BC CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS

THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

When a report is sent to Child Protection services in B.C., concerning the safety of your child, there is a flow of decisions and actions that can be charted. To describe it to you, I begin with the Investigation. That is an investigation by the Ministry of Children, and specifically a social worker who begins a file for you and/or your child and is given responsibility to examine the report information.

The Investigation may ultimately lead the social worker to one of two decisions, Protection is Required or The Case is Closed.

If the conclusion is Protection is Required, then the question Removal Required? will have either a No or Yes answer.

If the social worker concludes No (removal not required), there are two (2) possibilities.

            Parent(s) Agree with the Director to Supervision

                        Or

            The Director Requests a Supervision Order 

        If the social worker concludes Yes, (removal is required) or if parents do not agree with Director to Supervision, then it proceeds to a Presentation Hearing, where the MCFD makes its case before the Court.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    No Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Interim Supervision Order granted, Child remains with Parent(s) with provisos

                                         iii.    Interim Supervision Order but Child is Placed with Someone Else

                                         iv.    Interim Custody Order and Child is Placed in Foster Care

 

            Each of the last three (3) rulings may lead to a Protection Hearing, and MCFD makes its case before the Court. 

            The immediate First Step is a Case Conference when MCFD meets with parents. If no agreement results, then it proceeds to the Protection Hearing.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    Temporary Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Temporary Supervision Order, Child with Someone Else

                                         iii.    Temporary Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

                                         iv.    Continuing Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

A copy of this in Chart Form is available at http://www.crownpub.bc.ca 

THE WAY IT WORKS

Natural parents have full rights over their child unless mitigated by an agreement or court order to the contrary. These rights, known as parental rights are also referred to as custody or guardianship.

Occasionally a parent is unable to cope with parental responsibility and voluntarily turns a child over to the government. By law, in all jurisdictions of Canada there are child protection services, sometimes called child welfare services.  The term 'apprehension' is applied to the government intervention by which a child is removed from the natural parent(s) care, and this is affected by the extraction of all or most of the parental rights from the natural parents, through a quick confirmation by the Court. On this blog we tend to highlight the cases in which the government has taken initiative for a child protection order by which parental rights are set aside temporarily. I cannot underscore boldly enough my objection to the too frequent occurrence of temporary care that ignores court orders and time parameters.

British Columbia's legislation is entitled Child, Family and Community Service Act. In Ontario, the related legislation is the Child and Family Services Act, and, in Alberta, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The BC CFCSA is unique in that it personifies the role of the government in child protection cases by a reference to the Director who is a senior public servant in one of the five provincial regions who interestingly seldom becomes involved in individual cases and never appears in court. So in fact, 'Director' means the child protection office or social worker responsible for the file.

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.)

10% WAS ENOUGH & 90% MUST CONVINCE MS. MCNEIL / 538

( This is a mid-day edit because of clarified information)

We have known that June 2 is the concluding day of the court appointed three month temporary care order for the three oldest Bayne children. We naively thought that a court appearance immediately following June 2 might entertain the possibility of a return of these children. MCFD has numerous options to retain the children if it so chooses. Why do I speak so sardonically? Because so many parents have already related their stories. All of them helpless before the system. And then there is the Bayne Case itself.

Yesterday at a court appearance, the Ministry applied for an extension and received it. It also merged the newborn Josiah Bayne case with the case for the other three children so that all four sibling names appear on the same documentation now. Lawyer Robert Hamilton is now working for the Baynes and he managed to arrange a Case Conference in July that will be presided over by a judge who listens to both sides and acts as a mediator but does so with authority. Now we look forward to that. Meanwhile the Baynes continue to work at the programs in which they are engaged as a means by which to demonstrate their sincerity and capacity to parent safely and effectively.

Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA) / 507

His Honour rejected the SBS theory but in making his ruling he also spurned the natural judgement to return the children to their parents. Many of you have felt that this conclusion defied logic, because he ruled to continue the government care of all three children without supportive evidence. He had just thrown it out.

Okay, so make the best of it. It is ostensibly three more months of care. Zabeth and Paul must show themselves clean, concerned, cooperative, capable and they have three months in which to do that and this is precisely the type of case for which the Ministry requests a Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA). PCA's are medico-legal reports and most PCA’s do not end up in court, but result in a plan of action agreed upon by both parties yet nevertheless they are prepared with the expectation that they may be examined in a court of law.

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.

