Here is an interesting resource:

Parents' Rights, Kids' Rights: A Parent's Guide to Child Protection Law in BC

Explains what can happen if the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development has concerns about a child's safety and well-being or is planning to remove a child from the family home. Also provides detailed information about developing agreements with the ministry, what happens in court during child protection hearings, and what family members and advocates can do if they have concerns about a child's foster care or a complaint about a social worker.

Here it is in pdf format which you can review right now. http://lss.bc.ca/assets/pubs/parentsRightsKidsRights.pdf

Legal Services Help http://lss.bc.ca/publications/pub.aspx?p_id=77

QUESTIONS POINTING TO FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN MCFD / Part 244 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

In autumn of 2007, each doctor in their respective medical disciplines sought to examine, assess, and report on Baby B's symptoms, injuries, condition and state of health, and to conduct this work as carefully and thoroughly as possible in the facilities where the observations were conducted.

Dr. Colbourne for example not only relied upon her own years of training and medical experience, but also trusted the independent and specialized examinations by colleagues with other expertise. In her estimation the gathered reports were consistent with a diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) and given that result, her duty was to notify MCFD and RCMP, each to do their respective investigations.

Still today several concerns arise in this case where the parents, the only caregivers who can be implicated in an SBS diagnosis, insisted in October 2007 as they do today July 2010, that they are innocent of harming their child. A shaken baby and innocent caregivers are not consistent. If one chooses to believe the parents who already had two young sons before the precious daughter arrived, one must explain the girl's health issues some other way.

1. Does sufficient doubt about SBS exist in medical research and diagnostic fields to put SBS into question as the default diagnosis for the triad of symptoms?

2. If another paediatrician without the SBS predisposition when faced with these particular symptoms had conducted the examination, would a variant diagnosis have resulted?

3. If adequate proof is required in order for RCMP to proceed with charges of child abuse or aggravated assault, how dare medical community and our MCFD be comfortable to accept “'suspicion' without evidence” as sufficient grounds not merely to remove children during an investigatory process but to extend the separation long enough that it takes a family apart? How dare our MCFD officers in Victoria remain satisfied with reports of this kind and if not satisfied, silent?

4. Assuming that RCMP investigative skills are superior to MCFD investigative skills in detecting and confirming wrongdoing, how can our government continue to validate and empower an MCFD to do what RCMP has said there is no reason to do?

My questions point to systemic defects.

1. A system is fundamentally flawed when it has directors and SW middle managers who systematically ignore prescribed time lines from the same CFCSA from which they demand compliance by everyone else.

2. A system is fundamentally flawed when it deliberately ignores court orders and rulings by a Judge, somehow assuming a self-appointed authority to justify actions and preferring to believe it is above the law.

Whether or not the CFCSA should be amended or replaced or tossed is moot when it can be willfully ignored or reinterpreted without censure by MCFD employees. What is needed is for MCFD directors, managers and supervisors to be held accountable for each and every breach of the existing Act. Where is the accountability? Further, that there be stated penalties for these breaches and that the penalties if financial are not absorbed by some fund which all of us have provided through taxation.

SUSTAINING THE FAMILY'S PLACE / Part 243 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

On this blog site most observers familiar with the Ministry of Children and Family Development agree that the child protection activities are in crisis. MCFD knows how to seize children. MCFD doesn't want to know how and when to give them back. Parents and social workers alike agree that too many children remain in foster care for too long. Most people who pay attention to child welfare in British Columbia, concur with this viewpoint and complain for good reason.

While I dedicated this blog for the past nine months to advocating on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their three children, all of you have been making it amply clear to all readers that the Baynes are only a sampling of the families who cry at night in separate living quarters. The Bayne children exemplify the thousands of children confused by their changed life situations. They wonder with fear about their families, their futures and their parents' love.

None of us disagree that aggressive measures are required to protect children from parental abuse and neglect. But here is the thing. Many broken families are bearing the evidence that there is an aggressive default protection policy operative within MCFD that removes children from their biological families and places them for adoption. Does anyone else in the real world think that this is an appropriate solution for the children who may be at risk in their homes? Child Welfare within this province must be pressured to reduce reliance on out-of-home care for children so that their own families may successfully raise them. I have become persuaded that MCFD is unjustifiably dismissive of the potential for preserving and restoring families when the appropriate resources are made available. Would not our society prefer to see resources poured into helping parents and children remain as families rather than pouring that money into foster care provisions with all the spinoff ramifications. As long as we are silent about our Child welfare system that is philosophically committed to removing children and retaining children without investing hope into the minds, hearts and lives of parents who are now appalled by grief and powerless to regain their parental rights, we aid and abet an inhuman treatment of our fellow citizens. News agencies, please pay attention here.

