HON. STEPHANIE CADIEUX and THE POISONED PORTFOLIO

*BY guest writer RAY FERRIS

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux

Being the minister for children and families has always been a poisoned portfolio, which has despoiled the budding careers of various politicians. Ministers have virtually no powers, yet they have to take all the heat for a chronically incompetent senior administration of career bureaucrats. The periodic child welfare scandals that erupt cause frantic wriggling and writhing, but no effective change.

Judge Hughes

How naive Judge Hughes was when he said that they needed to halt the turnover of Ministers and Deputy Ministers to provide stability and leadership.

DR. STEPHEN BROWN REPLACES MS. LESLIE DU TOIT / 475

Dr. Stephen Brown

The Victoria Times Colonist put it this way, “The children’s ministry also gets a long overdue management overhaul with the welcome appointment of Stephen Brown to replace former deputy minister Lesley du Toit.”

One wonders what changes the changing of the principals will have upon the MCFD. On one hand, the continual changing of key personnel every few years cannot affect the necessary transformation. On the other hand many readers will welcome this bureaucratic change.
Premier Clark explained the Ministry changes this way, "We want to have a focus on families in the government and my deputy [minister to the premier John Dyble] felt it was time for a change there." said Clark.

IT'S FEBRUARY NOW/ Part 425 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The court did communicate with the Baynes mid afternoon yesterday but of course they were out. What the Baynes learned after they returned home yesterday from their afternoon visitation with their children was this. The Baynes have told me that the Judge's decision will be ready no later than the end of February 2011.

Yes! You read that correctly. But you weren't ready for it were you? Neither were the Baynes. We were not expecting that. Disappointed is not an adequate descriptor for the way that this news impacts the Baynes and their immediate family and certainly none of their supporters. After three and one half years, this is dreadful.

Alright so let's look at this. Judge Thomas Crabtree is an intelligent and a good man. Yes I believe that. I also believe that he is a responsible man and a good judge of both character and truth as it pertains to distinguishing evidence from collateral and unsubstantiated content. We have yet to hear his decision. It is coming. I am confident that he fully understands how this delay affects Paul and Zabeth. Further, when Judge Crabtree spoke at the end of the last day in court, his proposed date for delivering a ruling was a projection rather than a firm commitment. The date of the 19^th was mentioned in his comments as an outside date and we naturally have hung on to that. Not mistakenly mind you, as verified by the court communication today on the 19th. This time the forecast carries the element of commitment. I surmise that Judge Crabtree regrets dragging this on longer yet. Therefore his message is firm as to time. (Click here and Read Ray Ferris' explanation among today's comments).

Well then, why has he given himself more time. Some of you will be quick to recite your inane conspiracy theories once again so I feel compelled to speculate too. It could be that having been newly appointed as the Chief Justice of B.C. he found that the transition and the obligations are more demanding than he anticipated. It may be that in his personal review of all of the CFCSA/Bayne case material he found that he requires more time to write exactly and precisely. Why the concentration on precision? Because his decision will reach beyond the Bayne Family reunion to speak to the way cases are being managed, people are being treated by the Child Protection network of social workers in this province. His decision will require the attention of the Ms. Du Toit, Ms. Polak and Ms. Turpel-Lafond. It has the potential for affecting the lives of countless other people.

I'll tell you what. That makes a great deal more sense than surmising some grand collusion between the judicial system and MCFD. Further, when Paul and Zabeth last evening through tears, considered the possibility that the delayed decision might help other parents eventually, they said that their pain for another month would be worthwhile if that were the outcome. That is the character that will be unmistakable to Judge Crabtree.

And if this Fraser Valley MCFD Team makes further overtures into involvement in the newborn Bayne child's life before this decision comes down, this may not only be unwise but also be career altering for some people when the press and when the Ministry in Victoria have to sort this out. I am aware of journalists clamouring to jump all over this story.

So many people were anxious to hear good news for the Baynes yesterday that there were over 2000 hits to this site in that 24 hour period. Good for you. You care. I do too.

SOCIAL WORKER TOOLKIT SHOULD INCLUDE HUMILITY AND INQUIRY / Part 416 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If Victoria's head office of the Ministry of Children and Family Development truly wants to transform the Ministry as Leslie du Toit has projected, she must understand where her current transformation proposal breaks down. She too must work within the parameters of the CFCSA (Child and Family Community Services Act) or at least with those constants in mind. We have already heard from some of you what a horrid piece of work the CFCSA is. It is in the application of the content of the Act by Directors, Administrators, Team Leaders and finally by social workers that the ugliness of its provisions become reality. The Act has developed among MCFD an attitude that can best be described as follows.

I have been learning that what characterizes the work of so many social workers is a paternalistic presumption. They are professionals and they convey to parents and others that they are the experts with regard to situations in which parents and children find themselves. These professionals are the ones who know what the solutions are to family problems. The great debacle occurs for parents because MCFD caseworkers who are insuring the protection of a child are driven by the too frequent almost default solution of removal of the child even if temporarily. Nothing like taking one's child away to make him or her shape up, make changes, get better. Of course, nothing like taking the child, to mess up a child for a good long while, if not forever. Now granted, directors and social workers are under pressure to insure no mistakes are made, that is, a child left in a vulnerable or risky place. So with that imperative the social worker instinctively assumes a professional certitude. They can't be wrong. They become dismissive of other viewpoints, opinions, perspectives whether from family members or other professionals.

What du Toit and Polak must see for true transformation to be realized, is that social work in BC needs a good dose of Mother Teresa poured over the presumptive heads of MCFD SW’s. I believe newly trained social workers come with that anointing. Please don't lose it. Don't let the system smother the altruism to which you committed yourself. Please, please restore to acceptable social work practice the attitudes and spirit that can admit to being wrong, can with openness and vulnerability present to family members and other professionals all of your actions, assessments and authority. Be willing to dialogue. Maintain a spirit of inquiry. Please include humility among your tools. You will be so much more effective. You will make fewer mistakes and you will give families help and hope.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within the next seven days. Stay posted.

OPTIMUM POSITION/ Part 399 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you stand too close to a painting, you see only the broad brush strokes of colour.

If you stand too far back you are unable to see the details.

