ANOTHER SPRING, ANOTHER SUMMER / 488

It is yet another spring.

Spring with its promise of life, hope and joy

Following the removal of their three children in October 2007, Zabeth and Paul Bayne faced Spring 2008 alone. With their children in the care of the province, the Baynes began an arduous and to-date futile attempt to establish their innocence, believability and trustworthiness. An ineffectual attempt I call it because another year passed and then it was Spring 2009. Finally, last Spring 2010 the Baynes were finally engaged in a court hearing. After such a passage of time, one might have called it their proverbial day in court but this was not a protection hearing, but one with more permanent intentions.  Fighting for their children, their family and their lives the Baynes were on defence. That was necessitated because it was the government's child protection ministry that had filed an application to keep these children, foreseeably if the application was successful, until Springs 2024,2025, 2026. If the children are not returned to their birth parents this year, then, at my age now, I will likely not see their release. That's the effect of the passage of time. But what about the children?

MCFD-Phobic / Part 347 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

To presume is to take something for granted or as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary; to suppose something to be true without proof. When it comes to law, that definition applies in Canada. That is the inherent right, at least expectation of everyone who lives within our democratic British Columbian legal system. The citizen lives within a state of presumed innocence. It shouldn't be any other way.

A child afraid of MCFD

It is understandable that someone who is suspected of a violation of law should be temporarily restrained until a timely investigation establishes that either no evidence of infringement exists or, there is enough evidence to proceed to a trial using the pertinent facts. It is even appropriate in a serious criminal offense, to hold such a person in custody until trial when that person poses a risk of flight or further offenses.

When in a trial no evidence or insufficient evidence of a violation has been exposed either through discovery or confession by the defendant, the presumed innocence is confirmed by an acquittal of charges against the person. No penalties will be ruled against the person as a result of that trial.

Because Paul and Zabeth Bayne's ordeal has not been a criminal case the presumption of innocence does not seem to apply. Something is different. I am telling it like it is not how it should be. The Ministry of Children is authorized to act 'in the best interests' of the Bayne children as interpreted by MCFD social workers and director of that specific case, and that empowers MCFD to presume, if not guilt, then parental liability, certainly responsibility, even criminal probability. That's what MCFD can do. It can operate from presumption of guilt. And the inequitable entitlement which is afforded to MCFD consists in that the Baynes, rather than being protected within a canopy of presumed innocence, are made vulnerable as in a gladiatorial arena, because they, defenceless, must somehow validate their innocence. And their word, their protestations are not enough. Isn't it true that anyone, everyone says he or she is innocent, even vile murderers maintain, “I didn't do it.” Why should self-professed innocents be presumed innocent?

And then this imbalance. Long before the Baynes were required in a court of law to prove their innocence, MCFD could exact the penalty upon them of removing and holding on to their children and imposing restrictions upon the parents' access to the children and involvement in any decisions that pertain to their lives. And of course, MCFD has been doing this for three years, an anniversary marked in memory on October 22^nd. Yet because MCFD forced a trial by its application to retain the children forever, the Baynes were compelled at great personal cost and financial expense to demonstrate that they are innocent of harming their child or posing a physical risk to any of their children. Any reasonable person can appreciate the challenge resident in such a demand.

This case is only one illustration of the many that have been introduced over many months by your comments that support your collective premise that the Ministry of Children's Child Protection division should at all times be presumed a risk, and presumed to be guilty of error. What an alarming indictment of a government ministry and a fearful atmosphere under which our population must live. I know hundreds of people who are MCFD-phobic. Mr. Premier you must not permit this to continue or dismiss these concerns as the rants of a fringe minority.

TODAY MARKS THE DAY / Part 344 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

IT WAS EXACTLY THREE YEARS AGO TODAY THAT PAUL'S AND ZABETH'S TWO SMALL BOYS WERE REMOVED FROM THEIR HOME BY BOTH POLICE AND MCFD PERSONNEL. THEIR DAUGHTER NEVER RETURNED HOME AFTER HER ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL BUT REMAINED IN CARE.

RECENTLY, THEIR OLDEST CELEBRATED HIS SIXTH BIRTHDAY. THIS YEAR THAT PARTY TOOK PLACE IN HIS PARENTS' HOME, HIS HOME. HE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS YET. HOWEVER, JUDGE CRABTREE DID RULE THAT THE SIX HOUR VISITATION BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN COULD NOW BE HELD IN THE FAMILY HOME WHILE A SUPERVISOR IS IN ATTENDANCE. THIS GRACIOUS GESTURE HAS MEANT SO MUCH TO EACH MEMBER OF THIS FAMILY.

SOON BAYNES' LAWYER MR DOUG CHRISTIE WILL SIGN AND SUBMIT HIS WRITTEN OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE CLOSING SUMMATION BY MINISTRY COUNSEL MR. FINN JENSEN. THEN JUDGE THOMAS CRABTREE WILL TAKE THE TIME HE REQUIRES TO EXPEDITE A RULING ON THE MINISTRY APPLICATION FOR CONTINUING CARE OF ALL THREE CHILDREN. THE FINALITY OF THE WORDS I WRITE SHAKE ME EVEN NOW.

