RAY FERRIS CLARIFIES SOME PERCEPTIONS

Ray Ferris retired from a a career with the Ministry of Children and Family Development at a time prior to the present Child, Family and Community Services Act which empowers the current Ministry of Children and Family Development. He has been openly critical of Ministry practices and case management for some time. He contributes comments here and occasionally I print his material as the primary post for the day. This is one of Ferris' posts.

Doug Christie

First one quick comment in response to one writer. Yes it is true that a letter from me was read to the court in the Bayne case. Yes, it is true that the children stayed in care for nine more months. These two were not related however. The ministry had indicated that they wanted a parental capacity assessment done before they would consider returning the Bayne children. I knew that this process could take many months and could be costly. I am just as qualified as anyone else to do such assessments. I completed a fully professional assessment in two weeks, complete with many written references and reference interviews. It was totally factual. Lawyer Doug Christie tried to file it as appropriate under section 68 of the CFCSA.

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.

Court Hearing Postponed / Part 440 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

In a follow-up comment on my same blog post of a couple of days ago, confidant, advisor and advocate to the Baynes, Ray Ferris provided an update to the scheduled court hearing regarding Josiah. Please don't misunderstand but catch Ray's sardonic turns of phrase.

Ray Ferris said... "OOPS! OOPS! OOPS! TRIPLE OOPS!

HERE IS THE VERY LATEST ON THE BAYNE CASE'

"When the MCFD rushed in to snatch the Bayne baby on Feb 10th, they locked themselves into having to go to court and file presentation papers within one week. The case was set down for hearing this morning in the Surrey court. Conspicuous by his absence was the worker who swore the affidavit. This means that he could not be questioned on it.When the Baynes got to court they found that the director had already arranged to have the matter adjourned to Feb 24. The judge refused to let the Baynes speak, so once more the system is stacked against them. The judge did say that she recommended the case should be heard by Judge Crabtree, so someone is listening to me. Now I will tell you what is really happening here. The answer is simple DAMAGE CONTROL.

You see it goes something like this. When director Bruce McNeill spent months and years trying to decide whether to follow his lawyer's advice to return the Bayne kids, he painted himself into a corner. If he backed out after all that time he would look bad. No matter because the Baynes had no more money for lawyers and would be defenceless. Then that darned Doug Christie ruined all the plans and people were saying unkind things on the Ron Unruh blog. People are so heartless you know. Then that wretched Bayne woman makes life even more complicated by getting pregnant again in the middle of the trial. Not only that it was a planned pregnancy! How could she do that to him? In defence of Mrs.Bayne, she feels that she has a lot of mother love to give and she always wanted another child. Nobody could believe that the trial would go past September and she would be delivered long after it was over.

Anyway, this left poor Bruce McNeill with a terrible dilemma.How could he possibly rant on for three years that the Baynes were totally unfit parents and then ignore this new child. He must show stern resolve and remove it at birth. If he did not, he would look weak and nobody would respect him. However, he is of course a man of profound compassion and he sought a way out for himself and the baby. If the parents would would work diligently and sincerely with his staff and allow them to help her with her pregnancy, then they might be able to agree on a parenting plan which would avoid apprehension and also demonstrate his benevolence. This might have worked fine if that dreadful man Ray Ferris had not interfered and Ron Unruh had not backed him up. He actually told Mrs. Bayne to have no contact with him (the Director) or his staff because it would put too much stress on her during her pregnancy. What a terrible thing to say and that wounded him deeply. What choice did that leave the poor fellow but to apprehend at birth?

So he summoned his trusty obedient servant Mr. Darth Humeny and said "Go to that hospital, grab the Bayne baby and do not come home without him." So Humeny jumped onto his black stallion, and galloped off to the Royal Columbian Hospital. He stormed into the nursery, spurs jingling and loudly announced that he was apprehending the Bayne child and that from now on he was Josiah's daddy."
February 17, 2011 4:14 PM

"He paused only to drop by Zabeth's room and tell her what he had done.He asked her to understand that he was only obeying orders. Oddly enough, Zabeth was not in the mood for a chat.