But at that optimum position you can see enough detail that the composition evokes a Wow!

'Mary's Eyes' closeup

The Director and his team all the way to the social workers who are in regular contact with Paul and Zabeth Bayne are too close to the painting of the Bayne family ordeal and they see only the heavy impaso of the Baynes refusal to acknowledge responsibility for their youngest child's injuries three years ago. They see only the thick application of public exposure. They see their own Ministry overtures as fair and generous and considerate and they view the Baynes as uncooperative. They are so close that they cannot see the nuances of the changing brush strokes over the past three years. They see the Baynes determination, and unwillingness to acquiesce to Ministry pressures.

Mary Polak, Leslie du Toit and all of the associates in Victoria are standing too far away to see the details. They cannot see that the portrait is really not one canvas but a diptych, two canvasses side by side, one showing the distress of a family separated and the other showing the joy at being together. The Victoria viewers have no appreciation for the pathos and expression of this family portrait. They cannot see the pain on the faces or the tears on the cheeks. Nor can they see pleasure on the faces of parents holding their children and happiness on the countenances of the children as they play with one another among the familiar items of home. Nor does Victoria care. And the crew in Victoria stand too far away to see the mistakes that have been making in creating the A side of the diptych while preventing the B side from being realized.

'Mary's Eyes' by Ron Unruh 2010

The premise for the creation of the position of Representative of Children and Youth was that an official should be charged with responsibility to stand at the optimum position in order to view family portraits like that of the Baynes. While the Bayne portrait may not be a classic it nonetheless grabs a viewers attention from across the room and with each step closer it delivers and holds the viewer's attention. We were hoping that the Representative's Office would stand at the optimum position and notice that Side A was not completed and would then conclude that Side A should never have been begun. But that is not the Representative's mandate. We were hoping that the Representative would engage with the idyllic Side B composition and offer an opinion but that is apparently not mandated either. As much as I hate to admit this, this leaves only us, the discerning public to stand at the optimum place to see both the entire composition as well as the strokes that have achieved these results. If we feel strongly about this portrait we will have to invite countless other people to examine it as well, critics, journalists, news networks, politicians, legislators.

LIZ ARMBRUSTER / Part 388 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

“In what you say of another, apply the test of  kindness, necessity and truth, and let nothing pass your lips without a two-thirds majority.”

That was one of the original thoughts by Liz Armbruster. She was a wife, mother and grandmother. She passed away suddenly and unexpectedly at age 51 on Wednesday September 29, 2009. She was much loved and she was a good thinker and she had a wonderfully-written blog In Search of the Empty Nest. http://armbruster1.blogspot.com/

Perhaps her most quoted original thought is this: “I brought children into this dark world because it needed the light that only a child can bring.”

Zabeth Bayne is bringing another child into the world. The world needs the light of this child. It will be a boy and his name has already been decided.

The way I see it, MCFD has absolutely no business being involved in this unborn child's life, or this child's life upon birth. But MCFD is seeking to do so. We have the evidences. Any attempt at involvement at the moment is harassment and if it occurs after the child is born and the other three children have been returned to the Baynes it will be nothing but vindictiveness. Even now this invasion is liable to be brought to the Representative of Children and Youth. It should not be assumed that attention will not be paid now. In fact, while this case concerning the continuing care of the three children waits for the decision of Judge Thomas Crabtree, I can say that MCFD should never have been involved with the lives of the Baynes' two sons. Those boys should never have been in government sponsored care for these past three years. Imagine Lawyer Finn Jensen arguing for his client, MCFD, to have all three children, two boys and a daughter removed permanently, when earlier in the same year he had advised his client (and it's on record) that he and MCFD could not win a case with regard to the boys because there was insufficient evidence. His client would not listen to that advice. So Jensen sallied forth to press the unwinnable case anyway. In the process he threw muck through which Judge Crabtree must mentally tramp.

MCFD's behaviour in this case, at least the local MCFD chapter has been reprehensible, vicious, deplorable, condemnable. One descriptive word will not suffice. MCFD not just locally is at fault because MCFD Victoria, the Minister's Office and the Deputy Minister's Office have been well apprised of this case and nevertheless remained detached. Or, perhaps the head honchos told the locals, “Win this thing at any cost!” Whether Victoria was silent or cheering, it has been disappointing behaviour too. It is one thing to say a comment is not permitted when the case is before the court. It is quite another response to endorse in private communication or by silence the conduct of a regional office when that conduct could destroy an innocent family and when the outcome will surely be something for which Polak and Dutoit have to answer down the road. Polak of course will be the one who faces the press. Her answers under fire have been curt and clinical. She will likely ask for a different ministry post when Falcon wins the Liberal premier candidacy. Good governance is not something that we have seen from MCFD with regard to Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their children. For the countless other families, I wish I had assurance that an NDP government would give us something better. NDP's track record with MCFD is similarly grievous. It's a dismal picture. 

Zabeth brings a child into into this dark world because it needs the light that only this child can bring.”

TURPEL-LAFOND SETS A STANDARD FOR MCFD? Part 385 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

It is the job of the Representative of Children and Youth to provide a report on the Ministry of Children and Family Development that is an independent, and objective assessment as well as a document of advice. It is a progress report. It is a report card by which to inform the Legislature as well as the MCFD itself, and it is a public report so that all of us may know whether this vital Ministry is fulfilling its mandate.

Because the establishment of the Representative's position and the hiring of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was simultaneous with the Hughes Review and Recommendations of 2006, this report is appraising the progress of MCFD in accomplishing the specific 62 recommendations resultant from the Hughes Review. I told you yesterday that she will not use the recommendations for any future measurement of MCFD because MCFD has abandoned them.

The Representative of Children and Youth considers that the MCFD has willfully disconnected from the Hughes recommendations, and in her report she is concerned that MCFD is presently positioned to make lofty promises but is showing no evidence of improved outcomes. She writes that “There is insufficient evidence of appropriate budgeting, workforce management or clarity around expectations for non-governmental service providers. All of this is compounded by recent budget pressures and new priorities on fiscal restraint.”

I have lifted the next two paragraphs directly from her report, pgs. 6-8.
That entire report can be read at this link.

“The Representative is not expecting MCFD to achieve a standard beyond reach."

