VICTORY IS THE CRY / Part 217 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I am soulful at the moment of writing. It's a vulnerable place to be.
Adults can be so cruel at times.
Parents of children sometimes lose sight of the impressionability of their offspring.
They fail to recognize their children as creatures of promise, treasures to be protected.
Some adult parents have never themselves matured.
The innocence of children is compromised at so many levels within our culture,
So soon.
What was unspoiled, pristine in a human person, small and endangered,
Observes, experiences, feels, learns attitudes and behaviours that issue in a child person either noble or unremarkable.
So much derives from parents patient, tender, informative, embracing.
Hearts ache as children suffer from neglect, from torment, from physical maltreatment.
Good people are still in the majority.
They recognize the cultural need to preserve the small ones.
They invent the instruments that quell the dangers and protect the treasures.
Yet legislation cannot change human hearts.
So small lives spoiled and marked by anguish proliferate in an educated world and one wonders why.
And good people commissioned, check wrongdoing, punish bad people and modify destinies.
And sometimes their zeal errs and punishment is misdirected,
Good people with innocent children are caught in a vortex of accusation.
Casualties multiply. All lose. Everyone is wounded.
The circuitous stream of incrimination and disgrace and legal actions soil a society.
Antagonists and protagonists all.
All the someones are opponents and adversaries now.
Everyone looking for victory.
Urbanity is sour.
Humanity is imperiled.

OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE PAYING ATTENTION / Part 216 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I have learned that the MCFD is discontented, maybe even distressed with the publicity that is being received by the Bayne Campaign for Justice whether it has been through televised reports, online or hard copy news reports, or information at assorted websites and blogs and the unusual number of emails and correspondence and phone calls from Bayne supporters asking for the return of the children. The copy is always unflattering and critical of course. The phone calls and emails denunciative and demanding. I fully appreciate the frustration felt by social workers and managers of MCFD who principally seek to administer their responsibilities effectively. They want to go home at nights feeling that they have done the right things at the right times. I understand that. And MCFD employees feel that with respect to the Bayne support network no one appears to respect these sincere efforts.

Wouldn't tough-minded public ministry be convenient if everything that one did could be affected under a cloak of confidentiality or silence? That was practiced for years. Checks and balances were deemed necessary, an example of which is the position of Representative of Children and Youth designed to ensure that agencies serving children and youth are providing programs and care with which all of us are satisfied.

I was amused to hear Point #12 among the thirty point Ministry affidavit authored by social workers assigned to this case. I will tell you more about the MCFD affidavit next week. It's not appropriate for me to divulge more now before the Judge makes his ruling next Monday on the Baynes' application for unsupervised access to their children.

Point #12 was a “poor us” statement that had no bearing whatsoever on Baynes' unsupervised access application. It said, “The Baynes have a large following of supporters, often having many of those supporters present during Court hearings and otherwise engaging the Ministry through letters, phone calls, emails, and internet postings which convey many specific details of the Baynes' case and question the Ministry's motives."

What was the point of that? It entertained me because the authors appeared not to grasp that this MCFD Ministry is not beyond questioning. Any time that an agency's actions impinge upon the rights and freedoms of people, other citizens will question and expect reasonable answers. When the optics appear unjust, the questions intensify. And yes indeed people know about this case and feel strongly about it. After all, it was aired nationally as well as provincially by CBC and Global TV news. I have certainly capitalized on the vast network of contacts across the provinces that were afforded to me by the executive position from which I retired. A current total of fifty thousand page hits have been registered since the blog began in October 2009. Each day among the one thousand daily hits are social workers, directors and ministerial staff with the MCFD around the province, present and past caregivers, people with RCMP, people in medical facilities and universities, people from news media, from provincial government offices, from interested agencies in the U.S., and from many, many people in Canada who have been burned by child protection agencies.

