JUDGE CRABTREE’S RULING REVISITED / 555

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.

FACING THE LAST GOODBYE / Part 142 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

THE FINAL GOODBYE WITH LIVING CHILDREN

I asked Zabeth how she and Paul were doing. She wrote to tell me and her sentiment touched me. With her permission I print it for you to read. A qualifier first: I have mentioned before that Paul and Zabeth have faith in a sovereign God and this faith relationship is important to them. It is evident in the way she deals with her feelings.

“How are we today? We have had a hard last few days. While we have been sick we are doing better in that area, but I have been feeling low emotionally. I miss my children daily, but sometimes when I realize the trial will be coming to an end eventually I start to fear that a decision will be made to permanently separate me from my children forever. How does a parent live through the final goodbye visit? If one was guilty then one could understand and feel the ruling was deserved and if one truly loved the children one might acknowledge that it would be better for the children, but when it is a wrong decision, when love is genuine and no harm done...Will God expect this of us? Would this bring Him Glory by sacrificing our children in order for us to take up a call of helping others and thereby bringing Glory to Him in the answers to prayers of other parents? Or will bringing our children home bring Him Glory? What is His will for our lives? Will we see earthly justice? I pray so, but these are some of the questions I fear to answer.”

Just imagine parents having to wrestle through possibilities like that simply to come to terms with an inconceivable outcome.

The options as Zabeth reviewed them were these. Perhaps in the permanent forfeiture of their children, God has a purpose to accomplish a glorious ending in some undisclosed way. Although she ventures down that dark road far enough to conjecture whether childless, she and Paul might be expected by God to be able to help other people with damaged lives. Or perhaps in returning their children to them, God will be glorified in this family, in their story of tenacity and faith, and their nurturing of these children into adulthood so that each walks an upright life or accomplishes something remarkable.

“What is his will for us? Will justice be done? I pray so, but these are some of the questions I fear to answer, she wrote.” What an honest response this was to my “how are you doing?” query. The legal and judicial sides not withstanding, this is the human side of this sad and in some ways merciless mess.

* Painting: 'Time to Say Goodbye' by Alfred Gockel, who creates powerfully distinctive abstracts which are alive with rich, primary colors, deep black accents, ebbing and flowing lines, and intensely kinetic motion. Toggle his name to see more works.

Part 141 / PROTECT OUR FAMILIES / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

PROTECT OUR FAMILIES - I SECOND THAT

Protect Our Families.com is an interesting website, with contributors from various American States. Protect Our Families is an organization committed to advocating for the rights of children, whose bone disorders and medical symptoms have been misdiagnosed as child abuse, and their families. Because of the medical conditions of two of the Bayne children this site is relevant to them. Moreover, the case histories that are cited are similar in many aspects to the Bayne story. Several of the cases involved criminal charges against a parent or parents with courts ruling in the parents’ favour yet the social services still pursued permanent custody and won in some cases but not in all.

The home page refers to a case of Alice and Miquel Valesquez who were accused of child abuse due to their infant daughter’s fractures. You can read online their entire story which was featured in the Reader’s Digest. Even after their daughter had a positive skin biopsy for Osteogenesis Imperfecta (brittle bones) the social workers and child abuse doctors refused to acknowledge it and continued to insist the child was abused. It was a long ordeal for the family but thankfully they were able to get their daughter back home. They also sued and won a settlement against the state of Virginia. Their family's story is featured in Reader's Digest which you can read online.


Protect Our Families. Com has a three pronged agenda.

Medical Information
It desires to aid in preventing the mistaken diagnosis of child abuse when a child actually has a medical condition which has been misinterpreted as child abuse. To rule out all potential pediatric conditions before coming to the conclusion of child abuse, and to avoid unnecessary reporting to child protective services, POF advocates that medical doctors be wholly trained to understand and to identify numerous pediatric conditions and bone disorders, among which are Osteogenesis Imperfecta and Vitamin D deficient Rickets which can resemble child abuse.

