WAIT A MINUTE! / Part 398 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Some of you will be upset with me for trying this.

I am asking you to try on something hypothetical. Let's just suppose for a moment that either Paul or Zabeth did actually harm their baby girl in September 2007. If a non accident injury caused the medical issues that put her life at risk three years ago, one of these parents lost control. That's what one would conclude. These parents already had two sons. Affectionate and thoughtful nurture of these boys typified the Baynes' parental pattern. The arrival of a daughter was an astounding blessing to them. When she was merely weeks old, this hypothesis would propose that mommy or daddy lost it. It could hardly be deliberate cruelty. It couldn't be abuse of that nature. That would be unmistakeably a crime, a felony. Then what else could it be if not an accident or a crime? It would have to be the unfortunate outcome of a fit of impatience or annoyance or anger. A parent would have had to hit the child's head, or knock the child's head to the floor, some appallingly awful action. And if this had been done, one parent did it and the other would somehow learn or know that truth. Both would be complicit in this injury to a child because one perpetrated it and one concealed it. These two people would have to be without consciences or with flawed ethics.

That is not the Zabeth and Paul that their family and their friends know. It is not the parental couple that Judge Thomas Crabtree watched for twenty-two days in court.

Before their release and the dropped charges, when Zabeth and Paul were arrested, the events were so shocking to her that she had a physical, emotional meltdown and had to be hospitalized. That is not a manifestation of cover-up but violent astonishment and overwhelming fear at these out of control circumstances.

Permit me to carry the conjecture further. If one parent injured the child and the other knew about it, could they both be so steel-hearted that they would endure the sustained removal of all three of their children? If in those early weeks, Zabeth knew that Paul had injured their youngest child and if she herself assessed him as a risk, and if she were told that her three children would be returned to her if Paul did not have access to them, do you think that she would have chosen to be with Paul rather than her children? Or turn that equation around the other way, with Zabeth the guilty one and Paul the innocent parent. Is it reasonable to think that these two people would say “our love for one another is of greater importance to each of us than our children are, so we will hang in together and hope for the best in trying to regain custody?”

I will attempt one other scenario. Let's speculate that both Paul and Zabeth are innocent of having inflicted any harm to their third child, a helpless, infant daughter. This proposal includes an accidental injury that caused the initial injury that escalated with passing days. Let's further include a tumble of one sybling upon the infant at a time that approximates the start of the baby's physical distress. Let's suppose that Paul and Zabeth were absolutely desperate to have medical professionals ascertain what was wrong with this baby in her deteriorating condition back in 2007. Each failed visit to a hospital made them more frantic. This proposition portrays the parents as distraught and sick at heart when they learned both the severity of their child's injuries and the accusation against them of willfully hurting her. Then let's see them in this script immediately and always asserting their innocence, insistently, unwaveringly maintaining this innocence, through every attempt by the social worker team and legal counsel to make one of them cave. I can tell you now that Zabeth's maternal instincts are so powerful that she has weathered the chasm of suffering that have been these past three years and at last endured insidious, slanderous statements from a Ministry lawyer determined to end her motherhood. These parents have been so focused upon regaining their family, there is nothing that is more important to them as may be with some parents, not drugs, not alcohol, not personal vacation, travel, career opportunities, acquisitions, nothing! Nothing has sidetracked them. Not the Hope B.C. MCFD callousness and intimidation. Nothing! Oh, wait a minute. That's right, this latter storyline is the only one that is credible. Only this scenario explains what we have witnessed for three years. Only this one explains why Judge Crabtree has refused to act like other judicial lightweights who might cow-tow to the MCFD allegations. Instead he has increased visitation times for the parents and given them at home visitation. That's because this last version is not an hypothesis but the truth.

For Love and For Justice / Part 108 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

PROFILE OF A PARENT WHO ABUSES A CHILD
Paul and Zabeth Do Not Fit the Profile


When a child is injured and medical professionals believe that abuse has occurred, here are the customary indicators of a parent or parents who are abusing their child or children. I will list them and then in italics comment with regard to the Baynes because not one of the indicators points a finger at either of the Baynes.

