THE MYTH OF SYSTEMS FAILURES by Ray Ferris / 589

Ray Ferris is a frequent commentator and occasional post writer here. Ray speaks and writes from a vast experience of 31 years in public service in general public welfare and child welfare, child protection, as a social worker, district supervisor, work among aboriginal peoples, long term foster care supervisor, family court coordinator, director of alcohol and drug counselling. Ray is the author of 'The Art of Child Protection'. He is a decided critic of aspects of MCFD policy as exemplified by the manner in which the Bayne family were treated these past four years. He has written today's piece.

THE MYTH OF SYSTEMS FAILURES
Whenever a new tragedy befalls some poor child in this province, how often do we hear the explanation expressed that “the system” failed little Cherie. Or poor Matthew seems to have fallen through the cracks in the system. How very, very convenient that we can always find this convenient “system” that we can blame. This nondescript entity which seems to have a life of its own and it has nothing much to do with people.

THE JUDGE INTENDS RETURNING THE CHILDREN / Part 471 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I continue to be grateful for the readership response to this GPS blog. It is kind of you to stay informed here. Many of you are media personnel, social workers, Ministry employees. It is imperative that the seriousness of the breach of justice be understood, acknowledged and addressed in a virtuous manner.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne received from Judge Thomas Crabtree an 'opportunity' as he termed it. Ostensibly it was a nudge to the Ministry and to the Baynes to do something that has not worked for 3.5 years – that is, work together to bring the children home to the Baynes.

OBSCENITY / Part 401 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

What has been done to Zabeth and Paul Bayne is disgustingly abhorrent. It's obscene.

Alright, some readers, particularly those who have experienced the horrific removal of their children for brief or lengthy periods of time, have not been pleased with my occasional portrayal of the well intentioned service side of social work and child welfare. I have been fair and balanced. There is good that is accomplished. Enough!

Enough! Social workers, some of your colleagues and supervisors are out of control. Their ethical compasses are broken. They have abandoned their heart for the work and relied upon the letter of the law. They treat people as files upon which the drawer can be closed at will, rather than human beings with faces and entire lives. They ignore the comprehensive impact their actions are having and will have upon people's futures. Happiness, hopes and dreams get shattered irreparably by the decisions of parties outside the family circle. Best interests are confused.

What is being done to Zabeth and Paul Bayne is disgustingly abhorrent. It's offensive, detestable. I don't care whether the argument is, “Well, it's our job,” or “We are mandated to insure the safety of the child.” How much insensitivity, inhumanity, can be demonstrated by one chapter of MCFD against one family?

For over three years with some very notable abusive events this couple against whom there has never been any evidence, but solely on the basis of suspicion and reprisal, have endured a degree of scrutiny and humiliation and intimidation that cries out like a human rights violation story. Now, while a court case initiated by the MCFD to remove their three children forever is still pending a judicial ruling, a mother and her unborn fourth child are being subjected to indecent threats and stress. Indecent I say, because presented as genuine interest in the welfare of a child that has not yet been born, proffering hypothetical, unspecified and unnecessary services to the parents for the new child when it arrives, there are cloaked threatening terms that become menacingly dangerous to a women whose pregnancies are historically fragile. That's what is taking place. “If you don't meet with us to talk about our involvement with you and your new child, then....”

Prematurity has characterized the other three births. MCFD knows this. The Director knows this. Mom has been ordered to remove and reduce stress from her life. She is only weeks away from her due date, and can you imagine what it must be like to put your head on the pillow each night with a frightful vision of social workers removing the baby from you at the hospital?

That's what's going on here! Somebody, make it stop! God, make this stop!

AN APPEAL TO SOCIAL WORKERS / Part 391 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

AN APPEAL TO SOCIAL WORKERS

Here is my entreaty to social workers engaged in child protection. When you reflect upon the cases in which you are now or have been involved, and if within that list you readily identify families which would benefit from being together rather than apart and you have the means to affect that reconciliation, do all that you can to insure that this happens. So much rests with you. You control destinies. That seems a frightening responsibility.