Family Support
POF provides medical and legal information and support to family members who have been wrongly accused of child abuse with a goal to equip the families and their attorneys to be able to research their child's potential medical condition resulting in resolution of their cases as well as obtaining appropriate medical care for the child.

Legal Reform
While Child Protective Services plays an essential societal role in protecting abused children, POF is concerned that child protection services acknowledge that medical doctors can make mistaken diagnoses resulting in wrongful accusations of child abuse. POF is working on legislation to change the laws that govern CPS in order to give families and children more rights and protection from false allegations. POF also advocates for greater liberty for parents during an ongoing investigation to obtain for their child full evaluation of potential medical diseases because the child has a right to be accurately diagnosed and treated since it is not in the child’s best interests to ignore serious medical conditions.

Part 140 / EXPLANATION & RATIONALE / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Today I have removed yesterday’s post 139 which drew attention to a website, the content of which did not live up to the intended purposes. I was speaking to the confounding phenomenon of similar issues that characterize child protection programs throughout the English speaking world of former colonialized nations. In commenting on my post, one writer pointed out numerous inadequacies to the site that purportedly was a Family Law Resource Community dedicated toward helping and supporting families to establish and solidify their personal dealings and directions within the Family Court System World Wide. The writer cited enough reasons that I chose to disassociate the site from my blog. We will make the point in other ways.

I have been a lifelong writer and when I began this particular blog it was a commentary upon diverse areas of current interest. Concentrating upon the grieving community of families impacted by MCFD treatment was not my original design. In September of 2009 I learned about Paul’s and Zabeth’s heartache. Their loss of family is almost as old as their youngest child. My curiosity was fixated immediately because years earlier I was the officiating clergyman for their wedding ceremony. Life choices moved us out of one another’s lives until that news broke upon me. I was compelled to know more. How could they find themselves in a dilemma this appalling and more importantly, how could they extricate themselves?

Like perhaps 95% of the B.C. population I have had no knowledge of the Ministry of Children and Family Development or of child protection. I have never had personal involvement with such services or until this past autumn known anyone who did. In hindsight it seems peculiar to me that in forty years of pastoral work and dealing with people’s lives and concerns there was never a family in my sphere of work that had an MCFD or child welfare association. MCFD’s need of re-examination is unknown by the vast majority of people and they will not care until they are faced with it either personally or through public awareness.

The more that I learned about the Baynes, the more convinced I was that I should do what I could, that was to write about them. The more that I learned about the system of child protection that interrupted the Bayne family, the more informed I became that theirs was not an isolated case of misunderstanding or confusion or even medical misdiagnosis. Some systemic weaknesses in our government funded child protection efforts were removing and keeping children from parents for far too long and sometimes for unwarranted reasons. As I learned, I wrote and this little read blog began to pick up readers on both sides of the Bayne predicament.

My thematic focus in upcoming posts will continue to be the Baynes’ recovery attempt. They have been without custody of their children for 2.5 years. That may not be unprecedented but it is nonetheless inexcusable because Paul and Zabeth are the kind of parents who will provide a loving, nurturing and safe home for their birth children. Their determination and their personal efforts to right a wrong may become a precedent however, when it evokes concern among journalists, readers, advocates, politicians and legislators.

Part 138 / BIG FUNDRAISER / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

BIG FUNDRAISER
INDOOR GARAGE SALE,
MARCH 20, 2010
8:00 am - 4:00 pm
That is this coming Saturday

All Proceeds go to the Bayne Family Trust Fund.