He next went back to the nursing station and asked how soon he could come in with a foster mother to pick up the baby. It was only then that he found out that Josiah would take at least a couple of weeks to gain the necessary weight. OOPS! DARN. If only he had thought to ask on the way in. He could have phoned the boss for instructions, but now he had announced that Josiah was in care and he could not back out. The best that he and the boss could come up with was to try to see how they could restrict access to the Baynes in the special care nursery. Obviously the best thing for Josiah was mother's milk and the medical staff favoured breast feeding. Because he was so small Baby Bayne had to drink expressed milk for a few days. Bingo!

They put a ban on expressed milk. These dangerous parents would probably poison the bottle.

They seemed to be back in control, but all hell broke loose. Facebook news travels fast. Soon the Rep for children and youth was being swamped with letters. Members of the legislature were getting an earful and so was the minister and the deputy minister. I was writing to everyone pointing out that there had been no less disruptive plan explored as requred by law. The child would be perfectly safe until Judge Crabtree ruled at the end of the month and the parents had unrestricted access to their baby and he was bonding with his mum.

Humeny that he could salvage the situation, by simply withdrawing his complaint and making up the sort of feeble excuse that they do so well.

So this morning's court was an exercise in damage control. Everybody was saying to the director that he should get out of this before he did any more damage. Of course Bruce could not risk losing face by withdrawing the complaint, so he dashed off to his trusty lawyer, pleading for rescue. The lawyer did what all lawyers do when they are in a jam. You ask for an adjournment. So they got an adjournment with no change in the status quo. No interim custody order of any sort. Legal limbo. Judge Crabtree has given himself until the end of February to announce his ruling. There are only two more working days left after the scheduled court date, so it is virtually certain that the ruling will be out by then and all will be resolved. If the ruling is against the ministry there will be a media storm and this last piece of stupidity will be buried in the waves.

If only McNeill had listened to me in mid December when I urged him to be cautious and not to move before Judge Crabtree's ruling. If only Leslie Dutoit had followed my request to her to urge prudence on her director. As the due date drew nearer, I urged them again to be prudent. This reckless action gained them nothing and only added more difficulties for the Bayne parents When the Baynes are so distressed, all their supporters are also distressed."

February 17, 2011 4:19 PM 

RISK RATIONALITIES IN CHILD PROTECTION / Part 413 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The risk paradigm significantly influences contemporary social work. Social work and risk are increasingly linked as we have seen in a case like Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the removal of their three children in October of 2007. On the one hand, risk is a factor in contemporary social policy and practice because it must be when a report is received that a child is injured and there is suspicion of abuse. On the other hand, the 'risk' concept in social work is not uniform or uncontested. There are different rationalities for risk within social work which result in differing policy responses and practices. What then is at issue is that different rationalities of risk, regard or assess a 'subject/client' differently and therefore respond in differing ways to the subject. We have heard commenters say that one team of SWs treated the client combatively and newer SW assigned to the task was understanding.

In the case of the Baynes, we have had a Director who believes that at the time of the infant daughter's injuries and diagnosis in September 2007, Paul and Zabeth were a risk to their daughter. Moreover, throughout these past three years and still today as evidenced in the most recent affidavit, the Director believes the parents are a risk to this child. They do not deserve ever to have custody of their children again. That's the essence of the Continuing Care application upon which the Judge is deliberating at this moment. So convinced is the Director about the risk that Paul and Zabeth pose to children that he directed the apprehension of the baby girl's two brothers. Those boys aged two and three in autumn 2007 are now five and six years old and have also been in care rather than at home.

