FOR PARENTS: INFO & SUGGESTIONS - DO YOU NEED A LAWYER? pat 2 of 4

INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR PARENTS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Written by Ray Ferris

Part Two of Four
DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?

Do you need a lawyer?
There are both advantages and disadvantages to using a lawyer. If you are in agreement with what the protection workers are doing and you have social workers that you can trust, you probably do not need to use a lawyer. You do have a right to address the court, but you may have to insist on being heard. At least it becomes part of the record. Like any other profession, there can be a great variation from one lawyer to another. They all have different levels of experience and expertise in different fields of law. A lawyer does not have to be experienced in family court to take a case and may not be familiar with how family court operates and with important precedents. Lawyers will vary in diligence and perspicacity and in many other ways. A person with expertise in your field may be far too expensive for your budget. Legal aid lawyers may take the line of least resistance and come ill prepared. So how do you decide on a lawyer?

CASE CONFERENCING (What a Parent Needs to Know) PART ONE

On January 20, 2011 the contributor known as PAPA INBC or People Assisting Parents Association, wrote some advice for parents who occasionally find themselves called to a meeting with Ministry of Children representatives - a meeting known as a Case Conference. His piece was called A CASE CONFERENCE (What a Parent Needs to Know). Papa prepared parents for an adversarial attitude by Ministry reps. Ray Ferris, a retired employee and administrator with the Ministry has in latter years become a critic of substandard case work and oversight and a proponent of change to Child Welfare and in particular Child Protection. He has written a two-part comment that speaks to Case Conferences and the article written on the same subject by PAPA INBC.

CASE CONFERENCING (What a Parent Needs to Know)
By Ray Ferris

When one reads the preparation advice for case conferencing that is recommended by PAPA INBC, it is hard to imagine that this is preparation for some negotiating meeting with a benevolent and helpful agency, which is supposed to find every means of keeping children at home wherever possible. It is hard to imagine it will be a dialogue with an agency that is charged with looking after the best interests of children and with giving parents every help possible. No indeed, it is more like a preparation for a war, or some other violent contest.

I WILL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT / 584

We have celebrated the news that Paul and Zabeth will have their children returned to them in August, beginning with the Aug. 2nd homecoming of Josiah, the five month old boy who was removed from Zabeth four hours after he was born in February of this year. Then on August 25th the arrival of Kent, Baden and Bethany will represent the restoration of family life. That is what the case worker has promised Paul and Zabeth. He gave permission to the Baynes to inform their own children about this event and that was done last week. That was when we could cooperatively go public with this news. However, .................. forget the however, first of all ................

THE DIRECTOR’S CRITICAL ROLE / 554

The Regional Director in the Bayne Case is the final authority with respect to the work of the team of social workers assigned to this case. In 2010 he took the case to court to obtain a Continuing Care Order for three Bayne children. His position was clear. Because of the nature and extent of the injury sustained by the infant Bayne child (the Director would prefer to call it harm suffered by) and also because of the length of time that this matter has been outstanding, he wanted the children to be placed in his office’s continuing care.

As Judge Crabtree interpreted it, the Director argued that the time (in excess of three years) that these children have been in care was due to the parents’ position of innocence steadfastly maintained since the removal of the children. (That opinion is debatable. This CCO application was not presented by the Director until 2010 nor was there any court opportunity afforded to the Baynes prior to that to defend themselves against suspicion and allegation. And it may be argued, “well, that’s simply the way it is.” Then something within this system must be changed.)

MEDIATION RATHER THAN COURT / 511

Theoretically, whenever it is possible, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is expected to work with parents or caregiver/guardians rather than to take a case to court. Negotiation is the essential equipment by which MCFD is mandated to settle with parents a plan of care that is in the best interests of the children. Parents need to capitalize upon negotiation of an agreement or a ministry plan and themselves thereby avoid court. In fact, depending upon the circumstances of the case, when parents work with the Ministry, the Ministry has at times kept the child(ren) in the parent's home or at least in the home of other family members or close friends.

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?

JUDGE CRABTREE'S RULING ONLINE / 501

Thanks to a commenter who informed me that Judge Crabtree's March 2nd ruling on the Bayne Case has been posted online at the Provincial Court database website. It notes the change from 6 mo. to 3 mo of care for the three children.

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 6of 10 Contesting Jensen's Summary / 494

If you are new to this, Paul's and Zabeth's 3 children have been in court ordered foster care since Oct 22, 2007. After a 2010 court case, they were told on Mar 2, 2011 it would be another 6 months of care (now corrected to three [3] months.)