Pop and Hot Dogs for Sale

Located at Tadpole Academy Childcare
9766 Oak Street, Chilliwack, BC




To donate gently used items Call 604-703-8350

Please donate

Paul and Zabeth Bayne exhausted all their personal monies and their home on earlier legal attempts to retrieve their children. They now live in rental basement apartment. They gave up their day jobs to work as night janitors to be available in the day hours to visit their children and make daytime efforts to regain child custody. Zabeth is a concert pianist and music teacher but has not taught for all the time her children have been in care, 2.5 years. She played a fund raising concert in January that raised $12,000 and went into a registered Bayne Trust Fund. That has already been exhausted on these recent weeks of the hearing in court. I am still of the opinion that success in their case will pave the way for some further welcome MCFD transformational changes in policy and practice.

For Love and For Justice / Part 107 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

LOREN HUMENY – THE MAN TASKED WITH THE BAYNE CASE

Testimony Phase - Graduating with a Bachelor in Social Work, Loren Humeny has been a social worker for ten years and is presently an Intake Investigative Social Worker for the Ministry of Children and Family Development based out of Chilliwack. The Bayne file was his responsibility in collaboration with his supervisor, so he was the author of the report presented to Court. Mr. Humeny was in court to give testimony one week ago on February 2, 2010. At the end of that Tuesday, the cross examination by Bayne lawyer Doug Christie was postponed until Tuesday, February 09, 2010, in order to accommodate the testimonies of Dr. Colbourne and Dr. Randall Alexander both of which took place last week. Yesterday, Tuesday February 9, 2010, Mr. Humeny was back in the witness box for the cross examination portion.

According to Mr. Humeny’s testimony, the child protection unit of VCH (possibly Ms. Glen and/or Dr. Colbourne) alerted his office concerning the injuries to Bethany Bayne in the autumn of 2007. His investigative process included reports by and/ or conversations with Dr. Colbourne; and Vancouver Children’s Hospital social worker, Adrienne Glen, who was a member of the child protection unit; and Pastor Michael Hoffman* and his wife Elizabeth; as well as members of the Bayne extended family and Zabeth and Paul. His primary information sources were Dr. Colbourne and Ms. Glen and he told the court Dr. Colbourne’s opinions, treatment and prognosis. In a meeting on October 31, 2007 Humeny and his supervisor met with Paul and Zabeth, Zabeth’s parents, Zabeth’s sister and her husband and Ruth Hunt (friend) to review what he termed non-accidental injuries based on the medical report. Humeny was assigned to author the application for the Court Order as well as the narrative that supported the application.

He was in attendance together with his supervisor when apprehending the three children initially. Bethany was in hospital from the 19th to the 25th of October 2007 and on October 25, 2007 Bethany was placed in a Chilliwack foster home. No visits to Bethany were allowed to the Baynes during those initial weeks. He spent time with Zabeth Bayne’s parents prior to leaving the boys there with the stipulation that Paul and Zabeth could not be alone with the children in that home. He had numerous conversations with Zabeth during these days and weeks. He looked into sources of ‘collateral’ information about the Baynes. In looking for potential foster/ care homes for the boys should the need arise, Marvin (Surrey Council member) and Ruth Hunt offered their home in August 2008. They are Bayne family friends.