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

TERMS OF JUSTICE / Part 335 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Given our Canadian Rights and Freedoms, a miscarriage of justice within our Canadian legal and social context is essentially the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he/she did not commit. Synonymous with miscarriage of justice is the term 'wrongful conviction' which refers to conviction reached in an unfair and disputed trial. Occasionally the biased term 'travesty of justice' is applied to an offensive and deliberate miscarriage of justice

There are avenues by which to quash or overturn a wrongful conviction but these are difficult to navigate and achieve. We all agree that the most grievous cases are wrongful convictions that are not overturned for many years or before the convicted but innocent person dies by execution or natural death while incarcerated.

But here we are discussing not a criminal but a civil matter, a child protection issue, where the suspicion card is played as strategically and effectively as the evidence card. The suspicion card is an incredible card because it permits the player to proceed directly to the goal without passing GO and yet collects thousands of dollars en route. That's what has happened to date. Now however, the court case required the player to present the suspicion so convincingly that suspicion should be regarded as equivalent to evidence. Circumstantial is to be regarded as actual. What a leap! What an hypothesis! What fertile ground for ---------MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

In the case of the Baynes what we have is not a conviction at all because there have been no legal criminal charges brought against the Baynes. So, no, they have not been wrongfully convicted. Yet a penalty has been imposed already, not only upon a mom and dad who are suspected by the Ministry of Children of harming their youngest child, but also upon the three children whom we all would concur are truly innocent. October 22^nd is quickly approaching, the date that marks the removal of the children in 2007. This family has been enduring this penalty, surviving somehow, for the past almost three years.

How Mss. Polak and Dutoit cannot be concerned, or troubled, perhaps appalled, intelligibly sickened by the injustice of this aspect of their Ministry operations I fail to understand. At least be attentive to it. Forget that this case has been before the court since January. There was ample time before the actual court date for a top level intervention, some kind of compassionate involvement to second-guess and inquire into the case handling by the Fraser Valley Region of the Provincial MCFD mandate.

Let's suppose that the Judge's ruling does not move in favour of the Baynes. The children remain in provincial foster care. Let's suppose it proceeds beyond that to the adoption of the children.

Years in care can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the maturing child becoming an adolescent and an adult. In a case such as the Baynes, a CCO (Continuing Care Order) with its potential for adopting the child to new adoptive parents, the child will never have cause to believe that one or more parent did not abuse her when she was an infant. Their reputations will never have been officially untarnished. She may want nothing to do with her birth parents when she is of age to find them. Her sibling brothers may or may not be adopted with her. The sibling relationship will be effectively severed. And the boys if they remain together may always wonder why the parents with whom they could not live for three years but who visited them faithfully during those three years dropped out of sight and didn't visit any longer. And Paul and Zabeth, fifteen and twenty years from now will be moving out of middle age with hearts wounded irreparably and with lives scarred deeply because the children who were their life, have never been a part of it. 

Judge Crabtree must decide against the Continuing Care Order, forget the Last Chance Order/Temporary Care Order, or any other option that credits the MCFD with any credibility whatsoever. Allow the children to return to their parents. It is the right thing to do. It is IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN!

WHAT THIS POOR MOTHER HAS ENDURED/ Part 277 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

If Judge Crabtree's ruling grants the MCFD its Continuing Care Order, it will effectively become a wrongful conviction of Paul and Zabeth Bayne, 'guilty' of abusing their youngest child, a seven week old daughter.

What am I talking about? That's preposterous! Judge Crabtree is not going to let the State have these children. He has already seen through the Ministry veneer to the shoddy case work. He has recognized the wretched gamesmanship that motivated a CCO application to dismantle this family. He knows what is in the best interests of these children. He has seen that the shaken baby diagnosis of the Baynes' youngest child falls short of being a conclusive foundation upon which a Ministry should mount a continuing care order to take three children away from biological parents. On Tuesday he watched and listened to Dr. Patrick Barnes, in my opinion the most articulate medical expert witness to date. Barnes disputed the finality of an SBS diagnosis in this Bayne case because in his mind the 2007 studies of Baby B point to something else. Further, it is his claim that this kind of error in diagnosis is responsible for numerous miscarriages of justice in the USA and Canada.