There is no such thing as a perfect child welfare system. But an effective system has some essential characteristics, and these were articulated clearly in the Hughes Review. A well-functioning child welfare system meets the obligations established in legislation by:
• establishing a clear mandate
• guaranteeing children and families equitable and consistent access to core services
• establishing service expectations and standards to ensure consistency
• establishing effective structures and systems to support the services, including adequate
supervision and ongoing training
• allocating appropriate resources, including adequate and qualified staff
• achieving reasonable outcomes
• reporting on outcomes achieved at the level of the child, particularly for children at risk
• maintaining transparency in the delivery of services, and
• monitoring performance and using data to improve services.”

“These are the fundamental elements of the system that the Representative will continue to monitor in the interests of transparency and public accountability. The Representative is not confident that these components are currently in place given the level of reporting and accountability the ministry has provided.”

MCFD abandoned the Hughes' Recommendations/ Part 384 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Our BC government endorsed all of the Hughes Review recommendations. Then on Nov. 27, 2006, the Legislature appointed the first Representative for Children and Youth. Monday's report is the third report that has come from the Representative's office since Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was appointed the Representative for Children and Youth. Her charge with this report was to examine whether the government has actually been improving the system by addressing the issues raised in the Hughes Review?

Oh brother! It's what many of you have been saying for a very long time. Many of you are the ones who speak from experience. Ms. Turpel-Lafond writes and speaks from investigative research and a listening ear to you and others.

So from page three of her report she indicates that the purpose of these reports is:
• to determine what has been accomplished in repairing the system
• to compare what the Hughes Review recommended, with the reality of what has been achieved
• to look at “what is and what can be.”

In this thorough 60 page report Ms. Turpel-Lafond describes her monitoring of the progress on Hughes recommendations “looking closely to see if actual change is taking place – change that responds to the key areas identified in the Hughes Review. In other words, is government actually improving the system by addressing the issues raised in the Hughes Review?”

The Representative's report points out that Mr. Hughes himself described his review as a blueprint,“to allow for full repair of a system that has in recent times been battered on stormy seas.” It is obvious that the seas have not subsided. Back in 2006 when Hughes delivered his 62 recommendations for change, both government and opposition enthusiastically endorsed the Review viewing it for what it is, as the Representative describes it, “an incisive, accurate and thoughtful look at the challenges facing B.C.’s child welfare system, with the identification of practical, clear means to improve it.”

This next observation should speak volumes to every reader, and it should to the entire Legislature. The Representative said this third report will be the last one that she delivers with respect to measuring the progress of MCFD to comply with Hughes' recommendations because there is a very obvious movement away from those recommendations. Therefore the Representative will have to conduct future reviews based on criteria of her own selection, and that may mean paying close attention to what and how MCFD acts with the many parents who have strong allegations against the MCFD and how parents, families and children are handled.

In her own words, “A new way of assessing progress is necessary because MCFD has now moved on to using other frameworks for change. To address this reality, a new approach to measuring progress is required in order to provide the public with an independent assessment of whether B.C.’s children and youth are better served today than when Mr. Hughes tabled his report.”

MCFD JUST GOT SLAMMED/ Part 383 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Here is today's Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's 60 page report.

 GRAND SLAM, SLAM DUNK, call it what you will, the head honchos of the Ministry of Children and Family Development had it done to them. The Directors, team leaders and social workers in the various regions have earned this failing grade but the top bureaucrats own the responsibility for it. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond delivered it on Monday in Victoria. She is the Representative for Children and Youth. While she has given scathing reports in the past today was the most recent and perhaps the most stinging assessment of the province's child welfare system.

I have written blog posts for the next couple of days but these must be shelved for the moment to focus on Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's report. I cannot even wait until tomorrow. You need to engage with this now. If you didn't hear her speak during news hours today, then you will want to read this. If you are one of those who feel she is just a headline grabber, then I disagree with you. I see her as our best ally. She is seeing what we have been seeing and expressing. She has the weight of office to say it in a manner that will be heard. If she gets increasing news coverage we had better be thankful because it means that the public is going to be informed and concerned and demanding of answers. She was hired to be a watchdog and she has been growling in the past and today we heard that she has a big bark as well.

Listen to her as CBC recounts her report. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/29/bc-childrens-watchdog-report.html?ref=rss

She says that the Liberal “government has only fully implemented less than half the recommendations in the 2006 landmark report on the child welfare system by retired judge Ted Hughes.” She is “deeply disappointed with the government's progress and is particularly critical of what she sees as a lack of accountability and oversight in the child welfare system.” She said that “the changes made in public reporting have met neither the letter nor intent of the Hughes report and the information posted publicly now is less useful than in the past.” She described the government's action “as vague promises that make high-level references to the Hughes review yet offer no detailed information, and at other times outright government dismissal." She feels that the “Ministry of Children and Family Development has failed to meet the targets in its service plans, and that means troubles ahead. Difficult economics times can mean harsher realities for many of B.C.'s families.... Poverty will deepen for some, unemployment rates will climb, and previously successful families may struggle. Social services may be required more often, and community supports may disappear. Stagnant or decreasing budgets will not be able to address the need of additional children and families," she said.”

American Family Rights is the Voice of America's Families and its slogan is 'Until Every Child Comes Home.' It published this CBC story in a hurry today. Believe me, this is news around the world where similar issues exist. http://afrafrontpagenews.blogspot.com/2010/11/bc-childrens-watchdog-slams-government.html

PROUD MARY KEEPS ON BURNING/ Part 378 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

PROUD MARY KEEPS ON BURNING
Mary Polak has been treated fairly on my blog. I report what is to be reported. I have not taken unkind shots at her. Perhaps I am like one hundred other journalists who are politically polite. Not so Alex G. Tsakumis, an insider, politically savvy writer, whose blog is easily the most straight-shooting prose you will find in cyberspace. So if you want another good way to fill five minutes of every day, check out his Rebel with a Cause site.

Some days ago, when Bill Bennet was getting axed by his Liberal Caucus amigos, Alex wrote a post. Mary Polak had been tiptoeing to explain the Cultus Lake incident in which for nine days a disabled girl was stuck with her dead mother's body. Straight-shooting means that sometimes the target gets wounded or dead. Tsakumis' target was proud Mary and the article was entitled, 'Bill Bennett Booted but Mary Polak Rewarded?! Democracy in B.C. Politics–Non-Existent.'.