Yesterday we published points 11-14 from the transcript of Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. This is a public document, delivered on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne on November 4, 2010. This is the sixth installment in a brief series of quotations.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's Submissions and Analysis points 11-14. Today it is....
Submissions and Analysis,  ….points 15-17 beginning, "Mr. Jensen claims that the director’s medical witnesses are part of an unbiased team...This argument does not hold water."

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 5of10 Speaking to Jensen's Summation / 493

Paul and Zabeth Bayne were in court in 2010 defending against the Director of Family and Child Services application for a CCO, ongoing care of the Baynes' three children. This is the fifth installment in a brief series of quotations from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. It was presented November 4, 2010 to the Court (Judge Crabtree) on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. This is a public document. No ban was placed on court presented material.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's Submissions and Analysis points 8-10. Today it is....pts 11-14  beginning, "From the start of their experience with the Hope staff, the Baynes experienced aggressive behaviour."

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 1of10 Introduction /489

I begin today a series of posts which are quotations from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to MCFD Counsel Finn Jensen who concluded his three days of summation in October 2010. Judge Thomas Crabtree had to decide whether or not to grant the MCFD a CCO, Continuing Care Order for three children born to Paul and Zabeth Bayne. Christie's submission was delivered on the Baynes' behalf on November 4, 2010. Judge Crabtree released his final ruling on March 2, 2011. He ordered not a CCO but TCO (Temporary) for six months. In this submission Christie countered MCFD allegations and evidence.

In the introduction, Mr. Christie's remarks were these. "This has been a long and complicated case....."

JUDGE CRABTREE CONCLUSION VERBATIM / 487

This entire post is the verbatim content of the concluding portion of Judge Thomas Crabtree's Ruling on the Bayne Case, which he released March 2, 2011. It is untouched with the exception that names of parents and children have been replaced with abbreviations. My paraphrased version  of the ruling was published on Friday March 25, 2011. This is a public document, the full disclosure of which has not yet appeared on an official site.

IF IT WASN'T SBS, THEN WHAT? DON'T KNOW? PRECISELY! LET THE CHILDREN GO! / 486

Maybe this will keep you going until Monday.

The questionable convictions in Ontario in the 1980's and 90's, some of which were were based upon Shaken Baby Syndrome, and some of which were because of testimony by now-disgraced pathologist Charles Smith, render Judge Crabtree's conclusion to the Bayne questionable if not impugnable.

If the Baynes' children should not be retained in the province of British Columbia foster care system because the judge dismissed SBS as a cause for one child's injuries, then there is no reason whatsoever for them to be in care. None whatsoever.

In the middle of a circle of cows

Don't tell me there is a risk. If the law cannot say that the risk is a definite 80%, or 50% or 30% then don't speak about a probability of risk. Then for Judge Crabtree to venture a 10% risk probability is fanciful nonsense, deplorable.

STAGES 1&2 OF CRABTREE'S DECISION PROCESS / 485

Chief Justice Thomas Crabtree

(On Monday: Judge Crabtree's verbatim Conclusion)

Near the end of the 39 page 'reasons' document released March 2, 2011, Judge Crabtree renders his conclusion in two stages.

Today, I am restating for you the conclusion to which Judge Thomas Crabtree arrived. I have taken liberty here to write the Judge's remarks in the third person. Where most appropriate, I have quoted Judge Crabtree's own words.

THE BAYNE STORY IS LIKE AN ONION / 483

A story is usually a layered piece of literature, like an onion, once the peel is removed, you find one layer upon another. There are layers of meaning in the story of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their four children. Each of us seeks to get beneath the initial layers which are so familiar to us, to see what lies inside the onion of this story.

CYBER JUSTICE & JUSTICE CRABTREE / 482

For two year old Bridger who already moves with dexterity over the face of his iPad, cyberjustice will be automatic in both acceptance and practice when and if he is a lawyer or a judge. It is our present older generations that struggle with the concept.

Clearly there is socio-cultural and psycho-scientific unwillingness to change in most areas of our lives. This has been particularly true in a realm where tradition, custom, predictable patterns and dependence on regulations, symbolize the justice system. These hallmarks may not be effectively serving the justice system any longer. People have difficulty accessing justice in our system because of the excessive legal costs and the bottle-necked courts, so necessity is compelling the judicial community to utilize technology. The accelerating potential of technology will transform the courtroom. Certainly it must be a carefully studied modification because there are substantial traditions in law. Can these traditions be adapted to the digital age? The research must convincingly determine how our new technologies influence the trial process.

