FAMILY AUTONOMY, CHILD PROTECTION & PARENTAL RIGHTS (part 1 of 3)

The family is the primary social institution. The family is the primary conservator and transmitter of values, beliefs and traditions. Conservation of family autonomy should be among the most important objectives of provincial and federal governments. This commitment must become evident to Members of the Legislative Assembly of B.C. and to the Ministry of Children and Family Development and to Educators and to Law Enforcement that any intervention into family is like an invasion into its sanctity because it endangers family customs and ideals? Furthermore, parental liberty is fundamental to the concept and function of family.

CONTENDING TO KEEP THE BOYS BUT KNOWING IT’S WRONG / Part 175

CONTENDING TO KEEP THE BOYS BUT KNOWING IT’S WRONG

The Ministry’s lawyer thinks that the boys should be given back to their parents but he will ask that they not be returned. Figure that out!

This is the week when Judge Thomas Crabtree, newly appointed Chief Justice of British Columbia is scheduled to hear the counsel for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Finn Jensen speak to the application that Paul and Zabeth Bayne have made through their lawyer, Doug Christie, to have their two sons, the eldest of their three children, returned to them immediately.

It has been expected that Mr. Jensen will make statements in opposition to this application. Well that’s professionalism for you. Because in fact, he informed his client, the Ministry of Children, that there was no evidence to support the continuing custody of the two boys. He made it clear that in his opinion he could not win this order in court. How can we know that? Well, his letter to Ministry execs was leaked. News media and networks have it. He counselled the Ministry to return the boys to the parents, namely Paul and Zabeth. This was his professional advice last spring 2009 but the Ministry ignored that advice. It was as though they were saying, “we don’t care that there is no evidence to support keeping the boys.”

So here Mr. Jensen is in court this coming Thursday morning obliged to argue for the retention of the boys because his advice to his clients was disregarded. At least if no one has changed their minds that will be Mr. Jensen’s role. Don’t you admire such professionalism? No? To be able to argue ardently that there is justification for the Ministry’s hold on the boys when he himself believes the opposite.

I understand that there is principle involved in representing a client. What the client wants, the client gets. A client is not obliged to take your advice. There is a significant payment for services rendered. Of course I understand that too. What do you do with your conscience? That’s what puzzles me. When you know that the client is not misled by inaccurate information or imprudently diligent but rather, recklessly wrong, it is the epitome of professional practice to continue to represent your client’s cause. Somebody has to do it.

Art by Griff Williams, 2005

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.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 49 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

3rd of 3 Sets of Quotations from Bayne Advocates

“The Ministry of Children and Family Development is holding the children for too long for no legitimate reason. Holding the children this long is in violation of the law. The law stipulates that the TOTAL PERIOD for a child under 5 in the temporary custody of “MCFD” MUST NOT EXCEED 12 months. (S.45(1)(a) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act).”

That is what one of the signers wrote. It is reflective of so many for whom the action of the MCFD in keeping children away from two good parents for two years is reprehensible. Here are some comments from other people.

“I have 2 friends who are going through this very thing, and BOTH cases of suspected SBS were right after the child received immunizations. I think Hep B. Something to look into. Dr Yazbek does studies on this.”

“This family is going through so much and deserves to have their children back. Agencies jump too quickly on cases like this. There are many cases that should be addressed that are ignored. Child abuse is a serious thing...but jumping to conclusions seems to be commonplace. I have a sister going thru the same thing right now and she is sitting in jail wasting time and has not seen her children for a year now. All facts need to be considered in cases like this. The children are being punished for something their parents did not do.”

“Please return the 3 children to their birth parents. That is of the most benefit to the children. It is terrible to let the 3 children suffer so much with just some misunderstanding or misjudgment.”

“This is an OUTRAGE!!!”

“Valuable time has already been lost for this family. I trust that the right thing will be done and the Bayne family can be reunited.”

“Heartbreaking....give this family their lives back.”

“What has always appalled me about this case is the blatant disregard that individuals in the BC Ministry of Children have for the laws which govern their own behaviour within that Ministry. Further, the lack of action on the part of the elected officials who have learned of this disregard is very disappointing. If we do not stand with others through their trials of injustice, who will stand with us when they knock on our doors?”

“I pray for the parents to get their loved ones as soon as possible. We have been through the mess with the social workers of MCFD. I know how the family feels. With the idea to protect the children the system is against the principal international core of law which is everyone is innocent till proven guilty. With MCFD you are guilty until proven innocent.”

Tap this line & Please sign this Online Petition.
As soon as you provide your name, it is recorded.
When the Donation page appears, EXIT the program. DO NOT DONATE to the Baynes on this site since as it clearly states, donations here go to the site designers.

We want 1,000 signatures by Christmas.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 42 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Mind Your Mouth
Every parent to whom I have spoken since I began my journal Bayne Campaign for Justice has said that if their children were taken by the Ministry of Children and Family Development or Children’s Aid Society or something comparable, they would be camping night and day in front of the Premier’s or Minister’s office or home and otherwise making their case known. That is the predictable, even expected desperation response of good parents who are having their families and lives not just interrupted but ruptured. Anger spills over almost immediately and it may win over sympathetic friends but apparently it works against parents as far as the courts are concerned. Isolated parents feel helpless and do not know which way to turn.

Consider this. The advice of solicitors and lawyers experienced with the court in cases of parents against MCFD or CAS or anything comparable is MIND YOUR MOUTH.

I came upon the website for Pearce, Ducharme and Associates, a Windsor based law firm, that has assisted parents in Children’s Aid cases for over 30 years. These lawyers have acted in courts throughout Essex, Lambton and Kent Counties.

The website begins with FIGHT CAS, meaning Children’s Aid Society – Get your Kids Back!
Then upon scrolling down, the site provides pages of practical counsel for parents who are being investigated by CAS or whose children have been removed by CAS. Granted CAS is an Ontario private organizaton as opposed to the MCFD government operated program yet the advice offered at the site is transferable to any province in Canada because of its practicality and the universality of the comprehensive power of child protection services within our country.

Sign this Petition. The donation page that appears is for the site designers. Do not make an ONLINE BAYNE CAMPAIGN DONATION at this petition site. Once you sign, exit the site. Your signature will still appear.