I have pasted the article in its entirety here because I am very concerned about the governance of our province, and particularly now as it relates to the welfare of children and their families.

“Think about this. On all the news programs and in the papers this morning, and for the last week, we are consumed with the story of a 14 year-old Down syndrome girl, who for nine days, soaked in her own urine and excrement, was trying to nurse back to life her mother’s rotting corpse.

But this is apparently of no interest to presumptive Premier Kevin Falcon, or contender Rich Coleman, or dreamer George Abbott and the deeply delusional, ‘Basi-Virk’ excuse pinch-hitter Mike DeJong. NOT ONE of them stood up in Cabinet today and demanded Children and Families Minister Mary Polak be immediately fired.

Why should Proud Mary, Gordon Campbell’s chief loyalist in caucus be fired?

Read on.

After the young girl’s two courageous brothers begged the Ministry of Children and Families to intervene two months ago and extract the girl from her alcoholic and drug addicted mother, the Ministry, in turn, left the child in a definitively at-risk position, where if she had not been discovered when she was, within two days, she too would have perished.

In subsequent interviews, Minister Polak, in what I can charitably describe as a woman suffering from the most severe case of PMS in the history of the menstrual cycle, mouth frothing with indignation, high-gloss manicured claws growing, proceeded to provide the most disgusting display of media deflection and excuse-peddling I’ve seen in years–angry, defiant and nasty. Sound familiar?

But Polak’s Campbell-fueled fib factory is rewarded with the crown for winning ‘Survivor of the Dimmest’. Not a single Cabinet member went after her for such a despicable display. Not one of them cares about the fact that Judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, MCFD watchdog, has written a letter to the Minister complaining that the incident with the Prentice family was not only NOT reported to her, but never even booked by the Ministry.

That was a week ago.

No response from Deputy Minister Lesley DuToit (a hand-picked Campbellite) or Minister Polak herself whose is content to gloriously writhe under the cover of the Campbell tartan.

She doesn’t care. She fabricates conditions upon which this near double tragedy unfurled. She takes a position most offside of an honest word.

And yet Bill Bennett is jettisoned by his Cabinet colleagues for telling the truth. Mind, if Bennett felt the throne was occupied by the wrong royal, what was he doing sitting at the round table for as long as he did?

Only in Gordon Campbell’s universe do you survive for being a rube or a charlatan. If you tell the truth, they rip the phone from your hands and send a disgraced Cabinet member to display your head on a stick.

While Mary sits, laughing…”

Clearly Alex doesn't want to sit with her to fix things. He merely thinks she and others deserve to be gone.
Post title suggested by the song Proud Mary, written by John Fogerty and made famous by Credence Clearwater Revival and by Tina Turner, and the Post theme derived from Mary Polak, Minister of Children, B.C.

THE URGENCY OF THE RULING / Part 371 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

 Judge Thomas Crabtree is an active gentleman with more than enough responsibility. He has cases pending upon which he must adjudicate and he has his new duties as Chief Justice of British Columbia. Somewhere during his work days over these next several weeks he is allocating hours to read through the 237 pages of transcript generated over the twenty-two days in court when the case between the Director of Family and Child Services and Zabeth and Paul Bayne was heard. He has himself expressed his cognizance of the urgency of this outcome for all who are involved and that means he will deliver his ruling as soon as he can. He did provide an estimated window of eight to twelve weeks. That puts us into 2011.

Paul and Zabeth outside Chilliwack Courthouse

The Director's application for a Continuing Care Order for all three of the Bayne children is the causative legal action that finally brought this family to the Provincial Court. The application should be denied. The Baynes' three children were born October 18, 2004; June 12, 2005; and August 3, 2007 respectively and they have not lived with their parents for over three years because the Director removed them and kept them. This application should be denied because the quality of its supportive evidence is deficient. That deficiency is articulated for the Judge in the Baynes' Final Submission in refutation of the Finn Jensen closing summary. It should serve to underscore the impressions his Honour himself deduced as he listened in court hour after hour. Impressions that the Baynes are not baby abusers, that circumstantially incriminating information should no longer be used to punish these parents in the name of protecting the children, that the disparity between Ministry and Bayne resources to argue this case has not resulted in a conclusive victory for MCFD.

And yes, this case is crucial. The urgency of the ruling and the outcome to which Judge Crabtree alluded, for all who are involved, is not something we have thought much about. Its importance for Paul and Zabeth is patently obvious. Each day that they wake they face yet again the reality of their loss and the Director and his cast want to see this continue as a life sentence. The urgency of the outcome for the Ministry is not customarily considered but it should be. The Director can ill afford to lose another judgement because the publicity depreciates his reputation and this case has already garnered national and local televised news coverage and it will again. Reputation is invaluable and notoriety is to be shunned. What mystifies me is the modulation from sincere conscientious concern for the safety of children to the aggressive anti-Bayne/parent commitment that characterizes the evidence put forward during this hearing. Further, Minister of Children Mary Polak doesn't want to face media questions about the case handling of one of her regional offices. It is not an enviable aspect of her job. She was already stick handling her way at a news conference yesterday with regard to the young girl left with her dead mother's body at a Cultus Lake home. Her Ministry has not been forthcoming with information about that case, at least not nearly soon enough to satisfy Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Children's and Youth Advocate who already went public with her disapproval and this week subpoena'd the information. Thanks to a reader today for supplying this Times Colonist link to Turpel-Lafond's statements.

So very much depends upon a Judge's discernment right now. 

An earlier blog post, Part 238 July 3, 2010 entitled 'The Importance of the Bayne Ruling' also spoke to the significance of the outcome but anticipated it much sooner than it will come. The delays of the court case have been lengthy. 

9 DAYS WITH MOTHER'S CORPSE / Part 366 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

CBC's photo was public info but not her name

A neighbour found the 15 year old Down's Syndrome female surviving in the Cultus Lake mobile home of her mother who had died days before. That neighbour, Lawrence Jewett, Trailer Park Manager, was quoted by the Canadian Press writer as saying, “I'm just glad we found her when we did because it could have been one hell of a lot of worse.” He and another neighbour broke into the trailer to find the girl emaciated and filthy. This was back in September.