Upon what was this risk based? Well no substantiated evidence exists. No evidence pointed to a criminal act by one or both of the parents. The Director moved initially to the apprehension of the couple's children because of their youngest child's injuries. Even the medical diagnosis by a hospital pediatrician was not evidence. The doctor who was part of the child protection unit of the hospital concluded that the injuries were consistent with something called shaken baby syndrome. The diagnosis is not evidence. It is a theory. It assumes that the only explanation for that set of medical findings is willful harm to the child. Because of its name, 'shaken baby,' this theory assumes more than it should. Its description correctly reveals the serious and sometimes life threatening medical condition of the child, but titling the condition this way, passes judgement on caregivers because the name itself imputes liability without verifiable proof. This has got to stop. The diagnosis is even more contestable today because so many medical and bio-mechanical professionals have been doing research and writing opinion papers that offer grounds for other explanations for the injuries that were sustained by the Bayne child. Many of these were presented to the Director first but when the CCO application was made, these facts were presented in court by the Baynes' lawyer. The Director has retained his risk persuasion because he has never accepted the Bayne explanation for their youngest child's injuries. He has never believed that they are innocent as they have insisted without cowering and with so much at stake. In his mind, they were and are and always will be a risk. Redemption is not in this MCFD team's vocabulary. For that reason as Zabeth has come almost to term with her fourth pregnancy, MCFD has made numerous overtures to discuss with the Baynes the care of the yet to be born child. It is to this that Ray Ferris' letter to Mr. McNeill spoke. A personal letter that illustrated the uncaring stress that this conduct placed upon Zabeth whom the entire local MCFD team knows is vulnerable to seriously premature deliveries. It is time that risk assessments are conducted upon MCFD managers and SWs.

What disturbs me is that another Director with different risk rationalities might have already demonstrated willingness to accept the parents' strengths as well as exercised leniency and compassion to them for the sake of the family.

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 two weeks. Stay posted.

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

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

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

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

We are all proud of our province

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

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

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

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

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

COFFEE TALK WITH MR. MCNEILL / Part 180 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

On April 22nd I wrote an OPEN LETTER to Bruce McNeill requesting him to instruct his legal counsel to withdraw the official objection to the Baynes' application to have their two sons returned to them immediately, the conclusion of the court hearing for continuing custody notwithstanding. He responded on April 27th with an expression of appreciation for my interest and concern for the Bayne family and with the explanation that it was inappropriate for him to comment to me about this matter given that it was before the Court.

An Open Letter is one which is addressed to a person but is intended for general readership and for public attention. My Open Letter was not only posted to my blog but was sent specifically to key individuals in Ministry positions and news services. I am pleased to have read it in the Chilliwack Valley Voice April 23rd. (scroll through pages to locate the piece).

I am grateful that so many people in government and MCFD positions in Vancouver, Victoria, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Chilliwack, Prince George and elsewhere consider the issues expressed on this blog with regard to Child Protection and the practices of MCFD, to be important enough to regularly read them. I am appreciative as well that you pay attention to Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their three children as they seek to be restored as a family.

This spot today is not an open letter. It is rather me talking out loud, albeit pretending that Mr. McNeill is with me at a coffee shop.

Mr. McNeill, I know that while you may want to consult with colleagues like Mr. Boon and Mr. Fitzimmons and others, you could return all three children to the Bayne parents today. It is within the purview of your authority to grant this reprieve, this mercy. You are not bound to carry through your earlier directive to Finn Jensen to obtain a Court ruling to continue Ministry care of these three children. You are not obligated to continue to rest the lives of an entire family upon the diagnosis of one respected doctor. That may be customary practice and protocol but it is not mandatory. Have you read the detailed alternate opinions by a dozen qualified professionals? That must tell you that the first diagnosis was plausible but imprecise and not fully informed. Don't let these small children suffer any more. Please don't take them away from their parents for ever. I recognize that you have a team working for you and you are involved only from a distance. I wish that for this case you would do something unusual. I wish that you would visit with Paul and Zabeth yourself, in their home. Sure it would be awkward for you and for them. You would not have to go with offers, conditions or expectations but merely to determine whether in a short visit you could know them. Why would you do that? Because you have more in common with them than many people know. Would it mean that you could know what people are like in private or what they might do in secret? Of course that would be a stretch. Yet I have a sense that once past the manifest awkwardness, you would understand this couple so well that you would reconsider all the information that has defined your decisions this far. I was a pastor as you may know, for forty years. I cannot imagine making life changing decisions with regard to someone else's family without personally spending time with them. You would conclude that they are not adversaries at all but rather a brother and sister. The circumstances create this atmosphere of opposition. Thanks for meeting me for coffee.

