WILL THE GOVERNMENT ACT ON INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS?

Bob Plecas

Recommendations are valueless when they are ignored. Bob Plecas' independent review will contain recommendations for improvements and change for the Ministry of Children and Family Services. I have zero confidence that the recommendations will bring change within the Ministry. Plecas' work will be thorough and predictably commendable but it will have been ineffectual unless the Premier Christy Clark, and the Minister Hon. Stephanie Cadieux and preferably the Deputy Minister Mark Sieben construe the Plecas recommendations as beneficial and indispensable and determine to affect them. They must make them happen.

I KNOW YOU CAN DO THIS/ Part 350 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I know foster parents personally. Over a period of many years I have watched these foster parents that I know do a praiseworthy job of raising someone else's children. I know adoptive parents whose families have been comprised of children born to someone else yet who were integrated with such love that it was seamless. I applaud excellent foster parents and superior adoptive parents. They transform unfortunate life events into redemptive rescues and recoveries.

This blogsite is not designed to castigate or demean foster or adoptive parents and families.

I know competent social workers who dedicate themselves to effective responsible work. Knowing them has caused me to conclude that the dominant motivation for people who embark upon a career in social work is the unmistakable desire to help people with social needs. They desire and they receive training to provide a variety of resources to people with social difficulties within the target population in which they work. They have access to and they may collaborate with other social care organizations and government institutions as mediators and consultants.

We are all proud of our province

This blogsite is not designed to rebuke or humiliate social workers whether at the front line or in a supervisory role.

Listen, I could do this all day. I know as friends, doctors and lawyers and people in law enforcement and I am certain that almost everyone who enters these professions do so with laudable intentions. This blog is not designed to reprimand or offend any who spend their lives in these fields.

However, it may sometimes appear that this blog is merely a vehicle for disseminating vitriol to scar people employed in positions to which I have alluded above, because child protection activities at the heart of these daily written communications have bred such wrath and anguish, not in me personally, but in those for whom and about whom I write. Further, my thoughts provide opportunity for the wounded to respond and they do, often with words directed like a scatter gun at everyone in the fields related to their damaged lives. Everyone who is suspected of being responsible for disrupting and interfering and even ruining a family becomes a target for a verbal blast.

You see, I also know personally, people whose children should never have been held from their parents for as long a period as has been the case. I know parents who have not received from social workers a respect and compassion we would associate with their professions. I know parents who have been handled with disinterest, discourtesy and cruelty by healthcare and legal and law enforcement persons.

So you will have to excuse what appears to be an occasional outburst or an overstep of civility because YOU HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING. Ms. Polak, Ms. Du Toit, Ms. Turpel-Lafond, Mr. Campbell, Mr. de Jong, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Fitzimmons, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Gulbot, Mr. Humeny, there are parents and children who are not being heard. Attention must be paid to a countless number of parents who are powerless to recover their families because an entire ministry and legal system is charged with a mandate that can be deemed counter productive to the objectives of these disenfranchised parents. In so many of these cases, the best interests of the children is being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I am begging you to begin to listen to their heart cries. This province needs to become proactive, a trail blazer in reform of child protection policy and practice. I know that you can do this.

THIS STORY IS NEWSWORTHY / Part 301 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

The coverage by CBC of the Bayne Campaign for Justice already aired a couple of segments well over one year ago. You can be assured that when Judge Crabtree rules on this case within the next couple of months, it will be national news once again. Whichever way the ruling falls, it will be newsworthy. If, as I personally hope and as many observers believe, the ruling will restore the three small children to their biological parents, it is possible that their story will prompt not only journalistic investigation but also official investigation into Ministry of Children practice. It is now closing on three years that Paul and Zabeth Bayne's three children have been in the care of the B.C. Ministry of Children. No one alleges that Children's Hospital, medical professionals, MCFD and RCMP responded incorrectly when they were initially presented with concern that a child had been harmed by a parent or parents. There was cause for suspicion. RCMP dropped the case. MCFD has never changed its mind. For that matter neither has the doctor upon whose diagnosis the MCFD has rested its affidavit for Continuing Care of all three children.

The Ministry could have changed its mind however when numerous other medical experts disputed the original diagnosis and offered explanation for the child's injuries which are consistent with accident rather than inflicted injury, and consistent with existing conditions inherent with prematurity of birth. These opinions were not acquired by MCFD as a means of testing the accuracy of the original diagnosis. These were obtained by the Baynes who sought explanation themselves for the gravity of the injuries sustained by their child not through shaking by one of them but possibly by the accidental fall of a sibling on the child whose condition might already have been weakened by premature birth. Long ago the Baynes submitted these experts' reports to MCFD. The Ministry could have changed its mind by assessing risk based upon an unbiased but accurate appraisal of character, of history of parental performance, of attestations by hundreds of people who communicated with the Ministry on behalf of the Baynes. The Ministry could have changed its mind but instead regarded every effort by the Baynes to establish their innocence and to recover their children as further evidence of their guilt and liability.