He reported that the skeletal findings strongly indicated the presence of a metabolic or dysplastic bone condition (e.g. congenital rickets) in Baby B. Such a condition is particularly prevalent in North America and usually associated with vitamin D deficiency in pregnant and breast feeding mothers and their infants. Such bony abnormalities readily respond to vitamin D supplementation or therapy and often resolve without showing the usual evolution / healing changes of fractures (e.g. callous). Barnes made it clear that the fluid collections in the baby's brain were chronic and weeks to months old. Those findings therefore were consistent with both a trauma of a difficult birth and with the impact head trauma of an older sibling falling on the infant which is what Paul and Zabeth reported. SBS need not have been the only cause and the one on which MCFD built its case.

Tuesday afternoon and all of yesterday Doug Christie led Zabeth Bayne by questions through a painful recounting of her prematurely born children and her contacts with the Ministry of Children. Her second child, a son, was born at 25 weeks. She told how when the child came home she and Paul invited numerous services into their home to advise them about infant development, feeding, muscle toning, developmental assistance and therapies. In early weeks they took the child for medical reviews several times per week and later once each week. Six months later around February 2006 lightening struck and the Ministry became involved with them. The second child was crying relentlessly in the car. Attending to him they found that an arm hung limply and a hospital visit revealed a fracture. Both parents were questioned. Paul was asked to leave his house for two weeks. A study identified prematurity of bones in the child and Paul was permitted to resume his role at home. But MCFD had a foot inside the door of this home.

The complexities within this case history are extraordinary. The circumstances, the complications, the intersections of people and agencies, the bad fortune and the interruptions and the pressures are overwhelming for everyone involved.

The Baynes moved from townhouse in Langley to a property and home in Hope, B.C. They struck up a friendship with a husband and wife at a church which they began to attend, (a couple named in court and in the court transcript and in CBC News). This was the testimony: Within months the casual friendship declined and became strained. Why? Zabeth's testimony was that tension occurred because of business competition - both women ran music schools. Zabeth taught music for years and planned to start one in her new home. Her new friend wanted Zabeth to teach out of her music school located in the church. She would be paid $10 per hour minus $2 for use of church space. On her own Zabeth earned $40 per hour so she declined and that issued in this response from the woman. “I'm going to bury you.” Zabeth stated that under oath and it is in the court transcript. On another occasion when Zabeth and her mother and their children were shopping in Walmart, they found themselves behind this same lady. She accused Zabeth of following her and complained to the RCMP swearing out a restraining order. Nothing more came of that. This husband and wife became two of the collateral witnesses that MCFD used early in the hearing.

Zabeth was pregnant with Baby B in October 2006. Because of grave concerns about prematurity, Zabeth was given a surgical procedure that required many months until birth. This family spent little time in sunshine and had little money for supplements such as Vitamin D. Earlier Dr. Patrick Barnes pointed out that this was a significant factor in the Baby's pre-birth and post birth development. Then on Aug 3, 2007 Baby B was born at 34 weeks at 5 lbs. 3oz and spent two weeks in an incubator and was losing weight. Parents spent every day with her in hospital as Zabeth's mother took care of the boys. She came home on Aug 17th and weighed 5 lbs 1 oz. There was concern about her weight from the start. Initially she seemed normal, was sleeping and feeding every two hours. She was taken for medical weigh ins every few days. On Sept 23rd their middle son fell on Baby B. She whimpered but no marks and injuries were obvious until within hours the baby's feeding dropped off. After doing all they could to attend to this vomiting listless baby they took her to Hope Hospital on Sept 26. This began a harried series of doctors, medical opinions, treatments, hospital transfers – Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Everything that they were told to do for her, the Baynes did. At some point during this post birth frenzy, court testimony indicates that the couple mentioned above, informed MCFD that they thought the Bayne children were small for their ages, the new baby listless and that Zabeth may be suffering from Munchausen syndrome. MCFD investigated. Then after many weeks of repeated visits to doctors without resolution, on October 18th after another visit to the local hospital she was transferred to B.C. Children's Hospital. There within a short time Dr. Colborne made her diagnosis. By October 21st MCFD was involved, social workers picked up the two sons and a social worker from Vancouver picking up Baby B. There was much more but that was the start of the lengthy tale that has also been conveyed in earlier posts on this blog.

Zabeth's testimony continued Wednesday and will possibly continue today and will include cross examination by Finn Jensen. Judge Crabtree made it clear yesterday that this hearing is going to conclude on Friday. Whether or not he will rule then is unknown.