CONTENDING FOR A CLIENT LIKE THIS / Part 176

And his client? Who is Finn Jensen’s client? ------------ The Ministry!

Well it is not so generic as the Ministry of Children and Family Development but is specifically the MCFD Fraser Regional team to the director of which I wrote an Open Letter this past Thursday. Perhaps you read that. I appealed to him to instruct his lawyer to come to court this coming Thursday the 29th, and to tell the Judge that the Ministry has chosen not to contest the application. This is the appropriate and right action.

By the way, yesterday's post was not up for very long so if you missed it, you should scroll back to read about Mr. Jensen's dilemma and some readers comments.

Mr. Bruce McNeill is a seasoned leader within this realm of social work and he has become aware of a lot of poverty, abuse, dishonesty and vindictiveness within homes and families. He has been authorized to lead his team to protect children in his geographical region. Under his watch the Baynes have experienced from this team unremitting resistance, accusation and determination to end their family? The Bayne file in the regional office must be tight with pages of condemnation. It is a file that points fingers of blame at Paul and Zabeth Bayne. It is a finger pointing file. As it has developed no one was aware how decidedly the fingers have pointed back at MCFD. Social Worker Loren Humeny wrote the most recent risk assessment of the Baynes. I heard his testimony in court some weeks ago. He was asked why one page of the report was left blank. We learned that according to the template, that page customarily contains positive remarks about the subject(s). When questioned why he couldn’t state one positive or redeeming quality about the Baynes I heard him say he didn’t know these people. However, under cross-examination he admitted meeting with the Baynes many times. I am sure some of those meetings were not ideal or friendly - perhaps even forgettable. The Baynes were not so concerned with whether Humeny liked them as much as they were concerned to obtain some answers about the care of their children. Guess what! These are stellar parents whose children have been taken because mom and dad have been wrongly impugned with liability for a crime for which RCMP said there is no evidence but only a medical insinuation based on questionable diagnostics. They are diligent in their campaign to recover their children. Yes they write letters and do research and acquire sympathizers and supporters. Yes, they love their children more than their own lives. Sure they are vocal. Why not praise them for dedication to a cause that matters? Give them something. Why not acknowledge that these two parents are deeply committed to their children and attend every visitation opportunity and anxiously ask for more time. That could have been in the assessment. What’s wrong with this social working team? Are they only interested in the contest? This has nothing to do with protecting children any longer. This is gamesmanship of the worst kind. A blank page speaks volumes about the process and the attitudes and the spirit of this so called ‘Ministry’ and informs us as to why the lawyer’s advice was ignored. Keeping the boys has nothing to do with evidence. Then what is it? You tell me.

OPEN LETTER TO BRUCE MCNEILL / Part 174

April 22, 2010

Mr. Bruce McNeill, Director of Practice, MCFD Fraser Region

Mr. McNeill,
I respectfully submit an appeal to you today on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their three children.

You are fully informed that Paul and Zabeth Bayne are presently involved in the hearing before Judge Tom Crabtree in which Mr. Finn Jensen, the Ministry of Children and Family Development counsel is seeking to obtain for you a Continuing Care Order for all three children. Mr. Jensen has nearly completed the Ministry’s presentation and now you and the Baynes are waiting for available court dates when the hearing will conclude with the Baynes’ lawyer, Mr. Doug Christie’s presentation of witness testimonies, evidence and conclude the hearing.

