Patrick and Emily Zimmerman / Part 336 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I have been asked to tell the story of another couple whose situation has some strong parallels to Paul's and Zabeth's. This reality story has some wrenching aspects. The couple's names are Patrick and Emily Zimmerman and Emily has invited the disclosure of her situation. Once again shaken baby syndrome is integral to this disturbing story, a diagnosis which many bio-mechanics and pathologists dispute. Here is the story in Emily's own words.

“In August of 2009, our lives changed forever. Our son, Tristan, was two months of age. He had begun smiling and cooing, becoming a very social little boy. On the 13th, Tristan had his two month check up. He received his two month immunizations that day. Tristan was sleepy that day and the next, as we were told he would be due to the shots.

On the 15th of August, Tristan awoke early morning for a feeding. He customarily ate every three hours. After his feeding that morning, I burped him and he vomited in a projectile manner. Tristan continued to projectile vomit that day, and being concerned and seeing no resolution to his vomiting, I took him in to the emergency room the following afternoon. He was assessed to be mildly dehydrated, was given IV fluids, and sent home without any explanation as to his vomiting. He had not been running a fever, and had no signs of any underlying illness.

Tristan continued his vomiting. He still ate every three hours at this point, but would vomit with every feeding. I tried everything I could to help him keep down his formula, even feeding him with a medicine syringe hoping smaller amounts would be better tolerated by him. On August 18th, I again took him into the emergency room. He was evaluated for pyloric stenosis. It was determined that wasn't the cause of his vomiting. The doctor again had no idea why he was vomiting, but suggested we switch his formula, that perhaps he was becoming intolerant to the formula. He had been eating 4 ounces every three hours since a week of age, and I didn't believe that was the problem, but nonetheless, we tried a different formula.

Tristan had become sleepier. He began sleeping longer stretches, there were times I had to wake him up to feed him. It was concerning because of his eating habits, he was a chubby little babe who liked to eat. He would cry more often when he was awake, seeming to be in pain. We were stumped as to what was ailing him.

One more appointment was made with his pediatrician on the 21st. He examined him and said he looked healthy. He had no reason why he would be vomiting, other than perhaps he was constipated and that was what was ailing him.

On August 24th, in the early morning, Tristan awoke his daddy with a high-pitched scream. I work 3rd shift and was at work. His father was later holding him when he had a seizure in his arms. 911 was called, and his father attempted mouth-to-mouth breathing while waiting for the ambulance.

Tristan was in grave condition. He was intubated when he made it to the hospital. He was not breathing well on his own, and his heart was not functioning properly. Due to the seizure activity, a CT scan was performed. Subdural bleeding was found in his head, both acute and chronic. Tristan was transferred to another hospital by helicopter.

He was suffering multiple seizures and was worsening by the minute. Subdural taps were performed to remove fluid that was accumulating in his head. He was in a coma.

Before we were allowed to see him, we were questioned by the police and the Department of Human Services. We had no idea what was going on with our son, yet we were questioned as to whether we had shaken him.

Tristan was not expected to make it through the night. We were told that he was harmed intentionally, that nothing else could have caused the bleeding in his head. The words "Shaken Baby Syndrome" were thrown at us.

Tristan had not one bruise anywhere on his body, no neck injury, no internal bleeding other than in his head and eyes, no injuries to his skull or scalp, yet we have been accused of violently shaking him. 

Tristan spent over a month in the hospital. We were told he would not be able to breathe on his own when the ventilator was removed. He came off of the ventilator without incident. He had suffered a stroke at some point and his brain began to die. He has suffered loss of about 80% of his brain.

Because the hospital determined that Tristan's condition was caused intentionally by malicious actions, my children were all removed from our care while he was in the hospital. Tristan has an older brother, Gabriel, and an older sister, Natalie, who were placed in the care of their biological father. Tristan was discharged to foster care.

We had visitation with Tristan for almost 9 months without any progression with our case. No charges had been filed. We were told that we were doing everything we were supposed to be doing.