GIVE THEM A CHANCE AS A FAMILY! / 479

BAYNE CAMPAIGN

The Bayne family deserves a chance to live as a family. It has been apart far too long. Longer than was necessary. On March 2^nd 2011, a Court of Law overruled the Ministry of Children's foundational ground for intervention and care of three children. Judge Thomas Crabtree dismissed the shaken baby allegation, yet found no satisfactory explanation for injuries sustained in 2007 by the youngest of three children of Zabeth and Paul Bayne. Therefore a minimal level of risk was still assigned to them and the children remain in care for the specified period of six months. The case file has been transferred to the Surrey branch of MCFD with new caseworkers. Representatives of this branch and the Bayne parents have met together with a view to develop communication and to discuss action steps. It is hoped this is being conducted with a view to returning the children to the Baynes. The infant son, born February 10, 2011, who was removed four hours after birth in conjunction with the order in force at that time, is unfortunately a separate case even though integrally linked to the outcome of the earlier case. This continues to be a punishing and lengthy time for Paul and Zabeth, which at times must seem like it will never end. Remember them.

TOMORROW IS COURT DAY AGAIN / Part 448 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The court order hearing sought by the Ministry to take custody of then 14 day old Josiah, is scheduled for Thursday, February 24^th at 9:30 am at the Surrey Provincial Court. BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THE BABY FROM HOSPITAL AND PLACED HIM WITH FOSTER PARENTS. YESTERDAY WAS PAINFUL FOR THE BAYNES IN MEETING WITH PEDIATRICIAN ETC.

Daddy Paul and Josiah

The author of the supporting affidavit for the custody of Josiah is the same social worker, Loren Humeny, who has been charged with responsibility for this case for the past three and one half years. He was delegated by the Director last year to write the affidavit that reasoned for the continued care order for Josiah's three older siblings. We have an unconfirmed hint that this week Judge Crabtree who oversaw the trial will be hearing this one too. He has heard before, everything that is contained within the newest affidavit. He doesn't have to hear it again. However, if the forecasted snow doesn't stop Doug Christie, the presiding judge can expect to hear from Doug, who will unquestionably make it clear that there is no new evidence. Certainly none that pertains to Josiah.

Read my words. NO NEW EVIDENCE. Josiah will be 14 days old tomorrow. He was only seven days old last Thursday when the affidavit was scheduled to be ruled upon by another judge. It should be assumed that it was penned some hours/days before that. During that first week of the child's life there would have been little opportunity for contact between parents and child and whatever contact there was, occurred within the careful view of attendant hospital staff. There is no evidence that concerns Josiah that Mr. Humeny can present in support of this order. If in fact Judge Crabtree is presiding tomorrow, it will be most interesting to hear what he does with this order application. Will he grant the custody order based upon that affidavit information? If he does, should the MCFD assume that he will similarly rule in its favour concerning the other three children on Monday? Will he himself decide that the ruling concerning Josiah will be rolled into his ruling concerning the three children, since the supporting evidence is identical? Numerous spin-off questions come to mind, too many to cite here.

Zabeth and her new baby

On Mr. McNeill's behalf, Loren must rely upon the same supportive material used for the CCO case for the three siblings. Yes, that's correct. The 'stuff' upon which the judge is expected to rule on Thursday with respect to Josiah is the same 'stuff' upon which Judge Thomas Crabtree will rule no later than Monday, the 28^th, four days later with respect to the other three children. That's the substance of the MCFD allegation that Paul and/or Zabeth are a risk to their children. It is no surprise that the judge last week in adjourning the hearing for a week when MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen and social worker Loren Humeny did not make an appearance, said that the Josiah hearing should be heard by Judge Crabtree. And now we understand Judge Crabtree will be present. Well we hope that may be the case. Certainly no other judge would presume to rule on the same material upon which the Chief Justice of B.C. will rule days later (28th). Judge Crabtree has been deliberating for the past six months. In any case, what mysterious strategy it is to press forward with the order application for Josiah when the Chief Justice may make a landmark decision that explodes the CCO application and Shaken Baby Syndrome and MCFD practice concerning 'the Bayne Three' which will render irrelevant the affidavit concerning Josiah. The wisest course for MCFD would have been to posture for another adjournment tomorrow but instead they took the child and here we are. Perhaps Judge Crabtree will see through the legal devices and will make the Baynes and the children wait even longer for a ruling, but I doubt that. He is very sensitive to the hardship created for the Baynes by this tedious process.