Well yes it could have been worse and then what might the Ministry of Children and Family Development said in defence of its conduct in this matter. As it is, what does the MCFD have to say? That's actually what Children's Advocate Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond wants to know. At the end of yesterday's work day she addressed the media with some consternation. In speaking to the CBC she said, "The ministry hadn't reported it to me....Any time a child has been left alone, with a parent who has died, for a number of days, I consider that to be an injury to the child, especially when the child has special needs." The injudicious action to which she made reference was the failure of MCFD to notify her of this incident before she learned it like everyone else through the media. That's right. The perception is that this is another instance of the Ministry failing to take Ms. Turpel-Lafond's role and authority seriously enough to inform her. Was that intentional? The public is left to surmise. Whatever MCFD was thinking, the decision comes down now with double the weight. Turpel-Lafond will conduct an independent investigation and we will hear about this once more.

The fifteen year old girl was dehydrated and hungry after being alone for nine days, nine days with her mother's body on the floor, and she was compelled to fend for herself. Yet she is entirely dependent upon adult care. The girl's brother learned that paramedics deduced that his sister would also have been dead within two days.

Oh but that is only the tip of the proverbial berg. We are told that multiple complaints about the child's care are on file with MCFD, Fraser Valley Region. Have you heard of their involvement in other cases? Yes, neighbours and family members, specifically the girl's older brother had expressed concerns about the mother's deteriorating state, her depression, her addictions to alcoholism and drugs and her inability to properly care for the girl. Ms. Turpel-Lafond mentioned this in her remarks yesterday. This maternal caregiver was unable to manage any longer. It might be argued that MCFD should have intervened here but the mother threatened a lawsuit for kidnapping. The CBC online story said that government welfare funding for the family care had been cut off, and asked how this woman was going to get by? We are never satisfied with what seems the predictable response of the Ministry. Children's Minister Mary Polak while acknowledging the tragic nature of this event, said that a full review has been done and she points out that we do not have all the facts so we should not jump to conclusions and she was prevented from speaking further to the public about this case because of privacy laws. And I say that those privacy restraints were not the reason why her Ministry failed to divulge this information to the Child Advocate. Apparently here again is a point of contention between these two departments.  No, no, that was merely an oversight by Ms. Polak's department, a lapse of judgement. Please! When will Victoria start leaning on the regional leadership? We would not tend to jump to conclusions if at least the Children's Advocate had been better informed. Because listen to this...

Ms. Turpel-Lafond said that MCFD supervisory staff had instructed social workers not to intervene in this case because they had enough cases already and enough children in expensive care. Oh really? Then how does one account for the aggressive behaviour of a region to remove three children from Paul and Zabeth Bayne, parents who are more than capable of caring effectively for their children. Behaviour that forced the parents into court after waiting for three years with those children in foster care? The erosion of public confidence in  the decision making of the area MCFD continues because of what appears a breakdown of timely information and accountability.

Kurt Petrovich CBC Video Story, interview with the girl's brother

CBC Video Story  interview of the Jewetts who made the discovery

WHAT'S NEXT? / Part 344 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Other than getting it off your chests, what is the value of ranting against the MCFD?

I am asking the question because like this blog, there are numerous websites and blog sites which rail against the procedures, tactics and injustices of MCFD with regard to parents, families and children. Today I am asking myself what possible good is accomplished by airing these concerns?

I know that it is important for disenfranchised parents to have a voice somewhere, but most who take the opportunity on this blog, do so anonymously anyway.

And what is the readership of a blog like this? Well I can tell you that the majority of people scouring the internet for links related to child protection are parents whose families have been torpedoed by a government agency. So it is limited and biased readership. The majority of the comments attached to my daily posts are from people sympathetic to my advocacy of the Baynes' attempt to regain their three children.

The sites that are over the top in their expression of abhorrence and contempt for MCFD will seldom get more than a rare and random glance from any government or ministry official. My guess is that such presentations will not be taken seriously.

My blog does receive regular drop bys from people in positions of authority and influence and involvement in MCFD. Some workers related to the Bayne case check out the latest submission when it pertains to the case. But I am not kidding myself, writing here will not change anything inherent to the system and the issues themselves.

What I am noticing however, is that because I have sought to provide an honest, balanced, reasonable, informed, well written and consistent commentary, (that's enough adjectives) it garners more than fleeting interest.

But where does the concern and the interest go from here?

Some have suggested a conference. Some speak about a gathering of some kind. I am wondering what you have in mind. What is the next step that can effectively communicate to our Ministry of Children, the concerns that our citizenship have with the way child protection is conducted in our province? What organization is required?

We shouldn't even have to be doing this at the grassroots. A responsible Ministry leadership should recognize that the most constructive approach to transformation that adequately affects children and parents and families is concentrated communication with those very people affected by the present MCFD operation. Our Ministry should do far more listening. Our MCFD Minister and Deputy Minister should be conducting and paying for large scale Conferences across the province to embrace the input of damaged parents and children regardless of the vitriol that may be expressed. Establish the agenda to gain the information needed to change the existing system in ways that not only protect truly vulnerable children but spread hope heavily for all the parents who can overcome behavioural and personal issues in order to parent effectively.

Demonstrations, petitions and picketing do nothing in my estimation other than marginalize hurt people even further and classify them as a fringe element. But what is the action needed to communicate intelligently with those who do make policy and practice decisions? Come on, help us out here.

TURPEL-LAFOND: ESTEEMED BURR UNDER THE SADDLE / Part 298 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

She is a bit of a burr under the saddle of the MCFD. It doesn't need to be that way. MCFD could regard her as an advantage. Her work has potential to make MCFD better.

In November 2006, Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was appointed British Columbia's first Representative for Children and Youth. It is a five-year term and her responsibilities include; advocating for children and youth, protecting their rights and improving the system for their protection and support, particularly those who are most vulnerable. She serves all British Columbians under the age of 19, with an emphasis on young people in government care – such as those in foster homes, group homes or youth custody. These children and youth face greater challenges than those in the general population, especially related to health and education, incarceration and dependence on income assistance.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, S.J.D. (born 1963 in Norway House, Manitoba) the youngest of four girls born to a Cree father and Scottish mother on a reserve in northern Manitoba. She is a member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation. She grew up in poverty, endured harsh physical mistreatment, and was surrounded by domestic violence and alcoholism in her home—a mirror of the upbringing experienced by many of the children she now encounters.