In May of 2010, criminal charges were filed against Tristan's father, Patrick. It was then revealed by the state that they were going to press to terminate our parental rights. Patrick was then not allowed to have visitation with Tristan, though he had been allowed to see him for the entire 9 months previous to charges being filed.

In July of this year we had our termination trial. Patiently we waited for a verdict for two months.

We had been expecting a baby girl, due to arrive the beginning of October. 6 hours after her birth, the police came to the hospital with DHS and made Patrick leave. We were served with a removal order for our daughter. We were also so cruelly told that the verdict had come back in regards to our rights to Tristan, and that they were terminated. We were not told this by our counsel, but rather by the DHS worker.

Patrick's criminal trial is set for the end of November. Our parental rights have been terminated before Patrick has been given a chance to defend himself against his charges. He has been blamed as the perpetrator because he was home with Tristan at the time of his collapse.

We are now in the process of filing an appeal for our parental rights. We have also been informed that since our parental rights were terminated for Tristan, the state can file a waiver of reasonable efforts to return our daughter.”

http://tristansjourney.webs.com/

Thanksgiving Day / Jour de l'Action de grâce / Part 334 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Thanksgiving Day / Jour de l'Action de grâce

I trust that all my Canadian readers are enjoying this Thanksgiving long weekend with its Monday stat holiday. Typically, this marks the celebration of harvest across the land. Although Thanksgiving has a rich and long history it was on January 31, 1957, that the Canadian Parliament proclaimed: “A Day of General Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the bountiful harvest with which Canada has been blessed … to be observed on the 2nd Monday in October.” This year it has fallen on Monday 11th, 2010.

Whether or not you share my belief in an Almighty God, you will permit me to express the reasons that come to my mind for thanksgiving pertaining to the Bayne case.

I am thankful that each of Paul's and Zabeth's three children are healthy and improving in every way.
I am thankful that their little girl has made steady recovery from the injuries she sustained in 2007.
I am thankful that the little girl was permitted to join her two brothers in a foster environment this past year.
I am thankful that the foster care that these three children are receiving is from responsible and compassionate foster parents.
I am thankful that the children love their mommy and daddy so much.
I am thankful that two weeks ago Judge Crabtree ruled that Paul's and Zabeth's visits with their children can be in the Bayne's own home.
I am thankful that Paul and Zabeth can enjoy a Thanksgiving Day and dinner with their children in their own home this year.
I am thankful that at last the court case itself has been completed.
I am thankful for the stamina and strength the Baynes have exhibited for three years.
I am thankful for their resolve in the face of unbelievable hardship.
I am thankful that Paul and Zabeth are well and healthy.
I am thankful that this couple have so many friends who support them emotionally.
I am thankful that we have strong hope that Judge Crabtree will award the children to their parents within two months.

DO ANOMALIES EXIST / Part 333 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Concurrent with the debated specifics that have involved the Ministry of Children's Child Protection arm in the lives of the Bayne family, the Bayne children and their parents are at the heart of a Ministry in B.C. where the philosophical and ideological positions that affect policy and practice in child welfare are in recurring conflict. For instance, there is dissonance between policy-makers who prefer furnishing assistance to families versus those who assert that protecting children is the priority of child welfare. Advocates for the family support position view our society as one in which social and support services and programs should be a universal provision available to all families and not only families tagged for neglect and abuse of children. Proponents of the protection priority claim that most families generally fare well and are not in need of government funded support services such as daycare, financial aid or parenting skill development so government resources should be directed to those parents, children and families where difficulties are apparent and acknowledged. It is certainly less expensive than the former option, although it can further marginalize the recipients by making them feel helpless, stigmatized, vulnerable.

Presently, our B.C. child welfare program is dominated by the commitment to saving a child from abusive and negligent parents. Besides interventions and removals of children, little big picture attention is being paid it seems to the reality that parents without adequate resources to care for their children are those in which neglect and abuse occur. So a valid question is why will our government not invest millions of dollars to holding families together rather than abandoning that altruistic measure in favour of funding the millions of dollars required to operate a care industry.