Do you want to know what was going on at the hospital nursery these past few days? Do you wish to know what the hospital staff were witnessing? Josiah was doing very well. He fed well and he had regained weight to his birth weight. He responded to Zabeth's and Paul's voices, and to the sound of his daddy’s voice when he sang softly to him. Staff noticed that Zabeth and Paul were the only parents who remained all day to hold and to feed their baby boy. They saw Paul leave in order to attend to his evening work contracts. They saw two parents who enjoy every moment with their child, the way he smells, the way his tiny whimper sounds. They saw parents whose hearts rejoiced when Josiah looked up at them. And this loving care took place while the threat of his removal hung like a pall upon them. Then yesterday, someone was authorized to try fitting him into a car seat, to be ready for eventual transportation and at 2 PM Kim Tran, Surrey social worker, removed him from the hospital. This was done even though Josiah's tiny 4 pound form had to be stuffed round with filler material for him to be restrained within the car seat straps. Did you know that his ability to endure the car seat travel mode was tested, for  up to an hour and his responses monitored. Did you know that the hospital pediatrician who met with the Baynes and approved Josiah's readiness to be moved, is a colleague of Dr. Margaret Colbourne who diagnosed SBS in 2007. Don't know what if anything that indicates. It's just that the lower mainland is a virtual citadel of SBS proponents.

Oh, by the way, Judge Crabtree knows the outrageous action that took place on Thursday February 10^th. I surmise that Mr. Humeny stated in the new affidavit that the child was removed under the authority of the CFCSA because the Director had valid reason to believe the child needed protection.  That would be standard. And if as I suspect Mr. Humeny marked the box with an X that indicates that there was no less disruptive protective measure available, that could be regarded as not wholly true? The less disruptive measure was in his face on the 10th. As soon as he knew that due to Josiah's prematurity the baby had to stay in hospital for two weeks, that of itself was the less disruptive measure for protecting the child, don't you think? That is, unless Paul and Zabeth are psychopaths. Therefore when Mr. Humeny drafted the affidavit he did know that this less disruptive option of simply waiting for two weeks was available. We must conclude that the Director and the social worker were determined to hurry to seize the child, even though the latter could say, "I am only following orders." So, considering the larger MCFD entity rather than the Fraser Valley Region, it really was in MCFD's best interest to hold back on Josiah's custody order and forego tomorrow's hearing and simply wait for D-day on Monday, but again, here we are. Oh sure, because of that cute tactical manoeuvre, that is, two weeks have now passed because the MCFD team was a no-show in court, so of course, there is no less disruptive protection measure. 

As I have earlier pointed out, it won't matter whether Finn Jensen himself or a substitute counsel is present for the MCFD on Thursday, since the MCFD counsel will have to point out to Judge Crabtree or another judge,  everything that was earlier heard by Judge Crabtree over several weeks that spread over all of 2010. It is all the same. There is nothing new. I can't imagine how Judge Crabtree or another his/her honour will process this but even if the ruling concerning Josiah tomorrow is to grant MCFD the order, it may be obliterated within hours by the Crabtree decision when he rules on Monday.

SPREAD THE WORD / Part 442 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I told you yesterday in Part 439, that I am back. I have been away for three weeks. I knew that I might miss developing events at this crucial time both in Zabeth's pregnancy and in the timing for the court case ruling by Judge Crabtree. I have returned to the grim news of baby Josiah's apprehension by the regional workers of MCFD under the Director's orders. Together with you and the Baynes I await the Judge's ruling between now and the end of this month.

The Case: Paul and Zabeth Baynes three children are in the care of the Ministry of Children since October 2007.

Case Premise: MCFD posits that a doctor's diagnosis of shaken baby explains the youngest child's injuries sustained when she was several weeks old while the Baynes offered that one of their toddler son's impacted the infant in a fall while the baby was blanketed on the floor.

Case Status: Court case is completed and we are waiting Judge Thomas' ruling either to return the children to the Baynes or to grant permanent Ministry care and inevitable adoption.

Case Addition: Zabeth conceived a fourth child before the end of the court case, and MCFD waited until the infant's birth and five hours later took custody of Josiah just days ago.

Case Hearing: MCFD is required to present their latest seizure rationale to court and this is scheduled now for Feb 24^th.