Here are links to previous and now dated CBC stories.
1. Story: Most recently at start of hearing in January Surrey Couple Challenge Shaken Baby Allegation
2. VIDEO: Kathy Tomlinson reports: Ministry disregarded advice to return seized children (Runs 2:36)
3. Kathy Tomlinson in a 3 min 27 sec video piece entitled “Surrey parents fight for return of 3 seized children.”
4. Printed Copy - “Surrey parents fight for return of 3 seized children.” Last Updated: Thursday, March 5, 2009 | 9:40 PM PT
5. VIDEO: Surrey parents talk about their seized children (Runs 7:15)
6. April 2 2009 article - Birth parents plead for medical treatment for baby girl in foster care
7. April 3 2009 Ministry disregarded legal advice to return seized children

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 54 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

A BARRELL FULL OF SAWDUST

Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken advocate for reform of the MCFD as well as a critic of present procedure. He has not only carefully followed the injustices of the Bayne case and is assisting them in their case to recover their children, but he comments here to the Baynes on Tuesday’s Pre-Trial court proceedings. This is his note in its entirety and the bold lines are his. With Mr. Ferris' permission Zabeth forwarded this to every MLA, MP, the RCY office, Gordon Campbell, Attorney General, Mary Polak and the Prime Ministers office. They have received other mailings before as well.

"Thank you for the information on the court pretrial conference of Dec 8th.

I understand the following points. 1. The Ministry of Children and Family development, through counsel admits that there is no evidence at all of physical or emotional abuse to the boys. 2. The Ministry through counsel acknowledges that their whole case rests on the opinion of Dr. Colbourne that Bethany was shaken. 3.Thus it follows that the only relevant evidence is that which tests the validity of Dr. Colbourne's opinion.

We can also note that it is now approximately 18 months since contrary expert opinions were submitted to the Ministry for presentation to Dr. Colbourne and since they were discussing her reaction and the possibility of finding an independant expert. During that time the director has failed to produce a written response from Dr. Colbourne to the experts' reports and he has failed to produce the independant report so long under discussion.

You express perplexity that the director proposes to call so many witnesses who have no relevant evidence to give on the main contention that Bethany was shaken. You also cannot understand why they would not put on the main witness (Colborne) first. It would after all seem to be the obvious and responsible thing to put on their key witness at the start. Then if examination and cross-examination show that her evidence is not convincing, it might seem to the judge to be redundant to call other witnesses who really have no relevant evidence to give.

There is a very simple answer to this. The director's lawyer told him in January 2008 and again in July 2008 that the case was weak and unlikely to succeed with proper defense. The lawyer at that time advised the director to return the two boys as there was no evidence of risk. The director did not follow his lawyer's advice, nor did he rebut the advice. What seems to have happened is that the director was unable to make up his mind what to do and as the months slipped by in indecision his position became increasingly untenable. It became too late to return the boys without looking quite foolish. It would by this time be incongruous to ask for a temporary order. So the only way to save face was to go ahead and ask for a continuing care order. Knowing the case was weak, he hoped to bolster his slender evidence by throwing in a lot of witnesses as a show of force.

Put in the most simple and blunt terms, this case is no longer about child welfare, or the best interests of your children, but it is about saving the bureaucrats from embarrassment.

All the additional witnesses have no substantive evidence and they are a smokescreen to conceal the weakness of the case. Another way to put it would be that the barrel has been filled with sawdust to conceal the fact that only one small grain of opinion evidence is all that really lies there. This tactic is very costly. It is emotionally draining for you and your family, it prolongs the stay in care without good cause and extends the court time in such a way as to cost taxpayers like myself (and John Fitzsimmons and Andrew Robinson) a bundle.

I would imagine that after yesterday's hearing that Judge Crabtree has a very good idea what is going on and that is why he is keen to get another conference going between him and lawyers only."

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 25 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

The Absurdity of Scolding the Whole Ministry

It’s senseless to tar an entire government Ministry with the same brush. I recognize that when one is sufficiently heated, a predictable response is to direct vitriolic diatribe against the whole organization. But this approach is futile if what is desired is an opportunity for authentic engagement and understanding and eventual positive outcomes.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is comprised of individuals in roles of leadership and responsibility, the majority of whom fulfill their mandates with diligence and equity. It’s a vast operation. It has so many extended service arms reaching further away from the source of their authorization. I grant that it is a complex challenge to maintain the integrity of something as large as this government department.

The MCFD in recent years has not been without criticism and perhaps not without fault in several areas. Archived news stories called into question the judgement of some aspects of MCFD policy and practice during the past decade. Inquiries have been conducted and recommendations presented and some changes introduced.

Presently, my belief is that Premier Campbell and the Liberal government has in the past few years sought to address the weaknesses by changing personnel and restructuring.