Most certainly Judge Crabtree understands this case. He understands that your team has held all three Bayne children in care for almost the entirety of two years and six months. He recognizes that the Ministry’s case is built upon a commitment to a disputed medical diagnosis of non accidental shaking induced injury to the youngest of the three children and that no evidence exists of injury or potential risk to the two older siblings. He is aware that no criminal charges proceeded to the Court with respect to the injuries of the youngest child. He appreciates that you have chosen to disregard your own counsel’s recommendation to return the two older children to the Baynes – a recommendation that Mr. Jensen conveyed to you because in his opinion there is no evidence to keep them and that he cannot win a case to retain them. These are reasons why even before the hearing proper has concluded; his Honour permitted Mr. Christie on behalf of the Baynes to submit to him their application for a variance of the original Interim Order of Dec 14, 2007 which placed the three children in Ministry care. The Baynes have asked the Judge for the return of the boys to their custody.

On April 29th 2010, Mr. Jensen will have opportunity in Court to express the Ministry’s objection to this application.

I knew Paul and Zabeth Bayne nine years ago when they were active in the church that I pastored. I enjoyed the privilege of officiating their wedding ceremony. I know them as deeply committed people of faith, hard working individuals, highly principled and enjoying a good reputation with hundreds of people. Their conscientious efforts to recover their family are understandable as is the significant support from friends and acquaintances who advocate for them. I myself have written daily blog posts to tell their story. This letter is posted today and copied to others.

I acknowledge your position and role within the Fraser Regional MCFD and your oversight of this highly publicized case. My sincere appeal to you today is to instruct your lawyer Mr. Jensen, to convey to Judge Crabtree on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 that the Ministry will not object to the immediate return of the two Bayne boys to Zabeth and Paul Bayne.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ron Unruh

On April 27, Mr. McNeill responded to me..

Dear Mr. Unruh
Thank you for your e-mail note.
Due to privacy concerns and the fact that this matter is before the Court it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter, but I do appreciate your interest and your concern for this family.
Yours truly, Bruce McNeill, Executive Director of Practice, Fraser Region

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 57 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Fraser Regional Office Emails

The problem with private email these days is that there is no guarantee that it will remain private. As soon as personal notes become electronic a large measure of control is relinquished. Email can be discovered and made public. Some times that is unpleasant. The disclosure in this post illustrates the suspicions and the adversarial posture of a section of the Ministry of Children and Family Development toward Paul and Zabeth Bayne as they have sought for over two years to recover three children and have refused to acknowledge a crime of abuse to their baby. It underscores to me how a Ministry loses focus and instead of improving the dialogue that will bring a family together once again, withdraws and entrenches for the contest.

Here is March 2008 correspondence between Ministry of Children officials that I found on the website of Voices of Children Alliance (VOCA). I don’t know anything about VOCA. I wasn't looking for it. It was simply there. I googled something related to the Bayne name. Anyone can do it. The officials in this mail exchange are John Fitzimmons (Community Services Manager); Bruce McNeill (Director, Integrated Practice, Fraser Regional Office; Berhe Gulbot (Team Leader for Hope/Agassiz - CF & CS Office); Loren Humeny (Social Worker, Hope and Area). The subject of their brief interaction is an expressed concern about heightened publicity around the Bayne case attributed to the many Bayne supporters/protestors who were making regular and public demand for the return of the children. The emails appear to reveal that the aforementioned people construed the genuine moral support of these friends as mere publicity in preparation for a lawsuit by the Baynes against the MCFD.

On March 26, 2008 at 2:05 PM Loren Humeny wrote to Berhe Gulbot on the subject ‘Bayne File.’

“Hello John, I am writing this e-mail to bring you up to date of this case as it seems to be going in the direction of a possible law suite against the Ministry.”