Testimony under Cross Examination – There was discussion about the Risk Assessment of which he is the author. It includes statements against the Baynes by what Humeny calls half a dozen ‘collateral witnesses’ who cannot be disclosed presently. The Risk Assessment also included statements from caregivers of the three children, the medical history from Dr. Colbourne and Humeny’s own findings. When Doug Christie asked why page 35 of the Risk Assessment was left empty, it was learned that this page would have contained a summary of the parents’ strengths. Mr Christie made the point that Mr. Humeny chose not to include comments such as the parents’ dedication and love and commitment to their son Baden during his three month hospital stay due to premature birth; and the commendations from their family doctor on their superior care of the boy during the at home care phase. Mr. Christie asked why Mr. Humeny did not mention some of the 350 visits that the Baynes have made to their children, and that they ask for more visitation opportunity. Mr. Christie queried why Mr. Humeny did not include the mother’s piano teaching experience with children over several years. Still pressed about this omitted page, Mr. Humeny stated that he did not feel that he knew the parents. This didn't wash with Christie because it was pointed out that Humeny had many meetings with the Baynes. Mr. Humeny was reminded that countless letters were written to the Ministry by friends and family and professionals which spoke positively to Paul’s and Zabeth’s home, character, forms of discipline used, interactions with their children, their involvement with others socially and otherwise, and the perceptions of students about Zabeth’s professional instruction. Mr. Humeny acknowledged that he was aware of this mail but he did not read the correspondence saying he did not have the time for it. He had relied upon the ‘collateral witness’ data and when cross examined, it was pointed out by Mr. Christie that that the support letters could have provided at least a balanced view of the Baynes if not call the ‘collateral witness’ data into question. Christie stressed that Humeny's risk assessment was written so obviously from an adversarial position it might be deemed hostile. Mr. Humeny's testimony under cross-examination recommences on Thursday at 9:30 AM at the Chilliwack Court House.

*The CBC News article entitled ‘Surrey Couple Challenge Shaken Baby Allegation’ published Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 2:51 PM PT is found here.

For Love and For Justice / Part 92 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Life is too precious.

My own life is almost spent. Sure I may have many years to live. Yet my energetic working years are done. The strong blond man of my high school and college years lives only in pictures seldom viewed by anyone. My children now in their own mid years don’t remember me in my youth. In their minds they have only grown accustomed to the ‘me’ with escalating limitations. Their children will always know me ‘old.’ Grandpa I am.

I am not complaining. This is life. It’s good. There are large measures of joy and satisfaction attached to this personal definition of life in Canada.

That’s why the wounded lives of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their children Kent, Baden and Bethany trouble me so much. That's why the Court Case, the result of which will determine whether the children can come back to their parents or whether they must be forced to become adopted children to adoptive parents, is one of the most important events in B.C. right now. It is only one family of course. However, this single case forecasts the likelihood of an overhaul of the structure, protocol, personnel and policies of this beleaguered child protection agency. It is unthinkable that the Judge's conclusion might greenlight further injustices to more innocent parents and children as zeal and power without wisdom decides the lives of citizens.

The Baynes should not be enduring this broken family unit, the financial ruin, the daily tears, the eyes of three children filled with worry and doubt about so many things that should not harass a child in Canada.

Justice needs to be served on a silver platter to this family so that what remains of three children’s formative years will be spent in the affectionate and daily embrace of parents who love them so tenaciously that they will plead ardently until the custody of their children is restored to them. They will also unceasingly declare their innocence. Innocent, they will never admit to a guilt that is implied by a two year old medical diagnosis of baby Bethany with which a long list of medical professionals dispute. This court case, painfully lengthy, will validate the Baynes as worthy parents who have suffered an incalculably horrific two and a half year travesty of human rights, freedom and justice.

For Love and For Justice / Part 91 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The trial is scheduled to last sixteen days and these days are to stretch through January and February. The first three court days were held on Wednesday 12th , Thursday 13th and Friday 15th . The focus of the early days of the court case have been upon the testimonies of social workers and the regional Director for this case. That is precisely how it came down.

The Baynes’ demand for their children has been a public and high profile claim particularly during the past year. Global and CBC news networks have done stories on the Baynes’ contest with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The Baynes themselves have maintained an online presence through websites and Facebook pages. People like me have easily recognized the injustices within this case and have sought to explain facts, some of us doing it objectively and others expressing objectionable opinions. Always the Baynes have asserted that MCFD’s legitimate task of protecting children was based on a wrong medical diagnosis and then a series of skewed MCFD decisions not in the interest of the Bayne family but in the interest of building a case for MCFD’s seizure and custody of three Bayne children. Little effort was made by MCFD to truly know Paul and Zabeth, their characters, principles and values and family commitments. The Baynes’ vigorous and persistent fight for their children over the two and one half years of this torment was perceived by MCFD as a declaration of war rather than being seen through the understanding eyes of social workers with authentic sensitivity to humanity. I am sorry to have witnessed that. I am appalled that this flaw appears to be a common feature in child protection networks across our country, in every province, in the UK and in Australia. Do some googling and you will soon be confronted by an avalanche of worrisome reports about insensitive and inept case handling and worse, incarceration of parents falsely accused.