Of course the Bayne case does not relate directly to this discussion even though Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen inferred that it did. He made a point of identifying the timing of the baby's injuries with the father's unemployment, and further in the pursuit of this Continuing Care Order, reasoned before the court that the modest income from the Baynes' custodial work would place them at risk if the children were returned.

What is overlooked is the anomaly inherent in the Bayne scenario. A child was injured. The parents say neither of them would or did willfully harm the child. The only explanation they can offer is that it was accidental. Another of their children fell on the infant. Some medical professionals insist the severity of the girl's injuries is consistent only with abuse rather than accident. In their view there are no anomalies, no alternative explanations, no need for second opinions. Other medical professionals defend the viability of the accident account. They resist this paradigm of easy automatic blame attachment based on certain medical findings. They provide an array of medical and scientific expertise that take into account numerous medical and historical factors which in concert with an impact incident are consistent with the medical findings. How difficult is the task of parents like the Baynes to prove their innocence and authenticate that this tragic occurrence was unusual, unique, strange, an incongruity, an inconsistency if you will! My point with the preceding introductory statements is to say that there is little sympathy for the Baynes within the regional division of the MCFD in which the Baynes find themselves because this is an enterprise committed to the child protection paradigm first and foremost and anomalies are unknown.

A GRIEF OBSERVED / Part 332 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

A Grandmother and a grandfather sat helplessly. Yesterday I described the small court room in which Mr. Jensen delivered the final hours of his Summation. The judge's bench and the clerk's desk and the table and chairs of the legal staff and defendants comprised most of the space. Of the nine remaining chairs, two were occupied by these grandparents. Zabeth's parents they are. I paid attention to them because I too am a grandparent, proud of it, loving the relationships with little people that it provides to me. I am special because those grandchildren are extraordinary. I, however, have unfettered access to my grandchildren. These two people do not.

So I watched them as the Jensen words cut them deeply. They sat motionless, staring ahead, no longer shocked by what they were hearing because they have grown accustomed to their savage sound. They were grieving I thought, hardly bearing the insinuations against their daughter or her husband, perhaps imagining the worst possible outcome of this hearing.

Jensen pointedly directed Judge Crabtree that (1) his honour must find that there is need for protection, and that (2) he must therefore order the Continuing Care of the children. With such intense statement of objective, I found it interesting that Jensen then mentioned that contrary to what some people were saying, there are more than two possible rulings from which Judge Crabtree may select his verdict. In fact he said there is a host of alternative rulings beside either a CCO or giving the children back to the parents. Among these he suggested that Judge Crabtree might issue a Temporary Care Order, or a Period of Supervision, or place them in temporary care while the parents take further steps to satisfy the Ministry that they are indeed risk-free as it were. These were proffered to the Judge it appeared, as considerations should the judge come to the conclusion that the risk is still there but that the CCO is too final for this particular case. Who knows the precise motivation other than Jensen? But he did underscore that there should be no misunderstanding, that the Director's desired and appropriate ruling is a CCO. Yet Jensen implied that these other options might be considered. The Judge asked for some guidance on a Last Chance Order and that definition was discussed for a few moments.

Now all of this was at the conclusion of the first couple of hours during which Jensen reestablished Dr. Jane Gardner's paediatric ophthalmology qualifications and revisited her testimony concerning how she arrived at her diagnosis of the injuries, her opinion about extent of force needed to produce these injuries, her reactions to the hypotheses of the Baynes' experts. Then he focused upon Dr. Alexander's credentials and testimony, the foundation for his opinions being clinical records rather than information from Dr. Colbourne Jensen said. Alexander had disagreed with any theories that a short fall and particular that of a toddler upon the reclining infant could produce the extent of injuries Baby B sustained. Those injuries included subdural hemorrhages on both sides of the brain, retinal bleeding, a skull fracture and a chip off the long bone of the left femur. His testimony was that this was only due to a blunt force impact together with acceleration and deceleration. He even said that this force was the equivalent of that experienced in a car crash or a large fall from a great height, or child abuse. Well that's mighty frightening if it is to be believed. But that is precisely the obstacle. It does not have to be believed because it is still one man's theory against how many was it? Ten experts. Whose expertise Jensen discounted for numerous reasons stated in court. And that is his job. And the Judge's responsibility will be to conclude what and who is believable. What can be viewed as definitive?