This blog as I have said before, is decidedly 'pro return the children,' expressed within a framework of fair play. It may not always seem fair but that is the affect of stating an opinion on a blog. However, because I have invited comments, permitting both dissenting comments and passionate anti-MCFD comments, some significant exchanges occur. For the most part people are respecting civility while responding to one another. Yes people are being informed, challenged, caused to weigh arguments, and perhaps somewhere in the future, making the improvements that will reduce the number of removals and modify public perception. Yes there is publicity around this case.

#2 of THIS CASE IS A LAND MARK / Part 215 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Wednesday Entry Part 2, continued from the earlier post today

At the hearing yesterday for unsupervised access, in Doug Christie's presentation of the Bayne affidavit, Judge Crabtree was reminded that no evidence exists that Paul or Zabeth ever harmed one of their children. It didn't exist at the time of the children's removal and no evidence has been entered into court as evidentiary fact. Only suspicion survives and that does not qualify as evidence because it is subjective and willful. Medical reports on the two boys before the birth of their daughter indicate that the youngest boy's severe prematurity notwithstanding, both boys were well and had good connection with their parents. The eldest son was born at normal gestation and had no physical issues. The next son and the youngest child, a daughter, were born very prematurely. Paul and Zabeth could support their testimony with medical documentation that they took diligent care of these two youngest and needy children, providing them with consistent and regular doctors' reviews. The Baynes cited the numerous benefits that would accrue to the best interests of their children were they to be granted unsupervised access.

In contrast to the Bayne affidavit, another affidavit was presented by Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen. This document began with a list of the full schedule of activities in which each of the three children is occupied each day of the week. The inference was that additional visitation time was unthinkable because it complicates foster care and supervision arrangements. Then the document predictably spoke to those matters that imply the continuing risk that Paul and Zabeth pose in the Director's mind. It stated that the Director has relied upon the diagnosis of Children's Hospital that Bethany sustained a non accidental trauma resulting in brain hemorrhaging, a unilateral retinal hemorrhage and a fractured femoral bone. On that reliance the Director is seeking a Continuing Care Order the affidavit said, and increased access and certainly unsupervised access conflicts with the Director's proposed plan for the children, which is in his view to take them away permanently from their parents. While reference to Children's Hospital gave it punch, I suspect Children's Hospital will not be pleased to take ownership of this (non accidental) trauma diagnosis since it expressly belonged to one doctor and is disputed by a dozen other medical experts. The punch is lost. Now I want you to read the magnitude of this next assumption. Then the affidavit said that it is the Director's belief that Baby B sustained these injuries at the hands of one or both of her parents and that she and her siblings are consequently at risk of further injury if left unsupervised in their parents' care. I mentioned earlier that suspicion cannot be deemed to be evidence. Conjecture, speculation must not be deemed as cause for a CCO ruling. The affidavit even made quibbling reference to internet postings which convey specific details of the Bayne case and question the Ministry's motives (i.e. GPS). I make these points because someone must, in the best interest of the children as a matter of fact. News journalists would and could but it doesn't sustain readership each and every day. But I am getting the sense that there is coming a day when the details will be torrential.

Yesterday's Conclusion: At the end of the day, Judge Crabtree ordered access consistent with the request of Paul and Zabeth that the children attend a Birthday Party for one of the children to be held soon at a place of their choice and supervision was at the discretion of the Ministry. The children would also be permitted to attend an anniversary party at another date. Most importantly Justice Crabtree has called everyone back to the court next Monday when he will deliver a written ruling on the matter of unsupervised visitation.

THIS CASE IS A LAND MARK / Part 214 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Wednesday Entry Part 1
The court case proper has not been concluded, yet the Judge permitted this attendant item to be presented and ruled upon independent of the final case outcome.

More time with their children.
Time without supervisors hovering, watching, taking notes.

Founded on the premise of the best interests of the children, yesterday, Tuesday June 8th, Paul and Zabeth laid out facts to the Court to support their request for more visitation time and unsupervised visits. Their lawyer Doug Christie presented their concisely written affidavit and refutation of the Ministry affidavit.

