TODAY WAS THE DAY

Today was the day.

Poster Designed by Jean Nicol

The news became public that Amie Van Dyk, biological mom to Ayn Van Dyk was, as of today, the legal guardian and primary custodial caregiver for her daughter. There are no continuing supervision requirements involved. At Amie’s request, Ayn will remain with the present foster caregivers for the next two weeks so that she can conclude her schooling with her present class and teacher. During those two weeks Ayn can come home for the weekends. Both of these parents, Amie and Derek Hoare,  share a mutual respect that allowed them to say that Ayn coming home was of paramount importance, and if she could not be returned to one, then each wanted the other to be that guardian. From that expression it can be assumed that Derek will now once again be able to enjoy the company of his daughter as well, and this youngest of three children will be able to spend time with her two brothers who live with dad.

Needless to say, this is a happy, happy day.  The family is ecstatic. And remarkably there are over 3,000 Facebookers who tied onto Ayn’s case and her page and have been eagerly longing for this day. Whoever we are, it is impossible not be the teeniest bit emotional about this. Three years of separation is a very long time, too long.

MCFD did the right thing on this particular day. That’s all I can say about that.

4

Ayn and Mommy within the past three years

Ayn and Daddy when she was a small girl 

4 days remain for the current TCO, Temporary Court Order by which the Ministry of Children and Family Development hold Ayn Van Dyk, in foster care in her 12th year of life. She was nine years of age when she was removed from her father's custody.

THE COUNTDOWN HAS BEGUN

 Nine days until the TCO comes to its conclusion, that is, the end of the temporary care order applying to Ayn Van Dyk, daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare. Expectation is high that twelve-year-old Ayn will be returned to one of the parents, likely Amie. If that outcome is realized, one extended family will be ecstatic with a range of emotions, and a phalanx of supporters on several continents will be thrilled.

In that case I wonder what Hon. Stephanie Cadieux will think about the Ministry of Children and Family Development of which she is the Minister in charge. An individual case is customarily not a priority for a Minister but Ayn’s case will have come to her attention. It’s a unique case. It’s a distasteful case.

It’s true that Ayn’s case did not transpire during Hon. Cadieux’s watch and she came into office late in this girl’s saga but if she has apprised herself at all about the details, she will know how this story is perceived by responsible readers of facts. Ayn was taken for an apparent reason, that Derek, the sole caregiver at the time, could not manage the parental responsibility of this disruptive and unpredictable autistic child. I described it as an apparent reason, because conscientious fact-finding would have assured a diligent investigator that Derek, if not perfect, was an effective and loving parent. He was also caring for two of Ayn’s siblings, older brothers, one of whom is also autistic. That’s right. Ayn is autistic. Sizeable commitment to be sure, but Derek viewed Ayn’s behaviour as entirely predictable and her disruptions when they occurred were manageable through his conversational persuasion. He was the Ayn Whisperer.

She was at home and happy, and she was also curious, understandably so, because she was autistic, and as an autistic child sometimes does, or, any child does, she scaled the backyard fence one afternoon and explored her neighbourhood. She didn’t venture far. The RCMP found her at a nearby neighbour’s yard. Derek felt he had no option but to call for help when he couldn’t locate her. But of course, RCMP must make reports, and the Ms. Cadieux’s Ministry was called in, before it was Ms. Cadieux’s ministry, and the administrator and social workers expected Derek to voluntarily sign a release form to let them take Ayn from him. Even if this appropriation was temporary, he was opposed to it, vehemently to say the least. So MCFD affected a surreptitious seizure of the child while she was at school. This was in June of 2011.

You read that date correctly. Even if Ayn was taken so she could be examined medically, socially and psychologically, even Hon. Cadieux will have to admit that three years is an excessive examination period and I would add, an unwarranted length of time to keep the child from her family and in the care of strangers who become simulated family. It doesn’t matter how positive the foster parenting has been, the conduct of the Ministry in this case is reprehensible, inexcusable. If Hon Stephanie Cadieux wants to make a significant mark on this Ministry during the brief time she holds this portfolio, because Ministers get switched around with frequency, I recommend that she delve with determination into the reasons why there are numerous cases of children being removed and then withheld from responsible parents and grandparents for extended times, and then meet that inquiry with suitable procedures to return children speedily. Perhaps she can expedite an unraveling of the mystery of red tape so that twelve-year-old girls do not miss three years of their lives with those who love them most.

Derek and Amie do not live together. Their marriage dissolved years ago, but with mutual respect Amie supported Derek’s single parenting of all three children. There is much that I do not know, but I am assuming Amie will be thrilled to see her daughter released from government care, even if she is returned to Derek. If the judge, on the recommendation of MCFD, rules that Ayn be returned to Amie, and Amie is able and willing, as I believe she is, that may be a wise step as this young woman enters her teen years. I trust that Derek will acknowledge the wisdom of such a move. Furthermore, I trust as well that both parents will find ways of allowing these children to see each other frequently. The countdown of days has begun again.

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT AYN WILL COME HOME

Today, word has been received by Amie Van Dyk, that she should expect to have her daughter Ayn released from Ministry care into the care of the child's mother. That's Amie. This news was conveyed by the social worker assigned with Ayn's case. The social worker reportedly made the announcement with permission from the supervisor. Understandably Amie is in shock, processing her exhilaration which seems surreal at times, difficult to believe and too good to be true. It will have been three years that this child has been withheld from the custody of either parent.

TODAY & TOMORROW, HINDSIGHT AND FORESIGHT, GRIEF AND HOPE

Below I am taking you back to the first post that I wrote about Ayn and her dad Derek, dated June 25, 2011. Imagine. June 16th is when their world came crashing in. Here we are today on the eve of another Court Hearing, tomorrow April 1st.
Many scores of posts later, we are nearing three years that Ayn has been away from her family home.