Oh, I know, I know, Jensen would quickly respond to that. I will share again more of the Jensen summation tomorrow although I feel I have given him far too much air time or blog space. The transcript of these several days of Jensen are being prepared now.  

THE LAST STAND / Part 331 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Call this installment One. The last day in Court was yesterday. Finally! I do not envy the Judge. Although perhaps he thinks he has an easy task on this one. 

Paul and Zabeth invited me so I was present at the home assessment session in Baynes' home on Tuesday afternoon when two social workers visited. They appeared to be satisfied with the place then and on Wednesday in court the assessment report was discussed. The children have their first six hour visit in the home on Saturday, supervised yet nonetheless, a wonderful opportunity to be a family in a home environment where the two boys will recognize so many familiar items.

I was also in attendance in court on Wednesday at the final episode of Finn Jensen's Summation for the Ministry application. We met in a small court room with nine chairs.

Jensen began at 9:30 and he concluded by 12:30 pm. He concluded with a statement to his honour Judge Crabtree, that the Director, meaning Bruce McNeill was asking for the Judge to rule that the children were still in need of protection and therefore to award a Continuing Care (Custody) Order for all three children.

First Afghan War, January 1842, 4500 British and Indian troops against 30,000 Afghans and Ghilzai tribesmen

He had built up to this of course over three days of Summary presentation and today, the last day, he put the finishing touches on a compendium of what he said was a large body of medical evidence that supports an acceleration/deceleration (Shaken Baby) non accidental cause for the sequence of serious injuries sustained by Baby B in autumn 2007. This is in contrast to what he terms a small body of response material from the Baynes.

This is the kind of case in which the injuries to the child are unexplained. He said that the Baynes' explanation for the injuries was unsatisfactory. He told the Judge that it was the Director's obligation in this kind of case to effectively demonstrate a balance of probabilities. He was fully confident that this had been convincingly conveyed, that is that the balance of probabilities fell to the Director's position that the risk has not been eliminated and that Zabeth's testimony should not be accepted. He asserted that the Baynes have not worked with the Director (eg. The social workers) or participated as parents in the risk assessment. He questioned their ability to sustain themselves financially and suggested that at the time of Baby B's injuries the parents had been stressed by joblessness and were isolating themselves and not accepting help and even suggested they are in a similar position today and that the potential risk remains.

I digress from the court report for the moment to say that some of what Jensen said here is not merely disputable, it is also inaccurate or incomplete. We are speaking about a three year period. During the past several weeks there have been overtures by the Ministry to talk with the Baynes (a little - too late) and the Baynes have declined during these final days before a case conclusion. In declining they knew they were opening themselves to this precise criticism of not working with the Ministry but they listened to their advisors. After three years MCFD is at the end of this long delayed hearing designed permanently to take from the Baynes, THEIR CHILDREN, and now mcfd wants to talk. During the first year and one half there were meetings and while the meeting invitations suggested an agreeable, even promising agenda, the meetings were invariably designed to elicit a confession from them. This persisted until the Baynes' trust in MCFD eroded and hope of cooperation by the Ministry evaporated too. Paul and Zabeth have been employed at menial labour to be sure, but adequately providing for their needs and confident to be able to support their family. They live in a comfortable family rental home with adequate facilities for all their children and large yard outside for the children to play. Please recognize once more that they work evenings doing custodial work, because visitation with children is scheduled for day hours and they have not missed one of those opportunities but even asked for more. If there was normalcy to their home lives, other job opportunities with better income would be considered. That is a reasonable expectation.  Further, there are many families who make a go of it on less than a professional's standard of living and have learned how to shop and to live with less. And to infer that joblessness for a term was sufficient to trigger violence against a baby is pure invention. That is a guess-assessment of a man and a woman who are unknown to the guess-assessor who certainly did not know them at all in 2007. They are certainly not in a similar position today. If job stress were sufficient reason to suspect risk, then no one in that court room would be risk-free. Nor were the Baynes isolating themselves back in 2007. That is a lawyer's statement based upon a social worker's report of a collateral witness' opinion. But the couple's own testimony counts as certainly as does such an hypothesis and they said they were disassociating merely from one couple for reasons that were stated in court as interpersonal issues and having nothing whatsoever to do with the nurture and well-being of the Bayne children, or desiring to withdraw from society. It makes a person think that everyone associated with MCFD would be better judges of character if they were employed as border guards. "And what was the purpose of your trip?"