Oh its not my problem!

That's how we rationalize it, some of us.

And if our political representatives and legislators similarly leave the office each day to go home feeling that children victimized by a child welfare system gone awry is not their problem, we will talk idly about this into the next decade.

GROUNDSWELL / Part 242 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Groundswell.
Groundswell. New Ministry of Children Now!

By definition a groundswell is a strong, obvious and growing change of public sentiment or popular opinion that occurs spontaneously or without leadership or overt expression, like a wave.

What will it take? What will it take to move us first so that we become part of the movement that uproots and overturns the abusive system that is a disgrace to grace and mercy, kindness and altruistic assistance.

One answer is found in a comment by Gill Troy, McGill U professor who in expressing what is required to get Jews interested enough to respond to a new anti-semitism wrote, "Anger is the active ingredient in the success of movements, be it Civil Rights, feminism, gay liberation, anti-Communism, Soviet Jewry or Zionism itself. When successfully channeled, anger can put oppressors and moral slobs on the defensive, adjust common language patterns, heighten people's sensitivities and change history. For starters, we should shake up and wake up the Jewish community, teaching that fighting the New Anti-Semitism requires going beyond business as usual."

If that is true then some of you are verbalizing, venting, your distaste for MCFD practices with regard to child protection and the way it affects families. Do you read how diplomatically I have stated your feelings. It's too soft isn't it? In fact you are angry. I keep saying that we need to control ourselves and I believe on one hand that I am right. If you still have unfinished business with MCFD then the more unglued you appear to them, the more negative reporting goes into your file. That's why anonymity and camouflaged information needs to appear here if you are telling your story. I don't believe we need to be paranoid but wary. Are you angry yet? You see, on the other hand as Gill Troy tells us, one of the motivating factors that generate successful movements is anger sufficient to press for change. Why do any of you have to suffer so helplessly. It is plainly wrong. It is enough to make you angry.

A few of you have said that what MCFD child protection does, is wrong. It's an inadequate descriptive isn't it? You can hardly find words adequate to depict the things done to adult men and women and their children. Wrong yes! But also condemnable, improper, reprehensible, deplorable, criminal, dishonourable, immoral, unethical, wicked, that's what it is.

A groundswell is like a wave, tsunami. By the way, 75% of all tsunamis occur in the Pacific Ocean. I certainly am hoping that a Pacific opposition of tsunami proportions will strike a responsive chord among our politicians.

Do you think that you can manage your anger? Anger motivates but it doesn't win debates. It alienates listeners and readers and decision makers. The anger can propel you to be a good researcher, a committed advocate, a change maker. The anger must be first harnessed into energy.

In writing about the need for Jews to respond to the new anti-semitism McGill professor Gill Troy says, “ http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/can_we_stop_being_so

EFFECTIVE ACTIVISM / Part 241 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Effective activism is a long term process. There have been individuals and organizations at work doing commentaries about child protection in British Columbia for some time. Perhaps we are at the intersection now at which our collective concerns can merge into a movement for change. Citizen engagement has been effective in the past and it can be again. Uncovering the principles that produce effective activism is the need right now. Inspired by an excerpt from environmentalist Paul Rogat Loeb's Soul of a Citizen, I wish to suggest some principles which work for people who speak to numerous challenges including keeping a local school open to aggressive cleanup of the Gulf oil spill.

We want to do something to change the way child protection work is prescribed and practiced in British Columbia. If you live elsewhere the suggestions below can similarly apply.

Suggestion #1: Begin where you are. You don't need to have all the answers or information and you don't have to be perfect at expressing the need.

 Suggestion #2: Approach this action in steps. Set your own level of involvement so you are not submerged in the work load.

 Suggestion #3: Build a supportive community. Much more is accomplished when a group of good people come together online or in person.

 Suggestion #4: Be strategic. Determine what it is that you are agreed you should accomplish. Find allies and together decide how you can best communicate the urgency you have identified.

 Suggestion #5: Enlist those who are uninvolved. Volunteerism is not common, so many people with their own concerns, fears and doubts must be encouraged to participate and when they become active they are capable of great achievements.

 Suggestion #6: Look for improbable allies. The wider you spread the circle of interest and involvement, the greater becomes the probability of breakthrough to change.

 Suggestion #7: Persevere. Continue. The longer you work at advocating change the greater the measure of change and the likelihood of accomplishing that change.

 Suggestion #8: Enjoy the journey. Changing an aspect of our world for the better should not be gloomy work. Savor the company of good people and other assorted soul lifting activities.

