents should not have been so deprived but they were. Oh the deprivation is neatly tied with legal ribbon.
That is what this extended charade of protection has done.
This family could so easily have been a network of relationships of care through all of these years – four years. I am sure that I will never know the true reason for the MCFD team pulling the two boys away from their grandparents part way through this long ordeal. We will also never learn why the Director insisted upon keeping the boys in care when his own legal counsel advise him that continuing care of them could not be won in court. There is so much about this initially sincere effort to investigate a concern for a child and her siblings but which turned into a pretense of justice that will never now be disclosed or publicly understood.
It is time now to return the children to their parents and honour Judge Crabtree’s March 2011 ruling in which the inference was clear enough that the children belong with their parents. That turned a page on this case. Let’s finish the chapter and let the Baynes and the extended family write the rest of the yet to be written story.
Charade is the perfect word for the MCFD's part in this horror show. Thousands of children and families have similar experiences with child protection authorities.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ray Ferris in yesterday's comment was very clear that the law as is defined in the CFCSA is unambiguous with respect to the maximum times in care for children and the fact that speed is of the essence in dealing with family matters. He is equally clear that the CFCSA is routinely ignored, simply because this is possible.
There are plenty of case law examples that support the MCFD's actions, but few if any case law that supports the operating principals of the CFCSA.
The children have been deprived of their parents, forced to live with people who do not have any reason to impart "life's lessons" to these children.
The reality of these four children's stay in care is that it is prison on half the cost of leaving the children behind real bars.
The MCFD view might be that the parents are not being punished; after all they have been relieved of all child care costs such as clothing, food, health insurance, daycare or nannies.
MCFD could even point to the Baynes own Facebook pages showing hundreds of images happy children with their parents and grandparents. The MCFD is making all this possible with generous visitations.
Of course, the actual parenting, there can be no visual record. No 'family' portraits of foster parents and the four children, no church, no playdates with children from school, no association with any of the parent's friends or extended family.
How exactly does one measure this level of deprivation?
I would advise the parents that once their children are returned, to arm them so they can sue their captors before they turn 19.
MCFD now owes these children a duty of care until they reach maturity. All that money currently paid to the foster parents should continue to flow, but be given to the real parents.
If the people who have been involved in this case were brought to justice before a jury of peers, perhaps we would see some accountability.
The Vancouver Sun has updated their Public Sector Salaries database:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vancouversun.com/business/public-sector-salaries/advanced.htm
Search for CSM in the Title Search box for example, to retrieve the list of Community Service Managers that earn over $75,000.
Do you see your favour MCFD employee there?
I have been following some of the events on Velvet Rideout-Martin's facebook page regarding 'Samantha's Law'.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me the children of the Baynes, two or three of the four who have been declared "special need", would fall into the category of children who Samantha's law is designed to to protect.
Protection from the blunt tool that is the Ministry of Children and Family "Development."