WRONGFUL CONVICTION / Part 246 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Let's be clear about what has been transpiring in Chilliwack court case File 10073 that presently sits on hold until August 9-13^th.  Judge Thomas Crabtree is hearing an application by the Ministry of Children and Family Development for a Continuing Care Order which will authorize the Director of the Fraser Region of the MCFD to permanently keep the three children of Paul and Zabeth Bayne in care until they are adopted by another family.

In order to win this ruling, MCFD is presenting a case that is nothing less than an attempt to wrongfully convict Paul and Zabeth of a criminal act. If you disagree with me, then tell me what I am missing in my appraisal. Please don't say, “the parents' guilt is missing from you assessment,” because guilt is the one thing for which neither you nor MCFD have evidence.

MCFD does not have a case because there is no proof that either Paul or Zabeth physically shook their youngest child, their infant daughter Baby B. If the contested shaken baby syndrome were an iron clad diagnosis, there would still be no evidence other than circumstantial that might implicate Paul or Zabeth. Nevertheless, in the autumn of 2007 following a frightening diagnosis by a reputable Vancouver pediatrician, MCFD was warranted to question the parents and others. The doctor notified MCFD that the baby's condition was consistent with being shaken. MCFD naturally assumed that a probable shaker was one or both parents. MCFD social workers were unconcerned when RCMP found insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge, since the social workers' responsibility was simply to assess risk, not establish guilt. Because MCFD workers did not accept the Baynes' explanation of an accidental impact collision between a toddler brother and the infant sister who lay on a blanketed section of the floor, they have remained suspicious that Paul and Zabeth had caused harm to their child. Suspicion is sufficient legal reason to remove the child for its protection. It's in the child's best interests. The assumption was also made that if the parents are a risk to one child they may be a risk to the other two children. So removing all three children was in their best interests. So goes the rationale and so went the children.

From the initial weeks of this case the MCFD Fraser Region team has maintained a discriminatory opinion about the Baynes. Its legal presentation reveals that all acquired information for the past two and one half years has been processed through a bias and interpreted as corroboration of the Baynes' untrustworthiness and unfitness to parent. The MCFD risk assessment that was entered as evidence is a premier example since the template section which allows for recording positive features or attributes about Paul and Zabeth, was noticeably blank. In the mind of the social worker writing the assessment and director who approved it, this respectable, decent, principled, serious minded, morally and ethically upright, polite and courteous couple, had nothing for which to be commended. Even the fact that Zabeth is an accomplished concert pianist didn't reap a comment as gratuitous as “she plays the piano very well.” In fact under cross examination, the social worker author of the risk assessment admitted that of the hundreds of pieces of correspondence that had been sent by friends and acquaintances over many months to affirm the Baynes as good people and good parents, he had read none.

Already convinced about parental liability, social workers failed to ask greater questions about the reliability not of the pediatrician but of the Shaken Baby assessment, the consistency of the baby's medical conditions with other causes, the credibility of the opinions of the concerned few collaterals whom they solicited, the mechanical medical reasonableness of a domestic accident between siblings, the weight of affirming testimonials by close family members and friends. AND IF THESE SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE NEITHER THE TIME, NOR THE TRAINING AND EXPERTISE TO RESEARCH SUCH MATTERS, THEY ALSO DO NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS ASSESSING RISK. Instead social workers sought to discover exculpatory connections of abuse within the extended families or of work related and medical stresses that would precipitate abusive behaviour. MCFD stretched whatever thin morsels there were into case content. Whether or not they harmed their child is of little importance when minds are already convinced that they are guilty.

MCFD lacks an evidentiary case against the Baynes. The MCFD attempts to pursue a wrongful conviction. Of course this is not a criminal case but MCFD is essentially seeking to prove that Paul and or Zabeth are criminally responsible for their baby's injuries. How could the parents otherwise be a risk to their children? MCFD must persuade the judge that founded on merely medical opinion, hearsay and suspicion but no evidence, a ruling is warranted that is tantamount to a guilty verdict against the Baynes. I don't think that they have succeeded. I pray that they have not succeeded.

Continuing Care Order (CCO) / Part 239 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

PART 1 of 2
The Ministry is seeking a Continuing Care Order (CCO) from the Judge. Conclusion of the court hearing is scheduled for August 9-13, 2010.

The Child, Youth and Community Services Act contains CCO specifics about which we should be informed as we follow the Baynes' determined toil to survive as a family. What am I saying? This is horrible that two parents in our community, in this province should be spending every waking minute of every day, not taking care of their children but rather, trying to get their children back. And even that is saying too much. They can't do much. They have to wait and wait for a few days in August when lawyers will lock horns once again. They have to wait until one man, His Honour Thomas Crabtree, yet nonetheless a man, will render a ruling that will either make them a family or break them.