Logo of National SW month for NASW

Anyone occupying a role which owns the weight and the power of the child protection worker within our society, has to have the right stuff if he or she is confidently and effectively to protect the rights of children, safeguard the rights of families and parents and live with a deep contentment at the end of the day. If you see many cases where harm has been inflicted upon innocents, it is understandable that a callousness develops toward the responsible caregivers. How discriminating you must be to preserve your own authentic objectivity. How discerning you must be so that can separate fact and evidence from story and assumption. 

You are a member of the public and the public depends upon you front line people to be so careful with your invested power for our sakes, the children among us, children who may require food, opportunity, protection. And by referring to “our sakes” I also intend our families, parents of children, parents who require understanding, a listening ear, parents who require advice & counsel and encouragement, grandparents whose grandchildren are their joy and for whom they hope. Make all of your action choices wisely and be gentle with us please.

Public Trust, Power and Corruption / Part 380 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Public Trust, Power and Corruption

A fundamental theme of democracy is the concept of the public trust which asserts that within the public there lies the true power and future of a society and therefore the trust that the public invests in its officials must be respected.

A young person was speaking with me about the seeds of cynicism that have germinated and developed into full grown pessimism. At first one surmises this is cynicism about government but closer inspection reveals it is cynicism about persons, people, humanity. So few people come to power without becoming tainted or even derailed. The reality was captured in a phrase. “Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is more to this adage which derives from a quotation by Lord Acton, who was actually John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, in fact Baron Acton (1834–1902). As an historian and moralist he summed his thought in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 with these words: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." What chance had public trust if that revelation becomes our starting point? Another ancient, William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778 is recorded as having made an equally profound and disturbing statement in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

If the Liberal caucus is comprised of many who have already compromised their respect and the opposition NDP has nothing better to show, where are we to look for leadership and guileless aid when we want something as simple as mercy or compassion?

Employees within the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development are not elected officers yet to them has been invested a responsibility that in some circumstances has not unlimited power but immense power which when employed can shroud its actions under a legislatively sewn cover of confidentiality and privacy. That without question has generated a pattern of conduct and job performance that has not been in the best interests of children and families for countless thousands of British Columbians. Public trust has been lost for all of these in their elected officials and others employed within governmental ministries. I mentioned to that young person with whom I spoke that he had articulated his eroded trust issues much sooner than I have. I have waited until my senior years to realize how awful things are. Now, I am almost overcome by the avalanche of disappointments. The few untainted MCFD employees whom I earlier mentioned must be as much or more discomfited by what they see around them each day.

Will the true champions please stand up? Will the honourable call for accountability? Will the untarnished stand out as attractive leaders?

REASONING PROCESSES OF SOCIAL WORKERS Part 369 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There must be better decision-making in our child care system. I wonder whether social workers who have the responsibility for deciding the child's best interests are willing to evaluate that approach to decision-making and possibly to develop their capacity for critical thinking.

Periodic public inquiries into child abuse tragedies in British Columbia have demonstrated a level of public concern about the services that are designed by our Legislature to protect children. These inquiries have identified faults in the practice by professionals but the findings of such inquiries although spaced years apart from one another reveal similarities which is indicative of recommendations having had little impact upon improving practice. Quite possibly the most effective systemic transformation will come from self-improvement by social workers themselves.

This is but one example of a problem area. Professionals typically base assessments of risk on a narrow range of evidence. What has become apparent is that such assessments are biased toward the information that is readily available. Workers consistently overlook or ignore important data that is known to other professionals. The range of evidence relied upon is also biased towards more memorable data, expressly the evidence that may be graphic, concrete and that which arouses emotion. Moreover, it will be evidence that is either the first or last information that was received. Much of the evidence is often inaccurate, primarily because it is derives from biased or dishonest reporting or from errors during communication.

Of great concern is the observation of a pattern that new evidence is accepted if it is supportive of the existing MCFD view of the family. It is a significant issue that professionals are reticent to revise their opinions even in the face of a growing body of evidence pitted against the existing view.

