ALBERTA RESPECTS CHILD IN CARE TIMELINES MORE THAN B.C.

An advocate named Papa InBC speaks out for children and parents whose lives have been turned upside down and inside out by the Ministry of Children in British Columbia for reasons this advocate believes are unjust. Papa InBC has replied to yesterday's blog post which I published and which was written by Ray Ferris. Papa has both a website and a Facebook page.

Here is is Papa's response.

Papa Inbc writes: I'm told Alberta respects child-in-care timelines more than B.C., and that the wait for trial is not excluded from the point a protection hearing grants interim custody based on evidence and testimony.

This would appear to indicate that what MCFD in B.C. is doing is unconstitutional for both parents and children affected, which flies in the face of what is in the best interest of children.

In support of Ray's suggestion, I suggest a class-action lawsuit be initiated on two points, first, non-emergency no-warrant removal, and second, "interim" custody that exceeds the time lines in the current CFCSA Act.

Yes it's Official! It is Three Months. Temporary Care Ends June 2, 2011 / 503

Written on behalf of the Bayne Family and looking forward to the day of their reunion.

Yes we have known for a couple of weeks now.

The word is official that the temporary custody order that Judge Crabtree granted to the Ministry of Children with regard to Kent, Baden and Bethany Bayne, an order which began therefore on March 2, 2011, the day the judge's ruling was released, will come to an end on June 2, 2011. That's right, three (3) months of further care for the children outside the Bayne home. The date has been quietly changed. What happens next?

An Index of My Previous Posts about Judge Crabtree's Reasons / 484

(Tomorrow I give you my version of Judge Crabtree's two-stage decision)

In a series of posts following Judge Crabtree's release of his reasons for his decision on March 2, 2011, I highlighted several aspects of that 39 page ruling. I read the 39 page document and I quoted certain sections of it but primarily interpreted its content. The series provided a fair synopsis of his thinking and decision.

For example I gave the straight up concluding facts of the decision. The judge did not accept the shaken baby syndrome premise put forward by the Ministry and he found inconsistencies in Zabeth's explanation of an accident to account for her daughter's injuries. He did not return the three children to them but he also did not grant the Ministry its applied for Continuing Care Order.
Part 464: The Judge Rules – Not Good News
Part 465: The Last Word