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.