It is unfortunate and absolutely dangerous to families that the errors in professional reasoning in the course of child protection work are not rare and random but predictable because people intuitively try to simplify reasoning processes when making complex judgments. Granted, such errors can be reduced and avoided entirely when social workers are aware of them and endeavor consciously to confront them. There is a great need for a balanced relationship between intuition and formal analytic thinking in decision-making and practice. Effective child protection practice requires both.

GLORIOUS AND FREE/ Part 365 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Gov. Gen. David Johnston greets

Silver Cross Mother Mabel Girouard,

mother of Chief Warrant Officer 

Robert Girouard,

who was killed by a suicide bomb

in Afghanistan in 2006.

(Pawel Dwulit/Canadian Press)

I, like thousands across this glorious land and free, watched the CBC televised broadcast of ceremonies in Ottawa to commemorate our heroes, the fallen, who loved enough this country and all for which it stands, to fight in the face of danger and ultimately to surrender their lives. Multilingual dignitaries found the words with which to express what this sacrifice has meant to all of us who survive and cherish our lives in this country. CBC again admirably portrayed the event. Cameras permitted us repeatedly to look directly into the faces of soldiers and spectators. We looked into their eyes. The eyes of veterans who were far away and came back. Soldiers whose eyes reflect the loss of comrades. Children's tear-filled eyes as mothers caress small heads in comfort because fathers could not come home alive. Women's eyes, dry now after all these years without their sweethearts who were lost in a distant battle. And CBC captured the music of choirs and bagpipes and bugles against these vivid visuals and cannon volleys punctuated the solemnity with a reminder of the sound of war. 

We are so fortunate. I ask why in this chartered land of freedoms are the freedoms of some withheld? When you commit a violation of law, you justly forfeit certain freedoms. In the defense of people's freedoms, such as children's rights to health and safety, governments must at times confiscate the freedom of those who are under suspicion. That is as it should be and it is understood. But governments or ministries within governments contravene their mandates when suspicion is equated with evidence, when the suspicion is not investigated expeditiously, when rights are withheld indefinitely, and when legal authority is abused at the expense of Canada's citizens.

This is what is observed within the child protection corridors of BC's Ministry of Children and hundreds of B.C.'s law abiding and decent citizens will bear witness to this. While social workers within MCFD at every level may see things differently than me and may even feel an obligation to defend all MCFD action, there must be some SWs who concur that there are frequent trespasses of protocol and propriety. It is important that some of you speak up. The necessary improvements to interactions with family and delivery of services cannot happen without such admissions and admonitions from within.

Miranda Rights and a Counsel / Part 294 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Yesterday's Suggestions for Regaining Trust will be available tomorrow.

An Anonymous writer on August 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM wrote the following interesting comment.
Anonymous said...

“Social workers do not only remove children as a last resort. That is ridiculous and very untrue. Over the last seven years I have heard case after case where children were removed when other measures could have been put in place. Cases where more than one family member offered to care for the children but MCFD wouldn't even do the home studies. Cases where the children could have stayed with the parent if certain things were put in place but 'no funding' for that! Several situations where the children didn't even need to be removed. I think, if life is so bad for a child that they must be removed, there better be proof and I don't mean proof without evidence. I mean proof. Why screw up a child's future forever based on a few comments made by a neighbor or an angry ex spouse? And, when children are removed, parents should be told their rights just as it is when a person is charged with a crime because, in reality, what's the difference. Everything a parent says to a social worker will be used against them in court so why don't social workers tell parents that? Why don't social workers take statements from parents that are signed so that no statement can be later twisted and used against them?”

Among the points made were:

1. Kinship and Friend care should be prioritized when a removal is required during an investigation.
2. Child Removal should truly be the last resort not merely on paper and in theory but in practice. 
3. A judge should never grant the Ministry a care order without substantial evidence. 
4. Something like U.S. Miranda rights should be required to read to parents before conversation, interrogation or investigation so incriminating statements or subjectively recorded entries cannot be used. 
5. Any statement from parent(s) to be filed should require parent(s)' signature.

THE PRISON OF SHAME / Part 254 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

The lives of many social workers involved in child protection are sprinkled with satisfaction and regret. The regrets are sometimes crushing. Regrets may evolve from actions or failures to act. Some social workers spend sleepless nights. A therapist might counsel such people to move on because this is life. It is not so easily done. Some regrets are intensified as time passes because the circumstances created by action or inaction have become infected for the affected people. At these times social workers experience deep regret or sadness and this can have a profound effect upon their lives and their well being.