While MCFD is entirely within its mandate and mission to have effected this, the action offends the sensibilities of fair-minded people. Having now returned, I intend to cover this latest development in the Bayne Family saga from numerous angles and to write frequently EACH DAY. Stay tuned, glued, to this GPS site, offer comments, take action by writing to MLA's, senior government officials, news media offices and journalists. With courtesy exhort the recipients of your messages to take an interest in this family and their plight. While many will state an ability to engage a before-the-court case, or otherwise vacate responsibility, the exposure of this case to a widening audience will benefit the Baynes and if not them, then eventually some other families. I am still hopeful that Judge Crabtree has judged the Baynes more accurately than has the MCFD Fraser Valley contingent.

A LETTER TO A FRIEND FROM A DISTRESSED MOM / Part 441 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

On Mary Ellen Kragh's Facebook page, a letter from Zabeth Bayne has been printed following the apprehension of her several hour old newborn son, Josiah. She wrote it on February 17th.

Hi There,

Just a little update from yesterday. We arrived at the nursery at 6:00 which was the earliest we could as we had visitation from our other three little ones from 10:00 to 5:00. It appears that SW arranged during a time he knew we would be out for the new foster parent to spend a couple of hours bonding with our son. We read this in the nurses notes. "Foster parent here from 11:00 to 1:00. This was arranged two days after birth - prior to any court order being approved for removal - prior to any decision being forwarded by Judge Crabtree supporting any evidence of risk.

Also in the nurses notes. SOCIAL WORKER (SW) gave me permission to breast feed for now, but no EBM (expressed breast milk).

My baby is small and needs this. He is not tolerating the formula that they have been giving him while my milk comes in. It is curdling and not digesting.

SW did this with Bethany. I was starting to breast feed her and pumping daily. I froze my milk for weeks and begged him to give it to her and he always refused. I think they may feel I might contaminate it in some way to harm my baby.

They never even arranged to have the milk tested. Yet they acknowledge we have no drug or alcohol abuse.

Also we were not given the live birth registration from the hospital that every parent gets. The Ministry must have denied us this. Are they planning on registering our baby's birth? They don't even know his full legal name. I don't understand if this is even legal.

Our hearts have been so heavy yesterday. I could not even look at our baby in my arms without crying. I came home and expressed more milk for him with tears knowing they will probably dump it. I have been scared to bond, but know that our baby needs us to continue fighting for him and his needs.

Thanks for all you have done. We would feel lost without you.

Robert Freeman of the Chilliwack Progress / Part 439 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

 Robert Freeman, journalist/reporter for the Chilliwack Progress has written a piece about this recent seizure of fiver hour old Josiah. After you read this, offer Mr. Freeman a word of appreciation at the email address he publishes.

Newborn taken from Hope couple

By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress
Published: February 16, 2011 4:00 PM
Updated: February 16, 2011 4:55 PM

A premature baby born to former Hope couple Paul and Zabeth Bayne was removed from their care by the B.C. child and family ministry last Thursday.
"We're just devastated," Zabeth Bayne said in a telephone interview from her hospital room the next day.
"It was a traumatic and cruel experience, the way it was done," she said.
Ministry officials declined comment because the case is before the courts, but in an email explained that in any child protection case, the ministry's first priority is to make sure the child is not in danger.
"If it is deemed that a child needs protection, (the ministry), through its legislation, must go before the courts within seven days," the ministry said, where a judge will decide if the child should remain in ministry care or be returned to the parents.
But to the Baynes - and to supporters who contacted The Progress - removing the baby born prematurely put his health and safety at risk and robbed him of the chance to bond with his mother.
"How is this in the best interest of the child?" supporter Rachel Kragh asked in an email. "Anyone with an inkling of a brain knows that a baby needs that bonding time with his mom, especially if he is small and earlier than most normal births."
The Baynes' baby boy weighed in at 3 lbs 15 oz when born at 6:30 a.m. Thursday.
Zabeth Bayne said she pleaded with the social worker to let the baby stay with her until he gained weight.
"But (the social worker) said he had orders from above that he had to remove the baby from us," she said.
The couple, who now live in Surrey, have been in a much-publicized court fight since 2007 with the ministry for the return of their three older children after allegations were made that they had shaken a baby daughter, causing brain injury.
The couple claimed the child was injured after an older brother, a toddler at the time, tripped and fell on top of her.
Chilliwack provincial court judge Thomas Crabtree is expected to make a ruling on the case sometime this month.
Supporters of the couple accuse the ministry with dragging out the court case because the Baynes embarrassed officials by going to the media with their story.
rfreeman@theprogress.com