What is required now is an immediate and conscientious retroactive glance at cases in which decisions have affected families where the evidence for those decisions in today’s light appears so questionable that if at all possible, the decision must be rescinded, cancelled, reversed. Time is of the essence when the decision involves small children, for whom the early years are so formative and life shaping, and for whom removal from parents is already an irreversible damage. This must be done for the Bayne family.

Kent, Baden and Bethany have grown two years older since they were first removed from their mommy and daddy, and while good people may have been doing their job at the hospital, in the RCMP detachment, in the local MCFD office, and among social workers, an appalling mistake was ultimately made when the children were seized and kept for insufficient reason. A diagnosis of Bethany’s condition that was never supported by anything but a personal medical opinion which may now have changed. No evidentiary presentation to justify seizure of the two boys when the MCFD’s own lawyer advised the return of the boys to their parents. A conspicuous paucity of meetings with the birth parents to apprise and disclose relevant facts. These management decisions were made in one of the local arms of this monolithic organization and of course ultimately, the outcome of this two year old disruption in one family becomes the responsibility of Mary Polak and her superior Gordon Campbell whom I am confident want to see justice done.

"Bayne Campaign for Justice Petition"
Join the growing number of people who are signing a petition to have the children returned to Paul and Zabeth. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time. Please sign your full name, even though the anonymous option is offered. The name counts.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Baynekids?e

Photo: Gordon Campbell and Clerk George McMinn at Mary Polak's MLA swearing in.
Photo: Gordon Campbell and Mary Polak at the Opening of the new Abbotsford Hospital.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part Three - the Alarming Case of BC Government’s Miscarriage of Justice.

It is difficult to define justice but reasonable people always know when justice is missing.

Justice is presently absent from the way in which the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development is handling the case of the Bayne family. Government becomes so large and predictably bureaucratic at times that even good-spirited people become mired within a complex system of protocols and legalities. Even our premier whose life is full of important decisions must courteously and vaguely promise to look into a specific case when in fact he has ministers and departments who will first filter and report and recommend and take action. I have seen him respond to this particular Bayne appeal.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne have not had their now two year old daughter living with them since she was two months old. She knows Zabeth as this loving and kind woman who visits often each week. Can you appreciate how this stabs into the heart of a mother?

Injustice is the lack of justice. At times injustice is opposition to justice. The more I learn about this case the more convinced I become that both senses are true in the Bayne case. A justice system is installed within a society like ours to insure justice is not misused, abused or neglected. Injustice simply put is manifest unfairness.

Here is the way either the already printed facts or undisclosed facts seem to me:
• MCFD seems to have contravened the Family and Community Services Act which stipulates that children under five years of age must not be kept from family for a period exceeding twelve months. It has now been two years.
• MCFD has not disclosed publicly or to the parents any conclusive evidence to warrant keeping these children from Zabeth and Paul.
• MCFD pursues an unsubstantiated allegation that Baynes have shaken their baby girl.
• MCFD certainly has no evidence that justifies holding the two boys from their parents.
• MCFD’s own legal counsel in June 2008 recommended to MCFD to send the boys home.
• MCFD’s medical professional's conclusion of baby shaking is challenged by ten prominent medical experts who have communicated with the Baynes.
• MCFD treatment of Paul and Zabeth appears to demonstrate an intention to permanently remove the Bayne children from their birth parents.
• The validity of SBS Shaken Baby Syndrome is being questioned in courts internationally.
• SBS is unproven among biomechanic specialists and pathologists as a valid scientific finding.
• Some courts are banning the use of SBS as a prosecutorial cause and are overturning previous convictions.
• It appears that without further disclosure by MCFD, there are no other grounds for MCFD to hold the Bayne children and disrupt this family any longer.
• MCFD has not publicly or to the parets acknowledged that Glutaric Aciduria may explain the child’s injury, though the suggestion was raised by a medical professonal of MCFD's choice.
• The Baynes have an avalanche of supporters speaking to their character and reliability.
• The Baynes know credible medical professionals that contradict the MCFD opinion.
• The Baynes believe that their children have been left in inappropriate care environments, exposed to television shows and movies of which Paul and Zabeth would not themselves approve, have been subjected to discipline, neglect and even abuse and while lodging concerns they have not received any responses form MCFD.
• The Baynes have been denied protocol hearings that are mandatory for such cases to listen to birth parent concerns.
• The Baynes have been afforded no opportunity in the past two years to present their case and their evidence.

Justice to be real must be more than a concept but even as a concept it speaks to that which is morally right in the realm of law, ethics, fairness.

Paul and Zabeth would hold day jobs but have now employed themselves as night janitors so they can be free in the day hours to visit their children which is the window allotted by the MCFD. They have in every way possible outside the actual daily physical care of their children demonstrated a genuine love and responsibility for their children whom they regard as gifts from God.

Our government whom we elected must be urged to do the right thing, now. Get ready to write. I will tell you how tomorrow.

April 3 2009 News Video
http://www.mediascrape.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=46203

Photo credit: CBC