Some things can be done when feeling one’s saddest. It’s important to honestly decide how much blame should be attached to your role or your action or inaction. Assess whether you could also claim credit for some positive action. Can the situation created by your part be remedied? Would an apology help and would it be enough? If it could be sufficient then genuinely make that apology. A letter is definitely superior to an email message and best of all is a face to face meeting. Beyond this a public apology may be advisable, appropriate, and necessary. May amends be made? Might it require your resignation? Might this take the form of advocating for parents and families who are being injured by actions similar to those that have become your prison?

ABSENTEE CHILDREN / Part 247 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Each day that Paul and Zabeth awake, they step past rooms in which their children's things are contained and because the children are gone, these clothes and toys are transformed into the signs of their absence. These lonely suffering people begin another day, like so many other days, hundreds of days. It takes their breath away. They start the day with a punch to the gut. Yet graciously the day may be one of the three each week during which three hours are allocated for them to visit with the children who no longer live in their home. The mornings cannot pass soon enough. These afternoon minutes are joy-filled, each treasured and remembered. Children fill Paul's and Zabeth's embrace, climb on their laps, sit astride Paul's shoulders, snuggle into Zabeth's neck. Always, always a supervisor sits as close to this action as possible to hear each verbal exchange, each endearment, each casual comment. A supervisor with the responsibility and the gall to remonstrate these parents if either does or says anything that has previously forbidden. The prohibition may pertain to a conversation topic or taking a child to the washroom. Even the brief snatches of family sanity and wholeness are moderated by an invasion of excessive control. On the other four days each week, Paul and Zabeth live with a reality that should only be a nightmare from which they can awake. The children are not there. They don't sit together for bowls of cereal. They don't ask mom and dad to take them to the beach. They don't make children's sounds at play. Their rooms are silent.

UNSUPERVISED VISITATION REQUEST / Part 213 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Today, the Baynes face yet another day in court. Although their current court case is scheduled for August 9-13th , they are asking for unsupervised visitation in their children's best interests. Once again lawyer Finn Jensen has prepared a copious rebuttal. This is a challenge to which good parents should never be subjected.

Let's examine the preferred development of a case like this. First principle: When social workers remove a child from what appears to be apparent danger, that is only the beginning of the social workers' responsibilities. Then a thorough assessment must be conducted and written. Such a fact-finding process should be undertaken with an open mind. The social worker/investigator must probe for both positives and negatives, affirming and damaging facts. If social workers have committed themselves to working with people, this can only be accomplished by focusing upon strengths and favourable factors. Even when a life or family situation is bleak and unpromising initially, with some closer examination, the hopefulness and promise in a situation may become obvious. What should certainly not occur is the construction of an assessment with as much smear and tarnish as the investigator(s) can accumulate to support an early preconception.

Second principle: Assessing the cause of an injury is not to be regarded as a medical determination but rather a legal one. That has been the error in this case with the Baynes. Examination of the injured child in 2007 and consequent medical evidence was necessary and important and even compelling. However, it cannot be assumed within the purview of the medical examiner's qualifications to determine the cause and then that such testimony is regarded as expert testimony upon which social workers rest their case for child removal and in this case going so far as to propose to take away the children from the parents forever. This leads injustice inherent to the system built on the existing flawed Act. To build an accurate and trustworthy assessment the social worker must take into account both medical and social evidence. A thorough social profile will provide a responsible guide for the social worker to assess likelihood of deliberate injury. Of the many child injuries presented at hospitals each day, most are accidental. That means that an assumption of deliberate injury should never be automatic. Certainly, accidents can be attributed to carelessness by the caregiver yet this still does not adjudge the parent to be unfit to parent or a guaranteed risk to be careless a second time. In the Bayne case, the doctor made the assumption of non accidental injury albeit based upon accepted prescripts in her department of her hospital yet she made this diagnostic choice even when accidental injury was the parents' explanation and a valid alternative explanation as other experts later attested. While one can argue that the social workers are not to be faulted for accepting the doctor's report, had they done an unbiased and more scrupulous profiling they would have discovered contradictions with the diagnosis and with the assumption of non accidental injury.