I'll tell you more tomorrow.

TRAPPED - NEEDING RESCUE / Part 330 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Today, Finn Jensen, MCFD counsel delivers the closing words of his Summation so a Ministry can keep 3 children from their parents. 

In Chile hundreds of metres below ground, thirty-three gold and copper miners have been surviving since August 5^th, when their exit tunnel collapsed. They were trapped without hope until August 22^nd, when a probe made contact with their airspace. They were able to send back a message stating that they were alive. The plan for rescue was formulated above ground and the world was shocked to know that it could be close to Christmas before a rescue tunnel was drilled and adequate for their safe extraction. We could hardly imagine the men huddling in a dank cavern for months.

Now we have heard that they are just days away from actual rescue, perhaps ten or so. The Chilean President Sebastian Pinera announced it could be by October 15th.

For all these weeks, capsules of communication and food and keepsakes are exchanged from ground surface to underground shelter.

The elation and joy and gratitude upon reaching the surface is unimaginable now and it will be a remarkable personal experience for each of these men.

I wonder if even one of the 33 miners will ever return to the mine shafts to work.

The analogous nature of a story like this automatically applies to the Baynes in my mind. I can hardly help myself. If and when these children are returned to Paul and Zabeth what words will be sufficient to capture their happiness? Five members of one family have been trapped in a collapsed family life with only brief capsules of exchanged affection and communication with one another. They will do everything in their power never to return to the darkness of these past three years. How soon can life for them seem normal again. Will their dreams, both adults' and children's contain recurring reminders of the loneliness and fear and longing? Will challenges seem overwhelming within their restored family life? Will they resume normalcy with ease? Will Paul and Zabeth be able to encourage other families still experiencing the dark nights and distance? Will the darkness reach out to grab them again?

So much remains to be written about their story.

My Glimpse of MCFD Offends Me / Part 329 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Seldom do I learn of an apprehension that turns around in a short time and returns the child to the parents. Instead what I am observing is a pattern that retains the child in care often for long periods of time, one year, two years, three years. My experience is limited. It began with the Paul and Zabeth Bayne case and their three children taken into care by the provincial Ministry of Children. We are now marking the third anniversary of the injuries sustained by their youngest child. Injuries for which according to them they are not willfully responsible. That is, they deny having intentionally harmed their child. Nevertheless, the MCFD, resting its belief upon the medical diagnoses of Children's Hospital personnel, asserts still that one or both of the Baynes hurt her, abused her, shook or battered a seven week old girl that they cherished. They already had two sons, two and three years old.

Common sense, charity, conscience informs most people that every effort should be made to insure that these children are returned to their parents. There has been no confession but a resolute assertion of innocence and there has been no direct evidence of abuse but a speculation. A second medical opinion was not sought by MCFD. Instead the Baynes were forced to laboriously acquire one dozen alternate opinions that dispute the initial diagnosis and further defend the legitimacy and viability of the Baynes' accident report. In light of this, more time and effort it seems to me should have been spent in repair of a separated family rather that construction of grounds for keeping the family apart.

Since that introduction to parental conflict with the Ministry I have been made aware of countless other family situations in which helpless parents struggle against a monolithically resourced Ministry. Over many years the Ministry appears to have become less focused upon developing healthy families. Instead the honourable objective of protecting children and their best interests has been misrepresented until children are perceived instinctively as adversaries. Please understand, that is what I see. This disturbs me very much. I want a social service enterprise that has a family agenda and deep coffers of forgiveness and a nursing spirit to help parents and children come together.