She is a Canadian lawyer and advocate for children's rights, and a judge on leave of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. At age 35 Turpel-Lafond was the first Treaty Indian to be named to the bench in Saskatchewan. She was the Administrative Judge for Saskatoon, involved in the administration of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in relation to access to justice, judicial independence projects, technology and public outreach. She has also worked as a criminal law judge in youth and adult courts, which led her to work at developing partnerships to better serve the needs of young people in the justice system, particularly sexually exploited children and youth, and children and youth with disabilities, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

As a practicing lawyer, she appeared before all levels of Courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Turpel-Lafond has worked on land claims with the Indian Law Resource Center in Washington, D.C., and served as a key legal and constitutional adviser to aboriginal leaders. She has been touted for a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada.

By age 16, she was already at Carleton University, Ottawa, gravitating from math and science to politics, philosophy and eventually the law. Turpel-Lafond holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton University, a law degree from Osgoode Hall, a master’s degree in international law from the University of Cambridge and a doctorate of law from Harvard Law School. She also holds a certificate in the international and comparative law of human rights from the University of Strasbourg in Strasbourg, Alsace, France.
Time magazine has twice bestowed honours upon Turpel-Lafond, naming her one of the '100 Global Leaders of Tomorrow' in 1994, and in 1999 as one of the 'Top 20 Canadian Leaders for the 21st Century'.
Prior to her judicial appointment, Turpel-Lafond was a lawyer in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan and a tenured professor of law at Dalhousie University Faculty of Law. She taught law at the University of Toronto, the University of Notre Dame and other universities, and held the position of Aboriginal Scholar at the University of Saskatchewan. She has been a visiting professor at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria law schools.

As the Representative, she doesn’t work for the government. Rather, the Representative for Children and Youth is an independent office of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and does not report through a provincial ministry. Their work is based on the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child, and upholds the following values:
– Children have a right to be protected and kept safe
– Families are the best environment for raising a child
– Parents and extended family have the primary responsibility for a child
– Decisions made about a child should include their own views and input

Bio Information from her website
and from Wikipedia

HON. MARY POLAK / Part 297 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

MLA Hon. Mary Polak Langley Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister Responsible for Child Care

As recently as June 2010, Times Colonist columnist Lindsay Kines reported that the NDP was calling for Mary Polak to resign as Minister of Children and Family Development. Frankly, that is no solution to anything about which we have been writing for months. Ministers come and go with regularity as it is. This opposition attack against a Liberal Minister came as a result of the tensions between MCFD and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth. More specifically it related to the safety of children in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Turpel-Lafond's claim was that a great many of the children could be at risk within the program. Maurine Karagianis, NDP children's critic jumped on this, saying that Turpel-Lafond had provided convincing evidence that many caregivers were never background checked and some have criminal records and that one in three children might be at risk. Polak pointed out that while the program is subsumed by her ministry, these are really not children in the care of the province. They are in the care of family, some of whom require income assistance. Further, in any specific case where risk is indicated, the Ministry is quick to do assessment and respond appropriately. I found interesting the response by the B.C. Association of Social Workers who echoed Karagianis's concern over what it called Polak's “dismissive” response to the Representative's report. That was in June and of course Mary Polak did not resign in the face of that political manoeuvre nor should she have.

Political gamesmanship does not address our issues with MCFD case stories. The subject of our complaints is the decisions made within communities by MCFD Directors and social workers as they daily interpret their governing ACT.  Our focus is upon the empowerment mandated to MCFD by the ACT that creates such heartache for families which do not require such invasive intervention. Mary Polak needs to sit with troubled parents for many days and just listen. Then she needs to lead the campaign to enact true legislative changes which effectively reduce this constant criticism of MCFD by compelling accountable and compassionate child, youth and family social work. She needs to create dialogue with Turpel-Lafond so that the two agencies harmonize efforts to improve lives. She may need to stand up to some of her colleagues to say, this is the way we are going to do things. Is she up to that task? That's the question. Her credentials are weighty. Do they qualify her or signify the right stuff to truly make a difference to children and families? I sincerely hope so. Minister's don't have much time in these offices to affect great change.

(Bio Material from her site) She was re-elected to the B.C. Legislature in 2009, having represented the constituents of Langley since 2005. On June 10, 2009, Mary Polak was appointed Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister Responsible for Child Care. She serves on the Executive Council of the Government of B.C. Prior to her Cabinet post she served as the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for the Conversation on Health. Ms. Polak previously sat on the Cabinet Committee on New Relationship Coordination and the Government Caucus Committee on Social Development as well as on the Government Caucus Committee for Natural Resources and the Economy, the Select Standing Committees for Children and Youth, Education and Public Accounts, the Cabinet Committee on Agenda Development and the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act.

Prior to being elected to the Legislative Assembly, Mary Polak was director of operations for a small polling and research firm and was a trustee and former chair of the Surrey School Board. Under her leadership, Surrey became the first school district in B.C. to balance its books according to generally accepted accounting principles. She led an initiative to make Surrey the first school district in the province to publish school-by-school results for both elementary and secondary schools. Throughout her nine years in local government, Mary worked with many regional and provincial organizations. As a representative to the Lower Mainland Consortium of School Districts for Successful Settlement, she twice presented briefs to the Federal Immigration Commission. In the mid 1990s, Mary chaired the Council of British Columbia School Districts and in 2003, was elected to the board of directors of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. Mary enjoys living in Langley's Willoughby area.

THERE IS A BETTER WAY/ Part 285 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Att.Gen, Mike de Jong (Steve Bosch photo)

Vancouver Sun ran an online article written by Jonathan Fowlie for Sun July 19, 2010 and entitled it, “B.C. to revolutionize Family Relations Act, revise legal definition of 'parent'”

I particularly want you to listen to some key phrases by Attorney General Mike de Jong as he explains the rationale for the significant changes being proposed in this historic reform of a thirty year old Family Relations Act. He said, “We have family law built around a very adversarial model and we think there is a better way — when a family changes or when a relationship comes apart — there is a better way to resolve some of those issues than rushing off to court,” said de Jong. Further to this he remarked, “We will always need the court, but we do not need a system that is primarily an adversarial system.”