Indicators of Abusive Parents:
~Seems unconcerned about the child; The Baynes were immediately concerned and have been ever since.
~Takes an unusual amount of time to seek medical care for the child; Paul and Zabeth took Bethany Bayne to several local hospitals each of which failed to properly diagnose her symptoms and finally Children's Hospital did a CT scan and subsequently made the tragic decision this was abuse.
~Offers inadequate or inappropriate explanations for child's injuries; The Baynes did not know what caused their daughter to become gradually more ill but if a trauma produced it they could recall an incident when one child fell on the baby. They told this story from the beginning but it was not believed by child protection people.
~Gives different explanations for the same injury; The Baynes maintained their story with medical and MCFD and RCMP interrogators and have stuck to their story now for two years and three months. That is not unusual for honest and innocent people.
~Misuses drugs or alcohol; Even MCFD says there is not concern about this with the Baynes.
~Disciplines the child too harshly for a mistake or for the child's age; There is no verifiable evidence of this.
~Sees the child as evil or bad; Not a chance! The Baynes love these children as gifts from God.
~Has a history of abuse; They do not!
~Attempts to conceal the child's injuries; MCFD might argue this but the Baynes were diligent about taking their children for scheduled examinations and treatments.
~Takes the child to a new doctor for each injury; Baynes had a family doctor who was consistently supportive of them.
~Has an unorganized, upsetting home life; They maintained a clean, neat, and well organized home and schedule.
~Is apathetic, feels that nothing will ever change; Both Paul and Zabeth are convinced their lives are in God's hands and are not at all apathetic. Through two years of this 'hell' they have grieved but been optimistic and full of faith.
~Is isolated from friends, family, relatives, neighbors; They have an army of friends, both intimate and casual. Dysfunction with specific family members or friends can be traceable to causes out of either Paul's or Zabeth's hands.
~Has long-term, chronic illness; Paul suffered a blow to the head at a steel plant. While it took months to heal the injury, he has not felt any effects from this injury since Jan 2006.
~Cannot be found; Not relevant. They are in the public eye, in the media and too public for the MCFD's liking. They have been in MCFD's face and it is MCFD who cannot be found for response to the Bayne concerns.
~Has a history of neglect; Not relevant. Their children have been withheld from them for over two years and during that time they have visited the children weekly for around 400 times, have not missed a visit, not been late and have asked for more visitation time.
~Role reversal with the child; blurred boundaries; Not relevant. MCFD stole two years and three months from this family's developing relationships.
~Very protective, jealous, controlling; How could they be when the children have been removed from them for two years and three months? No one would describe efforts to recover one's children, as controlling.
~Encourages child to participate in prostitution, sexual acts in the presence of the caregiver; Not relevant.
~History of sexual abuse; Not relevant.
~Low self-esteem, poor self-image; Both are well adjusted, outgoing and competent.
~Incapacitated mother; Not relevant. Zabeth is an eloquent, educated, organized, determined, responsible and compassionate woman.
~Makes harsh and/or destructive responses to the child's requests; Not relevant.
~Threatens or terrorizes the child; Not relevant
~Believes that the child entices his/her own poor treatment; Not relevant
~Treats children in the family unequally; Not relevant
~Doesn't seem to care much for the child's problems; Untrue. Even following the shaken baby allegation, when the Baynes stumbled upon internal MCFD medical memoranda concerning Glutaric Aciduria being the cause of the symptoms for which SBS had been diagnosed, they appealed for her to be further tested and treated for this, but MCFD has not complied.
~Blames or belittles the child; Untrue
~Is cold and rejecting; The Baynes love and cuddle their children every chance they have and they always did.
~Withholds love; Not true
~Has unrealistic expectations; Not relevant
~May not have age appropriate expectations of the child; Not relevant
~Jealous; Untrue
~Poor impulse control; Untrue. They have demonstrated a remarkable control when faced with false accusations and slander.
~Marital problems; Untrue
~Psychotic or psychopathic; Not relevant
~Emotionally immature and impulsive. Untrue

For Love and For Justice / Part 103 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Tomorrow I will report on the testimony of Dr. Randell Alexander who was under oath on Friday, February 5, 2010 to tell nothing but the whole truth. He was flown here from Florida by Ministry of Children to do what he has done in countless cases, state that the defendants are guilty of Shaking their baby or sometimes even worse, killing their child by violent physical abuse.

Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken critic of the MCFD. He has not only carefully followed the inequities of the Bayne case but he has spoken to the matter in the media and is doing what he does best to help the Baynes to recover their children. He comments here about the MCFD case against the return of three children to their birth parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne. He gave me permission to post this piece under his name.

“RAY FERRIS WRITES: When a child receives an injury, the only concern as far as child protection services are concerned is to determine if the injury is deliberate or accidental. There are of course numerous child injuries every year and the vast majority is accidental and those injuries are easy to explain. A doctor cannot determine whether an injury is deliberately or accidentally inflicted from medical evidence alone. This is decided by the combination of medical evidence and studying the profile of the parents. Most abusive injuries occur in families where there is a profile of abuse. A history of injuries, combined with low achievement and lack of life skills. When a family has an excellent social profile, abuse is very unlikely to occur. When a physician claims that the injury is due to shaking, there is an automatic accusation of deliberate injury. This is why a misdiagnosis is so pernicious.

In the Bayne case, it is obvious that an accusation of abusive injury is not supported by their profile. Their profile is of two parents with good life skills and good values. Two parents who managed to give a 25 week premature child exemplary care, winning strong endorsement from their family doctor. Two people with good education and work records, with strong religious and personal values.

This obviously creates a contradiction. With such a profile one must assume that if they state that an injury was accidental, they must be believed. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this case is unjustified.