On March 27, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Berhe Gulbot wrote to John Fitzsimmons and copied to Loren Humeny about the Bayne File.

“I would like to update you regarding the Bayne case. I asked Loren to write email regarding this case. Loren's email has more details for your reading. The purpose of this update is to inform you of the continued high profile nature of this case, the potential for parents complaining to higher management or Victoria, unconfirmed reports that parents are thinking of suing the Ministry and that they are asking people to support them by attending at the Chilliwack court in the next court hearing and may be invite media.
I strongly suggest that you review the file and respond to me if you have any suggestions that we need to take action.”

And on March 27, 2008 at 11:33 AM John Fitzsimmons wrote to Bruce McNeill and copied to Berhe Gulbot and Loren Humeny on the subject: Bayne file possible future media involvement.

“I'm forwarding this to you Bruce so you are aware of this file in case there is future media attention. Berhe and Loren have spoken with me about this file on a number of occasions and the case planning has been through. “
Unfortunately, this family has been challenging to work with, there has been little in the way of an explanation for the baby's injuries, and a lot of medical evidence which indicates Shaken Baby Syndrome.
There is little that I can suggest to Loren and Berhe that they might do which they are not already doing. If you would like to discuss this further or would like some detailed information in case of any possible media involvement please let me know....thanks”
John Fitzsimmons
Community Services Manager
Mission, Fraser Cascades
#201- 7364 Home Street
Mission, B.C. V2V 3Y7
PH: (604) 820-4300
Cell:(604) 217-4194
FAX: (604) 820-4311
John.Fitzsimmons@gov.bc.ca

I plead for the MCFD regional office and personnel to return to discussion with Paul and Zabeth for the purposes of putting this family back together again. That must still be seen as the most commendable future for these children.

Hit this link and sign the petition to return the children to mommy and daddy.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 56 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

A QUESTION OF INEQUITY

Paul and Zabeth have been informed in the past that when they visit their three children on the two afternoons each week, they are not to speak to their children about the past. That’s correct. They are not permitted to talk about what it was like to be a family two years ago. They are not to remind them of home as it was before the Ministry of Children stepped into their lives in October 2007 and removed the children from all that was familiar. These two little boys have been in four foster homes in two years, yet Paul and Zabeth are not permitted to speak hope to them about the possibility of coming home to be a family again. A supervisor sits in all these family gatherings and listens, even making notes of what is observed and heard. Paul and Zabeth must be in compliance or visiting rights may be removed completely, because these children now belong to the province of British Columbia under an interim court order. Interim lasts a long time - over two years apparently!

But then, please note this inequity! The other afternoon while Zabeth and Paul visited their boys, one of them told mommy and daddy that the caregiver has told him that if the Judge rules that she can keep the children, then she promises to put them in swimming lessons. Would you consider that to be talking about the future and seeking to engender hope for a certain future outcome? I would. So apparently the same conversational restrictions are not applicable to the temporary care giver. It’s challenging for me to envision a foster caregiver wanting to kindle in a child an expectation for a result that terminates an existing family completely. This child has been told that he will be with the caregiver for a long time. How much more constructive would it be for a foster parent working for the province’s child protection and family development agency to be on assignment to encourage that child to believe that his family will come together again because that is what ‘we all want.’ ‘We’ should pertain to every member of this MCFD enterprise. ‘Restoration’ seems not to belong in the vocabulary of the MCFD officials who have managed the Bayne portfolio. On this same afternoon Paul and Zabeth were reminded that they are not allowed to speak to their children alone or out of the hearing range of a supervisor. No private conversations are permitted.

The regional MCFD should be all over this to insure the integrity of the Ministry’s mandate is not compromised. The regional MCFD office that manages the Bayne case is the Fraser Region. It will be interesting to learn whether this is acceptable MCFD practice or whether the Victoria MCFD front office conscience alarm goes off when they learn of this.