Ministry of Children and Family Development attorney, early in the court proceedings, applied for a ban on all publicity and news coverage. During a 15 minute presentation, Bayne’s lawyer Doug Christie ardently opposed this application, arguing for the public’s right to be informed about a case as significant as this and about a Ministry that is charged by the public to fulfill its responsibilities. Christie contended that the media has a right to participate, report and defend its reported accounts. He further stated that it would be inappropriate for the Judge to make a decision on this application within fifteen minutes of hearing the application. The judge then adjourned for 30 minutes and upon his return indicated that he would not so soon approve the application for the ban because it might affect this case and others that would follow this one. If the MCFD intended to pursue the ban application, then the media must also be allowed to defend its position. MCFD attorney Finn Jensen then told the court that he would not proceed with the application. So this was dismissed. In truth this may result in better accountability through public exposure.

CBC ran a story on the opening day of this court case and that content was sympathetic to the Baynes’ claim that the children should be returned to them.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 63 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

PARENTS CAN BE TREATED COURTEOUSLY


Zabeth is an accomplished musician, a concert pianist, a music teacher. That was her life before, our of necessity, the recovery of her family took over her life. She awakens to the daily pain of beginning another day without her babies, of returning to daily duties all of which revolve around gathering information to help her own cause and assist other parents with similar complaints with the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development. Weekly, she writes letters to the Premier, to Members of the Legislative Assembly, to media journalists and news organizations in hopes that someone will listen and someone will respond. She and Paul work are custodians at night. That permits them to be available for each of the two afternoons when they can visit their children every week. Customarily the three children who now live in the same foster home, are brought by a commissioned driver to a location to which Paul and Zabeth go to spend three hours from 1 pm to 4 pm.

MCFD is supposed to be a service and help agency. Nothing is gained when its employees manifest an adversarial posture. If protection of children and eventual restoration of the family is the Ministry objective, it is sufficient to withhold the children from living with the parents. It is pointless to treat the parents badly. Yet there is evidence that thoughtlessness, oversights and lack of common courtesies typify the way some workers in the regional sector of MCFD manage the Bayne case. Consideration of the Bayne parents appears to be a low Ministry priority. Disrespect is repeatedly reinforced. This was one of the most recent examples.

They were informed that all through December and to the end of the first week of January at least one of the three children will not be in attendance at the visitation day. No explanation accompanies this notification. No indication of a makeup visit is given so Zabeth is compelled to request one in writing from the social worker that oversees the daily care of the children. Most of these inquiries are never answered. Zabeth and Paul are not told which children they will see on a given day or who will be absent. This week’s Thursday visit has been entirely cancelled for all three children but again without explanation or suggestion of a follow-up. A phone call from the social worker could easily communicate the explanation.

A network of parents having similar problems with the BC MCFD confers casually and it becomes clear that this treatment is being experienced by others as well as the Baynes. In fact, some parents who were told that a visit was cancelled and therefore didn’t show up, have stated that their children later told them that the MCFD told the children that their parents didn't want to see them today. In other instances parents have been told that the children didn’t want to see them on a certain day which they later learned was untrue. This is one of the reasons why Zabeth and Paul show up for every scheduled visitation time even when one has been cancelled. The Baynes have driven from Surrey to Chilliwack for a visit and on occasion have done so in snowy weather and found no children were there. Zabeth says that “On those days the return trip has been filled with many tears.”

Reader, please hit this link and sign this petition to return the children to Paul and Zabeth.