 Suggestion #9: Dream big and think large. Jettison the fear of taking on the most egregious injustices, and tackling them on a provincial, national and even global scale. Small actions have a history of shifting the course of history.

 Suggestion #10: Listen to your heart.  Your heart has dictated your involvement from the start and it will fuel your continued engagement.

Continuing Care Order (CCO) / Part 240 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

PART 2 of 2
The Ministry is seeking a Continuing Care Order (CCO) from the Judge. Conclusion of the court hearing is scheduled for August 9-13, 2010.

Before the Judge will rule to grant a CCO for the reasons stated in (49.5), certain considerations must be made including (1) the parents' conduct toward each and all three children who were in the parents' care, and including (2) the parents' plan of care for the children and of course (3) the children's best interests 49.6.a-c. Unquestionably, Paul and Zabeth have exhibited on the occasion of all their visits with their children over the past two and one half years, a deep love and care for their children, a longing to have their children back home, and they display nothing but understanding, patience, comfort, and love for each child. They have affected housing accommodation so each child has space in the family home to which they can return. There is no question that the two boys have a memory history of their mom and dad and their home half a lifetime ago, and that they still desire to be with their birth parents. And fortunately through a wise action during the past year that placed Baby B in a foster home with her two brothers, this little girl removed as an infant has established filial sibling attachments. Through steady visitation she also has developed a small daughter's relationship to her parents. It is reasonable and necessary that these three children have their best interests and expectations met by returning them to their parental home.

If the Judge will not grant a continuing custody order to the Ministry, then he must issue an order either to return the children to the custody of Paul and Zabeth, or to retain the children in temporary custody of the director or someone other than the parents for a period of time up to six months (49.7.a+b). Of course, from my perspective, the first option is the only reasonable one. The second would be a huge set back and a continuation of the injustice that has characterized this family's life from the end of 2007. It is also possible that if the Judge orders the children to be returned to Paul and Zabeth, this may be with the proviso of a supplementary order authorizing the director to supervise the child's care for six months (49.8). This would be acceptable but not preferable to the Baynes because they have been harassed by this care ministry long enough.

But then the ACT manages to abet the Ministry again because if the Judge has ordered the children to remain in temporary custody of the Director for six months, then 60 days before this provision expires, the director can again apply for a CCO (49.9). So then this would start all over again, waiting for a court date, and living through delays. The judge would face the same options of ruling on the basis of the parents' actions toward their children, the parents' plan of care, and the children's best interests to either grant the order for the continuing care by the director or the return the children to Paul and Zabeth (49.10).  And frighteningly, the next time, they may not be heard by a judge with the discernment of Dr. Crabtree. Friends, I get the picture. The question is, does Mary Polak, or DuToit, or Campbell, or Turpel-Lafond,or any of our other leaders who can speak to these issues in the right place at the right times. And where are the Press, the Media, the Journalists who have the vehicles for disseminating news and fact and truth.

This blog is in support of returning the children to Paul and Zabeth.

Continuing Care Order (CCO) / Part 239 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

PART 1 of 2
The Ministry is seeking a Continuing Care Order (CCO) from the Judge. Conclusion of the court hearing is scheduled for August 9-13, 2010.

The Child, Youth and Community Services Act contains CCO specifics about which we should be informed as we follow the Baynes' determined toil to survive as a family. What am I saying? This is horrible that two parents in our community, in this province should be spending every waking minute of every day, not taking care of their children but rather, trying to get their children back. And even that is saying too much. They can't do much. They have to wait and wait for a few days in August when lawyers will lock horns once again. They have to wait until one man, His Honour Thomas Crabtree, yet nonetheless a man, will render a ruling that will either make them a family or break them.

For children in at-risk situations within their own family homes or with care providers, the Act becomes an instrument of deliverance. The Baynes, however represent a host of families whose futures have been interrupted by insult and abuse from outside the home. Justifiable initial investigation is one thing but this prolonged and malicious invasion while not criminal, should be regarded as contrary to law. I cannot fault readers and commentors for concluding that the Act while dressed with approved legalese is callous enough but then interpreted and practiced by the Fraser Region of MCFD as in the case of the Baynes, has become the most unfeeling device of cruelty that exists in B.C. against which there is no law or penalty. Think that's overstated? Ask your children as they get ripped from your arms on the strength of an anonymous phone call?