For children in at-risk situations within their own family homes or with care providers, the Act becomes an instrument of deliverance. The Baynes, however represent a host of families whose futures have been interrupted by insult and abuse from outside the home. Justifiable initial investigation is one thing but this prolonged and malicious invasion while not criminal, should be regarded as contrary to law. I cannot fault readers and commentors for concluding that the Act while dressed with approved legalese is callous enough but then interpreted and practiced by the Fraser Region of MCFD as in the case of the Baynes, has become the most unfeeling device of cruelty that exists in B.C. against which there is no law or penalty. Think that's overstated? Ask your children as they get ripped from your arms on the strength of an anonymous phone call?

The court is authorized to grant continuing custody of the Bayne children to the director if it is unlikely that improvement has been made or will be made to the circumstances that led to the removal of the children, or that the parents are unable to meet the needs of these children (CFCS Act 49.5.a+b). There has never been a question that Paul and Zabeth have the capacity to provide for the needs of these three children. Husband and wife while giving up day jobs in order to be available to visit the children in day hours have nonetheless found employment at night as custodians and they maintain as always a clean and well equipped personal domicile. They are intelligent. The are well read. They have principles and values commensurate with most of us in our society. They are compassionate and helpful to others. They have friends. They have people who admire them. They are respectable and respected. The show respect to others. They say thank you. A couple of their children needed frequent medical checkups due to prematurity at birth yet these parents always cared for their children and were in no way negligent. Those were the circumstances before the removal of the children, before the 2007 accident to one child. Paul and Zabeth have never ceased demonstrating tender and loving care and concern for the children they can only see for a few hours each week. This is an industrious and diligent and focused couple. Today the status of the case is unchanged. No new evidence exists upon which MCFD can prop up its case. One doctor's diagnosis is caught in an arena of medical professional dispute. The Baynes' circumstances at the time of removal were dictated by misplaced suspicion of wrongdoing. It is high time that skeptics accept that this happens. I am confident that Justice Crabtree has discovered this.

This blog is in support of returning the children to Paul and Zabeth.

CRABTREE RULES / Part 221 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Although the hearing with regard to the Ministry application for a Continuing Care Order is still not completed, the Judge has allowed the Baynes to proceed with an application not only for increased access time with their children but for unsupervised time. You must know that the Baynes have presently interim supervised access. Yesterday, Monday June 14th, the Judge ruled on this application.

The Baynes applied for this:
1.Increase in existing access from two times a week visits at three hours a visit to three times a week at four hours a visit.
2.Visitation to be arranged at the home of Marvin and Ruth Hunt (family friends)
3.Family occasions to be together on all special occasions
4.Mr. And Mrs Baynes attendance at preschool and kindergarten activities as well as to assist at them.
5.To be informed of doctors appointments and to attend
6.Weekends unsupervised access

The Judge gave them this:
1.That access shall be increased from two times a week for three hours each to three times a week for three hours.
2.Reasonable access on special occasions
3.The parents can attend preschool and kindergarten functions in the same manner that other parents do with their children.
4.All information for doctors appointments be sent by email to the parents and if the doctors consents in advance and in writing that the parents can attend.
5.The visitation request to be at the Hunts residence and overnight unsupervised access is denied.

In brief, Judge Crabtree gave them 50% more visitation time in addition to numerous other access opportunities. He also made it clear that distinct, written communication must be provided to the Baynes by the Ministry with regard to all such access opps and it affords them greater involvement in the details of their children's wellbeing.

I view this as a significant award by a judge who is not impressed with the Ministry's legal case to take the Bayne children away from their parents once and for ever. Clearly that is my personal opinion, my read of not only the lack of Ministry evidence in the case but also my interpretation of the meaning of this ruling itself. I am confident that the Judge would have given the Baynes unsupervised access now if not for the perception and the potential challenge that such a ruling would have furnished to the Ministry that the ruling was prejudicial and therefore detrimental to the Judge's final objective ruling on the unfinished hearing. What he granted today was within his power to do, that is, to encourage the Baynes and to mess with the Director's strict control of his interim order over these children. The Judge is the one with the ultimate power and doesn't that bite! Further, the Ministry was unable to make a case to convince Judge Crabtree that the Baynes are such high risk people that they should not have more time with their children but less, much less, in fact no time at all, example: a CCO. The Ministry's affidavit to counter this application was as weak as water and further underscored that when all is said and done in August, these children are coming home. That's because a circumspect Judge deems the Baynes to be good and fit and reliable parents and it is in the children's best interests that they come home, and social workers in the system should applaud – this is not a competition.