Third Principle: Evidence in a well attested case should go before the court immediately. MCFD was responding adequately and correctly during the first few months of this case. However, as soon as the alternative and conflicting medical explanations appeared to explicate the baby's injuries this case was in doubt and should have been reconsidered. When the case already looked unwinnable or suspiciously lacking in evidence, MCFD should have reviewed the case. There was no abusive profile for either parent with which to take this awful case to court. At so many points MCFD decision makers should have stopped this and reassessed the case. Jensen himself told his MCFD client to give the boys back to the Baynes because MCFD had no case that it could win, yet here we are. MCFD rejected his advice. MCFD has been seeking to justify its ponderous insensitivity by forging ahead rather than being impeccably professional. For the MCFD a good case doesn't need to be delayed for one year, two years, almost three years. Yet this one has been so delayed. When a case is clear and without question, there is every reason to get the evidence before the court as soon as possible. It should be a concern to us all, to the judge, to the Director, to the Minister and Deputy Minister of MCFD that the CBC story which aired on its website revealed that the MCFD had not followed the time lines required by its own governing ACT (Child, Family and Community Services Act). Jensen tried to dance around this in court.

MCFD Staff Shortage / Part 188 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.


EPISODE THREE: MCFD STAFF SHORTAGE IMPLICATIONS

Families matter. That's the primary reason I mention child protection staff shortages. Of course the shortages have implications for MCFD administrators and for social workers, and that matters. However, it is how these shortages impact the families already involved with MCFD and others inevitably to be entangled with MCFD that truly matters to me.

There are over 9,000 B.C. children living in the care of the Ministry. More than fifty percent of these are Aboriginal. Consider the potential for hundreds of families to receive inadequate service by an understaffed, under resourced MCFD.

An independent review of the B.C. child protection system was published in 2006 under the title 'The B.C. Children and Youth Review (The Hughes Report). It bears the name of his author, Justice Ted Hughes. Shortage of child protection staff had several implications for Hughes. It is not easy to fill the positions left by departing social workers. Child protection social work is not everyone's dream portfolio. Hughes called it the most difficult government job. In speaking to the skill set required for child protection work, the Hughes report mentioned formal training, toughness, warmth, intelligence, compassion, decisiveness and determination are requisite. That's an interesting but plausible list and it strikes me that if social workers are hired who lack half of those protection skills, the service provided will be inferior.

One of MCFD's responses to the Hughes Report was the addition of 180 positions in child protection and mental health services but that was negated by a provincial budget projection in February 2009 calling for a decrease of 185 jobs. Social workers have their own concerns with staff turnovers but so do the parents whose children are in the MCFD system. Parents have at times had to work with an array of social workers and this discontinuity is not merely frustrating to parents but discouraging because relationships, service, understanding, history and data gathering are interrupted.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD / Part 187 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.

EPISODE TWO: BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

109 child protection workers formerly employed by MCFD participated in a survey, the results of which are insightful if Ms. Dutoit and Ms. Polak want to improve system functions for families and employees.


The Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) is the cornerstone of B.C.'s child welfare program and it cites as its guiding principle “the best interests of the child.” Present MCFD child protection social workers may believe that they are empowered to act consistently in a child's best interests. On the other hand many may not. They may feel conflicted because they want to do more for a child or take different actions or even to speak out, but they cannot. That is what caused many of the survey respondents to say that they felt they had not been able to accomplish 'best interest' results for children. Many felt they gave inadequate service to children and/or families because of deficient resources, overwhelming case loads and burdensome clerical duties. CFCSA proposes a family-centred approach to child protection services that is supportive of parents and extended families and many respondents stated that they were unable to achieve that end result and did not have access to preventative and supportive service options before the disruptive removal of a child. This services shortage is due largely to the government’s budgetary cutback which impairs the child protection system from fulfilling its mandate to families. The government must re-evaluate priorities and bump up its financial commitment to children and youth so that parents and families no longer become casualties in a system that is failing to support families to keep their children safe in the home and to preserve their children's cultural and kinship connections.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org

EXIT INTERVIEW / Part 186 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.