The court is authorized to grant continuing custody of the Bayne children to the director if it is unlikely that improvement has been made or will be made to the circumstances that led to the removal of the children, or that the parents are unable to meet the needs of these children (CFCS Act 49.5.a+b). There has never been a question that Paul and Zabeth have the capacity to provide for the needs of these three children. Husband and wife while giving up day jobs in order to be available to visit the children in day hours have nonetheless found employment at night as custodians and they maintain as always a clean and well equipped personal domicile. They are intelligent. The are well read. They have principles and values commensurate with most of us in our society. They are compassionate and helpful to others. They have friends. They have people who admire them. They are respectable and respected. The show respect to others. They say thank you. A couple of their children needed frequent medical checkups due to prematurity at birth yet these parents always cared for their children and were in no way negligent. Those were the circumstances before the removal of the children, before the 2007 accident to one child. Paul and Zabeth have never ceased demonstrating tender and loving care and concern for the children they can only see for a few hours each week. This is an industrious and diligent and focused couple. Today the status of the case is unchanged. No new evidence exists upon which MCFD can prop up its case. One doctor's diagnosis is caught in an arena of medical professional dispute. The Baynes' circumstances at the time of removal were dictated by misplaced suspicion of wrongdoing. It is high time that skeptics accept that this happens. I am confident that Justice Crabtree has discovered this.

This blog is in support of returning the children to Paul and Zabeth.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BAYNE RULING / Part 238 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Without question child protection work in B.C. over the past fifteen years has become increasingly complex due to the directives within the Child, Youth and Community Services Act and the emphasis on judicial involvement and the ensuing litigation, and for that reason has become increasingly politicized and publicized. Media coverage will not diminish soon. In fact I see it being stepped up. That will surely be true if and when the Baynes case in court is decided in their favour. Look forward to the month of August 2010. The coverage will be heavier and extended if Judge Crabtree's ruling in favour of the Baynes is accompanied by a scathing indictment of the actions of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Fraser Region.

Mary Polak, Minister of MCFD whose residence and riding is in Langley is most interested to know how this case will turn out. She has been aware of the Baynes for a couple of years. She has met them. Despite all of our individual letters of support for the Baynes directed to Ms. Polak over the past many months, she cannot and has not intervened or interrupted the process of one region's handling of an individual case, specially when it is before the court. Post Bayne case however, she may feel compelled by conscience or principle or powers to begin to inquire judiciously into the child protection work of her vast Ministry portfolio because a conscientious person cannot permit this to continue.

It is becoming apparent to observers that the Baynes are merely the poster children or high profile example of a widespread ministry sink hole. There are hundreds of other children and parents who could be together now if this Ministry were geared philosophically and practically to help and to heal the behaviours and the relationships within families that allow them to survive. Many that would be together if this Ministry exercised investigative expertise and discerning compassion. Notwithstanding the cases where children are safer away from their biological homes, there are many children who do not need to be living in foster environments as commitedly good as some are. So many moms and dads who did not need to be put through ordeals that made them feel like criminals, like outcasts. So many social workers who have been sleepless because they wrestled with wanting to do more that was emotionally and instinctively helpful but instead were directed by supervisors to hard-line a custody battle at all costs.

I believe the ruling in the Bayne case is of such importance to this province, to our population, to our government, that its outcome will catalyze the future of child protection in B.C. 

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right things"                  Peter Ferdinand Drucker

INTERPRETING THE PRECEDING REPORTS / Part 237 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

So here comes the critical determination after four days of online medical reports.

• This child was in very serious medical crisis in September 2007.
• By reviewing the initial test results and medical reports these past four days, my purpose was to underscore Baby B's condition which resulted in the MCFD intervention in her life.
• What the original and vital diagnosis of shaken baby did not consider were the alternate explanations that were provided yesterday by the reports from ten other experts who reject the shaken baby diagnosis for this specific child.
• It was not the Children's Hospital or the Ministry of Children (MCFD) that sought any alternate opinions to insure that SBS was the accurate diagnosis. MCFD was content that the SBS verdict was the right one. It was content even in the face of conflicting expert opinions.
• An SBS conclusion is conjoined with a 'non accidental injury' designation and therefore responsibility for an inflicted injury must be assessed to the person(s) most likely implicated. In the Bayne case, probability pointed to Zabeth and/or Paul, the biological parents. This would need to be substantiated of course, but how and with what?
• While this was investigated, the children were removed from their parental home.
• The RCMP ruled that there was insufficient evidence to charge Paul and Zabeth.
• When the MCFD regional Director persisted in its custody and care of the children, his decisions were motivated by a child's injuries but they were not associated with evidence and proof of parental responsibility for the injury to the injured child and absolutely no evidence existed to support the continued custody of the two sibling brothers.
• Nevertheless on the strength of suspicion, MCFD continued to withhold the rights of three children to live with their birth parents. Maintaining suspicion, MCFD pressed the Baynes to admit to harming their child until it became evident that the Baynes would assert their innocence unconditionally. Without an admission of responsibility, the Director and his crew would not consider returning the children and further have in documents alleged that the Baynes are uncooperative.In fact that is untrue. They have instead been bravely assertive and understandably concerned that all of their personal and family rights and freedoms are not ignored.
• The shaken baby diagnosis is the substantive basis for MCFD action and now the Continuing Care Order application. A most recent MCFD affidavit states “The Director is seeking a Continuing Care Order, relying upon the diagnosis of the Children's Hospital that B.B. sustained a non-accidental trauma resulting in brain hemorrhaging, a unilateral retinal hemorrhage and a fractured femoral bone.” The hemorrhaging is understood. The reference to fractured femur is intended to infer an intentional injury. Even that was an inaccurate statement as Dr. Culman's report indicated that “The lateral view of the right elbow shows what appears as subperiostal new bone but is in fact cortical tunnelling because there is no new bone on the frontal view. “