APPLICATION WAS DENIED / Part 184 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

We are in the midst of a Continuing Custody hearing which according to Section 50 of the 'Child, Family and community Services Act' is the ruling by which the Court may make an order placing all three Bayne children in the continuing custody of a director. The director then becomes the sole guardian of the persons of those three children and the director may consent to the adoption of these children. Defending against this is a very serious even desperate endeavour.

Fifteen days of evidence and testimony by the Ministry counsel has already been conducted and transcribed. Then we went into a delay in late February and ever since we have been waiting for a new dates in which to conclude the hearing. We learned that August 9-13, 2010 have been reserved. Judge Crabtree expressed his desire to locate earlier dates if possible.

On the last day of the primary hearing on February 24th, Judge Crabtree permitted Baynes' attorney Doug Christie to present an application to have the boys returned to Paul and Zabeth under a supervision care order persuent to the terns by written document produced during the trial and marked exhibit 3. It is the mediation agreement from May 16, 2008 which the Ministry claimed was breached when Global TV ran a story. It was an unusual step in the midst of a Continuing Custody hearing. Mr. Christie provided several salient reasons for this action.

Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen had his opportunity to oppose this application on April 29th, 2010 essentially arguing that Judge Crabtree was not in a position to make a ruling on a matter of this nature at this juncture in the CC hearing. .

Yesterday, May 7th was the scheduled day for Justice Thomas Crabtree to deliver his ruling on this application for custody of the boys. I was there. Ministry personnel Berhe Gulbot and Loren Humeny were observers. Mr. Christie was listening via telephone connection. The Baynes had a few supporters present in the court room. As a matter of fact this same application for the return of the boys has been presented by the Baynes on two previous occasions, once before Judge Crabtree and another time before Judge Maltby and in both instances the application was denied. Judge Crabtree informatively provided a background of the case, time lines, key events and decisions. He then recited Doug Christie's grounds for granting this petition as well Finn Jensen's objections. Judge Crabtree demonstrated that he had studiously processed Mr. Christie's points and one by one he was compelled to decide that to issue a ruling on this application in the middle of the CC hearing would be an error in law. In making this response he was very careful about his remarks lest there be any hint of bias in one direction or the other.

The judge then permitted the Bayne's to introduce their application for increased visitation privileges. The papers were received and the matter will be heard on some time between May 25th to 28th.

Zabeth' and Paul's faith, composure and courage continues to amaze me.

For Love and For Justice / Part 131 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Continuing Care Order Before the Court in the Case of the Ministry of Children versus Paul and Zabeth Bayne to Insure that the Parents Never See their Children Again.

1. It Should be implicit that Compelling Evidence Must be Required to Separate Children from Parents
2. The Ministry Case Against the Baynes Was Founded Upon Dr. Colbourne’s Diagnosis that the Baby was Shaken and This Implies Non Accidental Injury
3. The Shaken Baby Diagnosis as Evidence is made vulnerable by Dissenting Medical Diagnostic Opinions and the Question to be ruled on by the Court of Dr. Colbourne’s Qualifications as an Expert
4. The Expert Medical Opinions by Ministry and Defence Witnesses Conflict and that Infers that the Initial Diagnosis of Non Accidental / Shaken Baby is not Compelling
5. Medical Opinion is Not Stand Alone Evidence in Child Protection Risk Assessment but Requires Other Undeniable Character, History, and Prior Behavioral Evidence.
6. The Baynes’ Personal Profiles and Proven Parenting Skills Contradict a Suspicion of Abuse
7. Instead of Being Pleased that the Baynes were Honourable Parents the Ministry Appears to Have Constructed a Case Based Upon Insinuation and Allegation.
8. The Ministry has disgraced Itself by Taking Parents to Court while Failing to Produce Compelling Evidence and Relying Upon Non Factual Unconfirmed reports

Summation: Without any compelling evidence it is apparent to all observers including the Ministry and its counsel that a continuing care order will not be granted and that the children will be returned to the parents and that the Ministry if it now acts with polite and gracious conduct toward the Baynes may be perceived well by the constituency.