I grant that the Family Relations Act and the Child, Family and Community Services Act address different issues, yet the latter is written with a similar adversarial model framework. Would you support, welcome and advocate for a rewrite of the CFCSA that would deliberately move from this adversarial model which predictably pits the Ministry of Children against parents? Would you wish that our Minister of Children would come out to say about the child protection component of her Ministry, “We do not need a system that is primarily an adversarial system. There is a better way to resolve the issues than rushing off to court.”  Do you think that we need absolutely groundbreaking legislation in the area of child and family services?

I am interested in hearing you on this topic.

1. To view the proposed changes to the Family Relations Act go here: Changes
2. You can read more about the FRA story at this Vancouver Sun site: Family Relations
3. Three Parents
4. B.C. Proposes Sweeping new Changes to Family Relations law

INFORMED AND CONFOUNDED / Part 284 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

My primary purpose for the blog when I began was to expose what I believed was an injustice upon a family with whom I was acquainted, the Baynes.

The writing process required research which has been educational for me. The information has also been disturbing to me.

The unspeakable terror of being accused of harming one's own child when in fact that was untrue, and the confiscation not only of the one child to whom this harm was allegedly done, but all three of one's children was so repugnant that I could not tolerate the thought that we have a Ministry that would condone this and then keep the children for over two years without sorting it out. It is almost three years now.

What I have learned is that conjoined to the removal of children as the first line of solution to suspected abuse or neglect, is a legal establishment comprised of clever, cold-eyed lawyers who defend the actions of Ministry personnel using the files and reports compiled by social workers some of whom have abandoned integrity.

What is more troubling to me is that my acquaintances are not a unique case but merely a sample of scores more families whose lives were interrupted or forever altered in British Columbia. Then I discovered that in every province, the governments' initiatives to protect children has resulted in similar miscarriages of rights and freedoms and reputations and privacies. Further, a virtual worldwide pandemic of absurdities within the child welfare programs of nations is destroying families.

I am confounded that our own Minister of Children and Deputy Minister of Children and Ombudsman and ranking Ministry officers, when reviewing the same data to which I have access, are not themselves questioning and speaking to how Child Welfare agencies can fulfill their mandate effectively without leaving these lengthy trails of tragedy and heartache.

B.C. SUSPENDS PENILE SEX TESTS / Part 263 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Headline news Yesterday.
The CBC headline is “B.C. suspends penile sex tests on young offenders”
Warning: You may be offended by the description of a procedure in my blog today and if you think you might be offended, sign off now.
Proviso: You should not be offended but rather read on so that you can be offended by the Government of British Columbia who were responsible for allowing this procedure as yet one further evidence of the deficit in wisdom within so many departments responsible for helping Children, Youth and Families.

The test is called a penile plethysmograph, and its purpose is to assess young sex offenders and thereby to determine their risk of re-offending after treatment. In theory, that sounds reasonable. This is a male specific test because during the test a device is attached to a youth's penis. His genitals are covered with a sheet during the testing. The device is designed to measure physical sexual arousal. Theoretically the test will predict whether offenders have gained control of their deviant arousal patterns through treatment or if they have not learned how to suppress deviance and will be a strong risk for re-offending. Take into consideration we are discussing testing the libido response of adolescent males. As researchers in an adjoining room monitor the adolescent responses through one way glass, the subject is shown images of adults, youth, children and babies in various states of undress while simultaneously a story is read that describes sexual activity sometimes coercive or forced. If a stimulation effect is noted then a deduction is made that there is some form of sexual deviancy.

QUALITY RESEARCH, RIGHT? NOT! The reliability and validity of this procedure in clinical assessment have not been well established. The premise is clear enough. Show images to a youth that stimulate sexual fantasy or thought and they will accomplish precisely that. That's not research. That's natural. The fact is that the respondent male sexual response may be manifest whether the youth is deviant or not. What an inane quantum leap to assume deviancy from a natural response to titillating provocative scenes that you are responsible for placing before the subject. What a certain way to create yet another scenario of false allegation and injustice! And further, the researches themselves, jaded and experienced as they may be, experienced in life and sexual activity as they may be, may not respond to the same sexual stimuli as readily as a youth, but what if they themselves also experience some arousal on the other side of that one way glass? That aroused response would not attest to deviancy would it?

Here we go once again. The tests are conducted by Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services, part of the Ministry for Children and Family Development. (Go to the link above and explore the left column index). The psychiatric service comes under the authority of the ministry for Children and Family Services and on any given day, there are up to 1,300 B.C. youth aged 12 to 17 involved in the service, of which 75 to 125 are sex offenders. In the interest of protecting society and helping or penalizing the offenders within it, we have a ministry and professionals condoning a procedure that is inherently questionable, repugnant to many, improper even to many liberated and objective observers, then being discovered, disclosed, chided and embarrassed. Robert Holmes, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association revealed this practice this week demanded that the government intervene after it learned of the tests  (you will find a lot of reading at this BCCLA link).

When she learned this she jumped on it. Within hours of the provincial advocate for children and youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raising concerns with senior ministry officials, the government suspended the sex testing. Yesterday she announced she would conduct a review and she said, "It is extremely upsetting to me, as a children's' representative....I doubt there's a judge in B.C. who has any idea that adolescents being referred to this service (by the courts) are being shown pornographic material while having a device attached to their penis... They have assured me this testing is not happening at the moment and they will not continue this testing until my office has completed a review of the matter. … I think we're going to look very carefully at the balancing of the rights of the youth, their vulnerability, the process that was used," she said. "Is this a necessary tool? Is it valuable? I think we're really going to have to look at all of the key issues with this." Of course Mary Polak must seek to explain what on earth her Ministry is thinking so she said, "The ministry relies on the advice of medical professionals and clinical practitioners with regard to research and therapeutic intervention as it relates to the treatment of youth who have committed — and have been found guilty of — serious sexual offenses.” She also said that she takes the concerns seriously and will co-operate with the review by the Representative for Children and Youth.