I acknowledge that this ministry must deal with some deplorable caregiver conduct. If I was a social worker and saw abuse to a child I would be incensed. I understand that there is a contemptible side of society that requires a tough approach to protecting and caring for children. I know that there are parents whose unaddressed personal life issues make them unreformable. Yet not all of the parents whose children are removed from them are rotten parents. Similar stories across Canada and throughout the United States and around the world are a resounding condemnation of excessive child protective services that are insensitive, unkind, inconsiderate, and sometimes dishonorable.

I have registered my shock and distaste before. I would love to be given reasons to change my mind.

HIATUS / Part 328/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Nothing today - recup time.

one couple

one family

one child

one tragedy

one horror

one diagnosis

one Ministry

one agenda

one dream

one judge

one ruling

one recovery

one celebration

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.

THE CHILDREN MAY SEE THEIR HOME / Part 326/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Yesterday, Friday, Judge Crabtree delivered his video conferenced ruling on the MCFD application to adjust the earlier court ordered three day visitation schedule of three hours each, to a schedule of one three hour visit plus a six hour visit on Saturday and this to accommodate the children's school life, extra curricular activities and appointments. There was more to this application but this was the primary item. Dear brave Zabeth, spoke on behalf of her husband and herself and her three children while the MCFD Director had his counsel Finn Jensen representing MCFD interests when they made their brief 30 minute presentations on Thursday afternoon.

On Friday Judge Crabtree told the Baynes and the MCFD representatives that he had reviewed both submissions with regard to the application. He made it clear that his ruling Friday is based solely upon those submissions on Thursday and unrelated to the general court hearing. His ruling on Friday was not based upon an any assessment of the court evidence to date. He wanted that understood. He is very aware that Mr. Jensen has another half day of summary on October 6^th and no decision on the CCO has been made until the summary concludes and the Bayne counsel writes a closing statement in response to the Jensen summary.

Judge Crabtree recognizes that his previous visitation order was based upon a summer schedule and that now during the school year there has been an increase in the children's activities as well as social engagements and medical appointments. He notes that MCFD identifies some behavioral issues with a couple of the children and he acknowledges that some of this is plainly the result of being removed from their home for such a long period of time and this is being resolved by this hearing now.

Judge Crabtree therefore granted the MCFD request for two days access rather than three days, thus interfering with frequency. However, the total of nine hours of visitation remains intact. He did not grant the Bayne request for unsupervised visitation but what he did give the Baynes was the possibility of having those six hours on Saturday in their own home. That means supervised visits in their own home, of course contingent upon an in home assessment which means that two social workers will come to their home to inspect the facilities. Special family events and occasions are to be accommodated as visitation opps as well.

This in home inspection is to happen before October 6^th so that any resultant issues my be resolved by THE JUDGE on that day of THE CLOSING SUMMATION.

To the Blog Reader: Some serious reservations arise for me with regard to six hours of visitation time in your own home with a note taking supervisor sitting in your space the entire time. Do some concerns come to your mind as well? Zabeth alluded in court this week to the difficulty they experience during visitation, to know how to respond appropriately to child behaviour that requires some correction or discipline when a supervisor is observing and recording. Will they be deemed too lenient or too severe? And then I wonder what kind of reporting results from a supervisor compelled to put in six hours at one time, weekly. Do the comments become more critical and condemning at the fourth, fifth and sixth hours? How stressful will it be for Paul and Zabeth to put in this kind of time under such intense scrutiny. It is abnormal and uncomfortable. Within six hours there are many potty breaks, snacks, meals, naps perhaps, outside play, inside play, gabbing, talking story reading and who knows what else. Will the supervisor be scolding them and warning them again not to speak of the past or the future or giving children hope or escorting them to the john? The children will be living for six hours among the toys and familiar items of their past family life. It will be natural even instinctive for a mom to make sure her daughter is okay in the bathroom. Is the supervisor under instruction by the Ministry workers to give the parents trouble, badger them, intimidate them and be alert to situations that can be used to verify their unfitness. I don't know. I am asking.  

BUT BELIEVE ME I AM THRILLED THAT THE BAYNES HAVE THIS TIME WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS VENUE.