Yesterday Judge Crabtree listened and spoke. I want you to understand what he heard and saw in that court room. He saw an in demand Victoria based lawyer supportive of a young couple without financial assets to pay him, make the trip from the Island to be in court to represent them on this supplemental matter. In that act he observed the commitment of a legal counsel who is convinced that the Ministry has done a disservice to this family which needs to be rectified. Judge Crabtree also saw five salaried Ministry employees (paid for by you) in attendance in court, sitting on their hands. He discerned how nervous the Ministry is about the publicity and the outcomes of this entire case, of which this present application is an indicator. Five people present was not a strategic sign of solidarity. It was imprudent.

Judge Crabtree listened as in their presentation the Baynes stated that they dearly love their children and they long to have their children in their parental care once again. They stated that they have demonstrated this by attending every visitation opportunity permitted to them for two and one half years and have frequently requested that the Director grant more time to them. Any visitation is at the discretion of the Director. All visitation has been strictly supervised . Gestures and words by children or parents being monitored and recorded. When anything deviated from the stringent guidelines prescribed to them, the supervisor remonstrated the parents even using threats of cancelled visitation privilege. Such demanding and restricted scrutiny inhibited natural loving parental/child interaction. The best interests of these children has not been the motivation behind this rigorous supervision.

This is merely the beginning of this recounting of the affidavit adventure. Expect another episode later today.

Yesterday's Conclusion: At the end of the day, Judge Crabtree ordered access consistent with the request of Paul and Zabeth that the children attend a Birthday Party for one of the children to be held soon at a place of their choice and supervision was at the discretion of the Ministry. The children would also be permitted to attend an anniversary party at another date. Most importantly Justice Crabtree has called everyone back to the court next Monday when he will deliver a written ruling on the matter of unsupervised visitation.

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.

BLOGGER WAS DOWN

My apologies for delay in publishing comments. It was beyond my control. The entire Blogger system was down since Sunday evening.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? / Part 212 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

On the Saturday, June 5, 2010 blog entry called Munchausen Syndrome / Part 210 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/ someone left a comment. You can read it in full but I can synopsize it with this comment. The writer has become a recent reader of this blog and seeking to catch up on some of the previous posts has left a comment to describe the impressions which the numerous comments have produced. My blog itself without the colour of comments from readers would be uncomplicated and certainly clear in its intention. It would exclusively speak in favour of the restoration of the Bayne family. From the beginning of the blog I had the option of either permitting readers to comment or removing this possibility. I chose to welcome comments. I knew that comments from others might seem to compromise my purpose of advocating for the Baynes. I also knew that an equitable comment opportunity would increase the likelihood of two opposed persuasions listening to one another 's issues and arguments. The writer of the comment struggles with the contending medical opinions, and stories and objectives and outcomes. I wrote a response.

In answer to Anon June 6, 2010 10:44 AM
I would say that your observations as a relatively new reader of this blog with its list of posts and comments, accurately describe the tensions that exist between opinions and sympathies. I will say that the blog itself, my creation, is decidedly pro-Bayne family reunion because I personally believe that a wrong diagnosis was made and that the parents did not themselves harm their child volitionally or accidentally. I believe that the child's injuries were accidental or otherwise medically accountable. I write with respect for social workers, case workers, the ideal mission of the Ministry of Children and medical professionals but I write critically of incompetence. I am critical of what I perceive to be errors in judgement by those who are commissioned with so much power they are virtually immune to second guessing and discipline. The Baynes have an army of people who are their defenders, supporters and advocates whose opinions the Ministry has chosen to ignore, and the Baynes themselves do not contribute to the regular comments on this blog that either support them or are critical of the Ministry behaviour. I have permitted a ranging expression of comments all within the filter prescribed on the comment page. I permit defenders of Ministry actions and people committed primarily to the welfare of the children to write comments. No comments are edited. Truly offensive comments (my judgement) are rejected. I will not publish obscene, malicious or slanderous comments. The Bayne plight has given voice to numerous individuals who have similarly been deprived of parental and family rights and needless to say are not quick to hold back their anger with systems and people and who at times will express what they honestly have come to believe to be a financially driven conspiracy. I myself do not buy this implausible notion but I will not rebuke those who have lived with such grief and loss sometimes without hope of remedy.