Here is the actual explanation of the science behind the penile plethysmograph as presented by the Forensic Psychology Centre in Brisbane.
American Psychiatric Association, have called the test unreliable. 

And if Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond needs a lead, here's one. The Supreme Court of Canada adopted the Daubert doctrine in R. v . J.-L.J. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600, which upheld a lower court's decision to exclude testimony by a psychiatrist who had administered several tests on the accused, including a penile plethysmograph:

A level of reliability that is quite useful in therapy because it yields some information about a course of treatment is not necessarily sufficiently reliable to be used in a court of law to identify or exclude the accused as a potential perpetrator of an offence. In fact, penile plethysmography has received a mixed reception in Quebec courts: Protection de la jeunesse – 539, [1992] R.J.Q. 1144; R. c. Blondin, [1996] Q.J. No. 3605 (QL) (S.C.); L. Morin and C. Boisclair in "La preuve d'abus sexuel: allégations, déclarations et l'évaluation d'expert" (1992), 23 R.D.U.S. 27. Efforts to use penile plethysmography in the United States as proof of disposition have largely been rejected: People v. John W., 185 Cal.App.3d 801 (1986); Gentry v. State, 443 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994); United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995); State v. Spencer, 459 S.E.2d 812 (N.C. App. 1995); J. E. B. Myers et al., "Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation" (1989), 68 Neb. L. Rev. 1, at pp. 134-35; J. G. Barker and R. J. Howell, "The Plethysmograph: A Review of Recent Literature" (1992), 20 Bull. Am. Acad. of Psychiatry & L. 13.

• See also article by Pamela Fayerman, Vancouver Sun
• And if you think comments on this blog will be critical look at the almost 300 comments on CBC's page.
• Click this link or type in to Google the words, "Mary Polak + penile plethysmography," and you will get lengthy list of potential reading.
  
  

  Then on Friday the 30th we learn that one of the medical technicians who conducted the tests was charged with sexual assault this month, in a case not related to the individual's government work. Mary Polak made that revelation as she shut down the testing at least temporarily.

MEDIATION / Part 258 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

MCFD versus Baynes resumes at the Chilliwack Court House on August 8th. Isn't the word 'versus' reprehensible in the context of a family?  It is technically an inquiry rather than a trial but the terminology is merely legal correctness. It has been an inquiry to establish before a Judge the fitness or unsuitability of the Baynes as parents of the three children born to them. It is on the other hand an inquiry as to whether the Ministry of Children and Family Development have acted reasonably and justly in their handling of the case, of the children and of the relationship one should expect the MCFD to develop with the birth parents. The Baynes have contested all along that they did no violence against their infant child of six weeks, now two years and nine months old. But if they had, should it not be our expectation as citizens, that our Ministry of Children and Family Development would do all that it can possibly do to restore and repair and redeem parents, to restore family. Nothing like that has happened. MCFD’s posture toward the Baynes has been adversarial from the get go. The hard copy assessment sheets, the reports, the testimonies now in court reflect this posture.

Did it need to come to this? As taxpayers we should be able to confidently assume that it wouldn’t come to this unless birth parents were verifiably sadistic, immoral and criminal. After all, mercy and mediation are in the vocabulary of the MCFD in theory and on paper. MCFD offers a Mediation Program. This is what MCFD says about their own program.

“The Ministry of Children and Family Development and Ministry of Attorney General partnered in 1997 to establish the Child Protection Mediation Program. Where there is a disagreement between MCFD and parents or other persons concerning the safety and well-being of a child the parties can agree to use mediation to resolve issues, rather than go to court. Common issues include:
• what services the family will receive and participate in as part of a plan of care,
• the length of time the child will be in the ministry's care,
• the amount and form of access parents or others have with the child,
• the specific terms of a supervision or access order, and
• other matters relating to the care or welfare of the child.”

It further states: “The Ministry of Children and Family Development is committed to a presumption in favour of collaborative dispute resolution processes, such as mediation and family group conferencing, as a first choice for child welfare decision making rather than proceedings in Provincial Court.”

“For more information about the Child Protection Mediation Program, visit the Dispute Resolution Office website or the Ministry of Children and Family Development website.”

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BAYNE RULING / Part 238 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Without question child protection work in B.C. over the past fifteen years has become increasingly complex due to the directives within the Child, Youth and Community Services Act and the emphasis on judicial involvement and the ensuing litigation, and for that reason has become increasingly politicized and publicized. Media coverage will not diminish soon. In fact I see it being stepped up. That will surely be true if and when the Baynes case in court is decided in their favour. Look forward to the month of August 2010. The coverage will be heavier and extended if Judge Crabtree's ruling in favour of the Baynes is accompanied by a scathing indictment of the actions of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Fraser Region.

Mary Polak, Minister of MCFD whose residence and riding is in Langley is most interested to know how this case will turn out. She has been aware of the Baynes for a couple of years. She has met them. Despite all of our individual letters of support for the Baynes directed to Ms. Polak over the past many months, she cannot and has not intervened or interrupted the process of one region's handling of an individual case, specially when it is before the court. Post Bayne case however, she may feel compelled by conscience or principle or powers to begin to inquire judiciously into the child protection work of her vast Ministry portfolio because a conscientious person cannot permit this to continue.

It is becoming apparent to observers that the Baynes are merely the poster children or high profile example of a widespread ministry sink hole. There are hundreds of other children and parents who could be together now if this Ministry were geared philosophically and practically to help and to heal the behaviours and the relationships within families that allow them to survive. Many that would be together if this Ministry exercised investigative expertise and discerning compassion. Notwithstanding the cases where children are safer away from their biological homes, there are many children who do not need to be living in foster environments as commitedly good as some are. So many moms and dads who did not need to be put through ordeals that made them feel like criminals, like outcasts. So many social workers who have been sleepless because they wrestled with wanting to do more that was emotionally and instinctively helpful but instead were directed by supervisors to hard-line a custody battle at all costs.

I believe the ruling in the Bayne case is of such importance to this province, to our population, to our government, that its outcome will catalyze the future of child protection in B.C. 

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right things"                  Peter Ferdinand Drucker