EPISODE ONE: EXIT INTERVIEW

MCFD is losing at least ten percent of its staff every year. Social Workers leave MCFD. Knowing why they leave might be valuable information in retooling yet again.

The legislation entitled Child Family and Community Services Act (“CFCSA”) was inaugurated in 1996 with great promise that child welfare and protection would experience a manner of service delivery devoted to the support of families caring for children in the family home. Social workers wanted to be associated with such progressive intentions. For the past many years many social workers have been jumping ship for personal reasons but often because child protection practices are not living up to expectations. Child protection practices are not living up to CFCSA principles.

More sick days are logged by MCFD staff than across other government departments. Then many of them leave. Social workers leave because they are unable to deal with work related stress. Social workers leave because they are dismayed that they cannot accomplish superior work when the system is under-resourced in terms of personnel and services. They feel that they are unable to accomplish the outcomes projected by the CFCSA of affecting a family centred approach to child protection that actually supports the parents and extended family and communities to care for children safely. Social workers feel they have unmanageable case loads. They do not have funding for or access to preventative and supportive resources with which to help either children or parents. Social workers leave because the system is crisis driven rather than care and solution driven. Social workers leave because they have lost confidence in management and supervisory leadership.

Social workers say that they might stay if they had reduced caseloads and access to improved services and supports for families.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org

REUNITING FAMILIES / Part 149 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Reuniting families

To anyone who listens to parents, it is not difficult to understand why they lose heart and begin to lose hope that they will never receive their children back again. By virtue of their experiences with the Ministry, the impression is created that a plan to return the child(ren) is not a priority for the Ministry. Parents often report that the Ministry social workers give them little direction with regard to the Ministry expectations to be fulfilled before the children will be returned. Sometimes parents feel that they have met the expectations only to be told of a new set of expectations that effectively delays the return of children. In other cases, the resources needed to fulfill the expectations are not available or there are long wait lists. When expectations are so elusive and delays excessive, parents despair. Why do so many desperate parents speak the same language of distrust of a Ministry that should be committed to the family? I am not making this up. And neither have the countless reviews written by independent groups over the past two decades.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne are not unusual but they are examples of those parents who are so deeply committed to their children and their determination to be a family that they rearrange their lives to regain custody. They have acquiesced to all Ministry expectations short of confessing to a child abuse of which they have consistently insisted their innocence. While the Ministry maintains confidentiality and secrecy, the Baynes are under no such obligation. Their children, after all were taken from them two and one half years ago and the delay continues. When journalists have asked for interviews, the Baynes have given them. They have been surrounded by a host of sympathizers who use electronic messaging and networks to encourage the Baynes and to spread the word about their case. It is time that this Ministry's case against the Bayne family put to rest, surrendered or dropped. This is no longer a child safety or child protection issue.

Art: George Ortman, "4 Blues", painted relief, 1993, signed, titled and dated in ink on the reverse, 35 1/2 x 33 x 3 1/2 inches

For Love and For Justice / Part 94 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

An original song entitled ‘Justice’ written by Tom Simanek and Rob Elliott is performed by Rob Elliott in dedication to the struggle to reunite families that have been shattered by the family courts. A video using this song’s lyrics has been prepared by Linda McDermott, Dave Ellison, Shaun O'Connell, Layton Bevan and Julia Langmaid. You can listen and watch this on YouTube at this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkWQDWnsyfw

Justice

The race-car bed is empty,
no toys are on the floor,
not many changes you can see...
but Johnny doesn't live here,
doesn't live here any more...
never coming through that door.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

A scrap of legal paper,
an expert testifies,
the child you love is taken...
but justice doesn't live here,
doesn't live here, it's a lie...
nothing you can do but cry.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

A judgement not of Solomon,
no wisdom in the words,
and after all is said and done...
your Johnny doesn't live here,
doesn't live here and what's worse...
nothing lives here but the hurt.
Nothing lives here but the hurt.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

copyright 2009 Simanek/Elliott