When Justice Kimberly Arthur-Leung was
making clear to counsel Doug Christie what precisely she was in court
to do with the case before her and how her intention differed from
his objective which was to argue against the removal from Paul and Zabeth
Bayne, of the newborn child, Josiah, she cited the Act, that is, the
Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA).
She made the point that she was in
court on this day for one purpose only and that related to the safety
of the child Josiah Magnus Ider Bayne.
In other words, in spite of the fact
that she did permit Mr. Christie to express himself on behalf of his
clients, Mme Arthur-Leung was not really prepared to listen with a
view to acting upon what he said. She was there simply to concur with
the MCFD's concern about the child's safety without investigating the
foundation or credibility of those concerns. Such examination would be for a different day. On this occasion she
would facilitate this removal to insure a child's safety regardless
of the validity of the claims against the parents. That's a bit overstated. I am at a lost to nuance her purpose. She would take the
word of the social worker who acted for the director because that would seem the most certain route to
child safety and it was
certainly the easiest. It facilitated the processing of the over 100 cases listed outside the court room. This was not the occasion for contest but for facilitation of the order needed to hold the child in care. Mr. Christie was expressing consternation over the fact
that although the Act allows the Director without a court order, to
remove a child if the director has reasonable grounds to believe that
the child needs protection and that either the child's health or
safety is in immediate danger, or there is no other less disruptive
measure that is available to adequately protect the child, this did
not apply to Josiah, the son of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. Josiah was a
little over a week old when he was removed. He had been in supervised
natal care in hospital. He was removed from the hospital. The reason
for his removal was tantamount to a fabrication.
In fact, the affidavit stated that “the
child was removed in accordance with the following: section 30 of the
Child, Family and Community Service Act in the following
circumstance(s) as described by section 13 of the Act: the child has
been, or is likely to be, physically harmed by the child's parent,
and the child's parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child
and has not made adequate provision for the child's care. Further,
the child was removed under section 30 because there was no less
disruptive measures available to insure safety.Well, that's what the affidavit said, but it was not accurate.
I ask you, knowing what you now know
about the Baynes, is that paragraph true?
The Baynes have made provision for
their children. Their home has been ready for three and a half years
to accommodate and to serve their children. Rooms, beds, closets, toys
have all been in readiness and in fact, in use during Saturday
visitations. Since Paul operates an evening janitorial business with
numerous contracts, transporting the children to and from school or
to appointments during the daytime would never be a problem. They are in readiness for
newborn Josiah in every way as well. And, given the possibility of
their startling reintroduction to caring for all of these children if
Judge Crabtree grants that on Monday, they have a large network of
trained professionals and volunteers who will assist. A care plan for
the new child was submitted by the Baynes to MCFD, and Judge
Arthur-Leung was shown this as well. To no avail. The baby remains
for now in Ministry Care in a Foster Home, fortunately the same one
where his siblings reside. He is in good hands there. I suppose Her Honour was effectively
deferring to her superior, the Chief Justice Thomas Crabtree. He will
tell us his verdict about Kent, Baden and Bethany on Monday, Feb
28th. The conclusion of Josiah's fresh saga is pending as well.