June 25, 2011 Derek Hoare and his Daughter Ayn http://ronunruhgps.blogspot.ca/2011/06/derek-hoare-and-his-daughter-ayn.html#comment-form

June 28, 2011 Roadkill Interview of Derek Hoare Tonight / 556 http://ronunruhgps.blogspot.ca/2011/06/roadkill-interview-of-derek-hoare.html

June 30, 2011 CHILD WELFARE IN CANADA, IN ABBOTSFORD & THE CURRENT AYN VAN DYK CASE / 558
http://ronunruhgps.blogspot.ca/2011/06/child-welfare-in-canada-in-abbotsford.html#more

To that June 30th entry there were 27 comments from readers as the wave of support began to build. Friends had generated this Facebook page and subscribers grew into the thousands. Many people thought that this case would be resolved sensibly and short order. Others with experience with MCFD knew that these cases can drag on interminably and in a case such as this, it is not “in the best interest of the child,” regardless of how MCFD tries to justify it.

APRIL FOOL'S DAY will tell us a great deal about MCFD, The Ministry of Children and Family Development.

DEREK EXPRESSES HIMSELF ON FACEBOOK / 602

I will not presume to speak for Derek Hoare. A reliable account of his thoughts and opinions are featured in his own words in an ongoing string of remarks on a Facebook group page called ‘Help Bring Little Autistic Girl Back to her Daddy.’ Perhaps you have already found it. If not you should. I will place some of the quoted text here as samplers.

Ayn, in care and drugged, vacant look

First, let me introduce you once more. Ayn is nine years old. Two months ago she was removed from Derek’s custody and care by the Ministry of Children (MCFD). MCFD social workers unsuccessfully consulted with Derek and also asked him to sign a voluntary release document which he refused in an understandably emotional dispute. They left his house, went to the school where she was enrolled, and they apprehended her. Since then he has not seen her once. He will have to answer whether this option has been presented to him. I know that he has said he would decline this because he either knows how damaging it could be to Ayn when he must say goodbye, or perhaps Derek himself could not bear the pain.

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.

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.

THE CHILDREN ARE THE AWARD / Part 183 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Here is a revelation.

The people on both sides of this Bayne Custodial Hearing are good people.

Each time a critical remark about a Ministry employee is read or heard from a journalist, from a television news bite or a blog like this one, not only the employee but those who are close to that person take offense. They become protective. They know the individual and they feel the criticism to be groundless. They are after all, good people doing their jobs. Honest jobs. Providing care and resources to children, parents and families.

I know how it is. “How dare they criticize us for discharging our responsibilities as well as we can?” That is the mantra of insulted people.

Each time a loved one or a friend of Paul and Zabeth listen to another allegation of liability laid against them, or an assessment statement that questions their integrity, truthfulness or parental capability, we are similarly offended. We want to protect them from further injury. We want them to have their lives back. We want them to be out from under the scrutiny and control of Ministry employees because Paul and Zabeth are good people whose lives were interrupted not merely by tragedy but by the good people with good intentions who operated with misinformation.

I hear how it is. “How can the Ministry be so cruel and unfeeling?” Oh there is much more that is said by the sympathizers. It is not merely a mantra but a war cry. More is at stake on this side. It is not merely professional reputation within a Ministry but a FAMILY Survival that is at stake.

Here we have it, the Bayne Campaign for Justice pitted against the Ministry of Children - Fraser Region. How could good people come to this contentious intersection when three little children become the award for winning a Court Ruling?

Good people should engage in discussion and resolution, but if one side demands the return of children, not wrongfully seized but certainly unjustifiably retained, and the other imposes the condition of a confession of guilt to shaking one of those children, the impasse is inevitable and irrevocable. A Court Judge will have to determine which set of good people warrant the award because they are associated more fundamentally with what is true. May God have mercy on us!

TODAY AT 1:30 PM IN CHILLIWACK COURT HOUSE JUDGE CRABTREE WILL RULE ON THE BAYNE APPLICATION FOR THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF THEIR TWO BOYS.

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.

EMOTIONAL SURPRISES / Part 151 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Here is what passes unnoticed and unknown to social workers because it may not even be known to those who know Paul and Zabeth the best. These parents keep their children’s clothing and toys month after month. Who can tell whether this nightmare might be over not to far down the road. But one month becomes three, and three months becomes six months, and six months becomes one year. One year, and now some of those little boy clothes that were their eldest son’s no longer fit him but they can fit the middle child. But then, one year becomes two years, and it becomes clearer that many of the items mommy and daddy have been keeping in the children’s spaces will no longer be age appropriate or necessary. The children have grown older. And two years became two and one half years as it was this past week.

This past week Paul and Zabeth had some difficult emotional days. They have done this house cleaning before and it was time to do it once again. Paul and Zabeth had set up many items in the children’s rooms as from time to time they anticipated the children’s return. Grandparents and other friends gave clothing and equipment and toys for the children. Paul and Zabeth had purchased some of the items themselves. The rooms had to be ready with supplies and clothing. They needed to be able to demonstrate that they were ready and able to receive the children. This week Paul and Zabeth examined the children’s belongings once again. Imagine what it was like to handle things that the children never used or would not use at all. So much time has passed. The playpen, a baby’s high chair, a booster seat, diapers are all useful and in good condition but they will not be useful to the Bayne children. Those hoped for times came and went. They had to let these children’s things go – to be replaced. As is typical of them, even as Paul and Zabeth felt these emotions they took pleasure in inviting an expectant mother to take everything they could no longer keep because she was so happy to have these gifts. Of course they must keep the children’s rooms in readiness so all that is necessary for each child must be restocked and this exercise sparks some fresh hope. As always their faith remains strong that God will end this ordeal.