Of course the ministry director must realize the contradiction, so they sought a solution. They attempt to re-invent the profile by bringing in a string of witnesses who offer nothing but smear, innuendo, hearsay, gossip and opinion. They introduce a "risk assessment" which is nothing but character assassination. They can find not one good thing to say about the family or their relatives. Not only do they run a smear campaign against the Baynes, they do it in such a stupid and clumsy fashion that it is self-defeating and can be discredited in cross-examination. They can only harm their own case by this tactic.

To separate children from their parents for two years requires compelling evidence. What they have is one highly controversial medical opinion and no other valid evidence at all. Character assassination is not valid evidence. There is no compelling evidence.”

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part 17 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Who is Responsible? Who will be held accountable? Who is it within the system who has a heart for justice?

I know the Baynes. I officiated the wedding of Zabeth and Paul a number of years ago. They were a happy family three years ago. Even happier in summer 2007 when Baby B arrived. Baby B. Bayne was removed from her parents’ home and custody on October 22, 2009. She has not been home since then. She is two years of age now. She was two months old when the B.C. Government service known as the Ministry of Children and Family Development separated her from her mother and father. She was two months old. Think of this. She was a nursing infant. Mother Zabeth and daughter Baby B were newly bonding. Zabeth had anticipated a daughter after giving birth to two sons. She was not unaccustomed to the behaviour and needs of an infant. Everything was as it should be in this happy family living in Hope, B.C.

Today, on the 30th of October 2009, over two years ago since Baby B was last in her parents’ home, Paul and Zabeth are living in hope, not Hope, but clinging to hopefulness. Not that they have reason to hope by virtue of affirming responses from the government unit that seized the child. All their phone calls are dead ended and their letters left unanswered. Rather, their hope is in the Lord, for these parents are people of faith. They are not weird and whacky. They are merely committed believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God their Saviour. All they have ever desired was to nurture their children within a loving environment in which good values and morals would equip their children for life. And they are no longer living in Hope, B.C. any longer because they have lost their house to lawyers’ fees as they have struggled to recover their children and their family. They rent now. They work as night custodians so they can visit their children during day hours.

If you are following this case you know that Zabeth and Paul have not only lost custody of Baby B, but also their two small sons. They were taken as well on October 22, 2007 as the Bayne parents were placed under suspicion and investigation by local MCFD and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A brief recap follows, the details of which are in previous posts.

Zabeth the nursing mother two years ago, found herself with a baby that suddenly wouldn’t nurse, was unresponsive and didn’t cry, following a terribly unfortunate incident in which one of her small boys fell on Baby B as she lay on a blanket on the floor. This accident and her baby’s symptoms concerned her enough that Paul and Zabeth took her to the local hospital. After a series of visits to several hospitals she was brought to Vancouver Sick Children’s Hospital where she received care and assessment. When one doctor concluded that Baby B’s condition was consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome, the saga began.

The RCMP cleared the Baynes and the boys were returned but Baby B was retained. The boys’ were returned, sort of, under a supervision agreement which required Paul and Zabeth to live with their sons in Zabeth’s parents’ home. Is the presumption and gravity of some of these decisions becoming clear? Then in June of 2008 without justification the boys were also removed and they are still gone.

And still, regardless of how many letters the Baynes send, they seldom receive even the courtesy of a response, and never any answers of substance. They are compelled to go to a court of law where the future of their children and their family will be decided. It should break your heart. They cannot afford a lawyer. But when a lawyer takes this case, and one will, the shame and the scandal of the abuses of power that have hurt a family so badly will be exposed.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part 16 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

This photograph of Bethany's arm was taken by horrified birth parents Zabeth and Paul Bayne during one of their scheduled visits with Bethany when they discovered this bruise on her arm, sustained during the safe and protective care she is supposed to be receiving from foster care givers under the administrative authority of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It appeared to them to be the print of an adult hand which might only be left by applying undue and unnecessary pressure on a tiny girl's arm. With their concern, Paul and Zabeth appealed to every appropriate government official and not one person provided the courteousy of a response. They even requested that their daughter be moved to another foster home for her protection but this request was not given attention. And if this bruise was not caused by a human hand but rather from a fall or some other incident, wouldn't you think this should find its way into a report?

Don't you think the supervision and accountability grid is missing critical social and people skills and leadership here? I have been a professional service provider and care giver and pastor for over 40 years and I would never treat someone this way. I would never 'not respond.' These are the birth parents and they deserve answers and responses from the servants of the people of this province. There is absolutely no justification for silence in this matter. I appeal to journalists everywhere to jump on this story.

People all over this country are anxious to hear that the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development is doing the right thing. This treatment of the Baynes by a district division of MCFD is outrageous, deplorable and it must be arrested now. We implore the responsible leadership of MCFD to let this child come home to her parents. Let her brothers come home to their parents! Let these children be together in their parents' home where they are safe and loved and secure.