THE CRITICAL DETERMINATION: NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT THIS CHILD WAS WILLFULLY HARMED BY AN ADULT AND SPECIFICALLY BY PAUL AND/OR ZABETH BAYNE. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER EXISTS THAT THIS CHILD'S SIBLING BROTHERS HAVE BEEN HARMED. THE ACKNOWLEDGED INJURIES TO THIS CHILD DO NOT INDICATE CATEGORICALLY A NON ACCIDENTAL ORIGIN. IF REASONABLE DOUBT PERMITS THE RELEASE OF SOMEONE ACCUSED OF AN AGREGIOUS CRIMINAL ACT, THE REASONABLE DOUBT CONCURRENT WITH NON-CONCLUSIVE GROUNDS IN THE BAYNE CASE DEMANDS THE RELEASE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TO THEIR BIRTH PARENTS.

10 EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE / Part 236 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Doctors' Reports on Baby B's Medical Case

I have provided a factual presentation of the medical reports by the physicians and medical experts related to the Baby B case in the early months of her medical crisis. Shaken Baby Diagnosis is a much disputed diagnosis within the medical community.

The MCFD case is relying almost exclusively upon an SBS diagnosis by a B.C. Children's Hospital Child Protection doctor. Other medical opinions were sought by the Bayne family following Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. No other opinions were sought by MCFD. Each medical doctor cited below and each scientist below reviewed the case of Baby B. Bayne.  Each analyst arrived at an identical conclusion which is that Baby B was not willfully harmed by a person.  It was not inflicted injury. These are the reports that the Baynes have listed on their website and made available to MCFD, to the media and to me. These opinion reports have been ignored or dismissed by MCFD. (Toggle each expert's name and find a full report)

Dr. John Plunkett

---

John Plunkett, MD resides in Welch, Minnesota and is an expert in child forensic pathology. Dr. Plunkett has experience with many multiple SBS cases.

Dr. John Galaznik

---

John Galaznik, MD is an an Alabama, USA pediatrician.  Dr. Galaznik is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Dr. Horrace Gardner

---

Horrace Gardner, MD practices in Colorado.  Dr. Gardner is an opthalmology expert in shaken baby syndrome and has a specific interest in the ophthalmologic aspects of the SBS.

Dr. Michael Innis

---

Michael Innis, MBBS, DTM&H, FRCPA, FRCPath is a doctor of medicine in Australia who specializes in forensic pathology. 

Dr. Peter Stephens

---

Peter Stephens, MD is a published pathologist born in England, graduated from medical school in Canada and resides in the U.S., and acted as senior medical advisor for the (U.S.) FAA.

Dr. Harry Bonnell

---

Harry Bonnell, MD is a forensic pathologist in San Diego, California.  Dr. Bonnell is a medical school graduate of Georgetown University with certification in anatomic and forensic pathology.

Dr. Kenneth Monson

---

Kenneth Monson, PhD, is assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Utah.

Dr. John Butt

---

John Butt, MD is an anatomical and forensic pathologist, having graduated medical school in Alberta, Canada.  Dr. Butt holds a diploma in medical jurisprudence (pathology), London.

 Dr. Chris Van Ee

---

Chris Van Ee, PhD is an award winning published presenter and Duke grad with a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering.  Dr. Ven Ed has been a reviewer for many scientific organizations.

Dr. Patrick Barnes

---

Patrick Barnes, MD is chief of pediatric neuroradiology, director of pediatric MRI and CT, professor of radiology; Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford Medical Center.