IF ALL OF YOU, AND ALL PARLIAMENTARIANS, AND MS DUTOIT AND MS POLAK COULD SEE THESE FIVE PEOPLE IN LOVE WITH ONE ANOTHER ON THEIR VISITATION DAY, IT WOULD BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THESE CHILDREN SHOULD BE RETURNED TO PAUL AND ZABETH. I AM BELIEVING THAT JUDGE CRABTREE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF SEEING THE FAMILY MEMBERS TOGETHER, WILL RULE UNEQUIVOCALLY TO RESTORE THE BAYNE FAMILY UNCONDITIONALLY.

Fact and Evidence - Opinion and Probability / Part 327/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

The police need to operate from a fact base, evidence base.

Fact: Baby B was born healthy although somewhat premature August 2007 and she progressed well in following weeks.
Evidence: Baby B's development was charted and confirmed by weekly visits to the family doctor.

Fact: An event, a trauma, an impact, a significant physical experience occurred that dramatically affected Baby's B's well-being.
Evidence: In October 2007 Baby B was taken by parents to local hospitals, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford to discover why she began to exhibit listlessness, loss of appetite and feeding, chronic vomiting and resultant weight loss.

Fact: Over several days the area hospitals failed to adequately identify Baby B's issues but sent her home without remedy.
Evidence: The symptoms continued for several days, and hospital and doctors records disclose the days that several examinations took place until the final referral to Children's Hospital, Vancouver.

Fact: Extensive examinations at Children's Hospital Vancouver in October 2007 revealed Baby B had serious injuries, skull fracture, retinal hemorrhaging and brain hemorrhage and fractured femur.
Evidence: Hospital and Doctors' records contain the findings with dates and times.

Fact: Injuries required explanation and the Baynes' 2007 story of an accidental fall of a toddler sibling on the infant did not convince medical professionals.
Evidence: A couple of the doctors reports and the RCMP and MCFD 2007 reports contain the Baynes' story of a fall of one child on the infant.

Fact: The injuries were of a nature which the attending medical professionals customarily associate with abuse by care providers.
Evidence: The Child Protection department of the hospital notified RCMP and MCFD.

Fact: Paul and Zabeth in 2007 were horrified at the implication that they had harmed their infant and insisted that they were innocent of abuse to their child and their story has never changed.
Evidence: Their attested innocence has been recorded in every record that pertains to this case from 2007 to the present time 2010.

Fact: In spite of arresting and interrogating the Baynes, the RCMP dismissed the case as one for which there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge of abuse or assault.
Evidence: The Baynes were released in within hours in 2007, their fingerprints and photos were discarded and the case as an aggravated assault has never been revisited.

The expectation is that the Ministry of Children will also operate from a fact base, evidence base. MCFD is people. Did they? Have they? OR, is there a proclivity for opinion and probability when it suits them, that is, when the fact and evidence is absent.

For Love and For Justice / Part 132 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Bayne Case fills pages of reports and the hard copy reports fill file drawers and boxes. I know this is a complex case, involving more convoluted details than I will ever know even as a sympathizer of the Baynes. Yet essentially the story is that a baby suffered retinal hemorrhaging which is sometimes a sign of child abuse. Together with other medical observations at the time of baby Bayne’s hospital admission the diagnosis was made and the Ministry intervened a long time ago, twenty–eight months ago, October 22, 2007. The Ministry removed three children from the Bayne home.


The Baynes would concur with the rest of us that the hospital staff, the medical professionals, and the Ministry were not just within their rights, but were actually right to suspect child abuse and to run tests and to investigate. That is how the system must work if all the necessary tests are conducted and a thorough investigation is completed. It is designed to affect its purpose for the sake of our society and our children. But the process derailed when the Ministry insisted that a suspicion of abuse that ratcheted up the risk monitor was more significant than the RCMP investigative conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Baynes with abuse. Left to the RCMP alone, the children would never have been removed from the Bayne parents.

As far as the Ministry was concerned there was sufficient suspicion to remove three children from Paul and Zabeth, even though only the youngest was the one with the injuries from which the altercation stemmed. I said ‘sufficient suspicion’ rather than ‘sufficient evidence.’ The Ministry has had to maintain that suspicion for two and one half years. The ministry might insist that has not been difficult because the risk is so obvious. I claim that maintaining suspicion of the Baynes has not been easy to do because there is no evidence. In fact evidence that Paul and Zabeth are good parents and respected people had to be ignored in order to preserve the suspicion of risk. Only suspicion existed initially and only suspicion remains today. Yet the suspicion has become the equivalent of evidence in the Ministry’s mind. Now the Ministry has proceeded all the way to the Court still insisting that the Baynes pose a high enough risk to warrant the continued care/custody of the three children by the government Ministry. More than that, these children must be protected from their birth parents until they reach adulthood. The Ministry has come to Court needing to convince a judge that its suspicions are synonymous with evidence. This is just my take on it but I don’t think that the judge is convinced. Oh and of course the Ministry’s lawyer advised the Ministry months ago that a case could not be made to continue holding the two older boys, but the Ministry ignored that counsel, presumably because their suspicions are still defensible. Well they’re not.