Surprised by Joy / Part 211 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

C.S. Lewis, was the marvelous British author of novels and non fiction whose titles include, 'The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe' within the series of 'The Narnia Chronicles.' He also wrote the poignant 'Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life.' The latter is a partial autobiography published in 1955 describing Lewis' conversion to Christianity. His was an accidental discovery of the irresistible phenomenon he labelled “Joy.” The title itself was inspired by a William Wordsworth poem entitled, "Surprised By Joy — Impatient As The Wind", in which Wordsworth expresses the experience of temporarily forgetting the death of his beloved daughter only to be reminded with a stab of joy once again as he thinks about her and what he has lost. This is what he wrote.

"Surprised by joy — impatient as the Wind / I turned to share the transport — Oh! with whom / But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb, / That spot which no vicissitude can find? / Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind — / But how could I forget thee? Through what power, / Even for the least division of an hour, / Have I been so beguiled as to be blind / To my most grievous loss?--That thought's return / Was the worst pang that sorrow ever bore, / Save one, one only, when I stood forlorn, / Knowing my heart's best treasure was no more; / That neither present time, nor years unborn / Could to my sight that heavenly face restore."

I am struck with empathy for the eldest son of Paul and Zabeth Bayne who was three and one half years of age when he was removed from his parents and their family home by the Ministry of Children and the RCMP. His life until then was all about home: parents, baby brother, brand new sister, home, grandparents. At that moment he lost something undefinable and he grieved. What do we know about this small boy's grief. And then within months to be placed in his grandparents' home only briefly and then during a birthday party to be extracted again by people in authority. To be taken as his parents and grandparents stand crying and panicking and helpless to interfere or prevent. Compound that with his awareness that his younger brother too was forcibly taken, and to see his sybling's horror and sorrow and to not understand what is happening and why it is happening, and this comprised his new life. To be placed in homes where his needs are met and relationships develop and there is warmth and affection and yet he finds that his parents visit with him each week for a few hours but then there is always the wrenching goodbye, and why? And tears and an uncontrollable pain of confusion so profound it has become a part of who he is. He is forever affected by what the Ministry of Children has done to him and his family. He sees his mommy and daddy cry at times. His mind can still recall home as he knew it three years ago. Will he ever be able to return he wonders? How much is warehoused so deeply within him there is no further explanation needed for the development subnormality.

And then I long that he might this summer be SURPRISED BY JOY, and that the hope that he has treasured, guarded so tightly somehow, will be realized.

Munchausen Syndrome / Part 210 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Munchausen syndrome is named after Baron von Munchausen who was in the German military and is noted for his extensive travels during which he told fantastic tales about his imaginary exploits. In 1951 Richard Asher applied the Baron's name to people who reported into hospitals fabricating histories or symptoms of illnesses. His name now has become synonymous with a disorder in which a person intentionally fakes, simulates, worsens, or self-induces an injury or illness for the main purpose of being treated like a medical patient. A related condition, called Munchausen by proxy syndrome, refers to a caregiver who fakes symptoms by causing injury to someone else, often a child, and then wants to be with that person in a hospital or similar medical setting. It is the latter syndrome that was associated with Zabeth by someone who called in a report of concern to the MCFD. That person could have remained anonymous but didn't and in fact was identified in court when he gave testimony. He testified that during his professional training he had become acquainted with the term and its signs and in observing both Zabeth and her children, although unqualified professionally to make a definitive assessment, concluded Zabeth may be suffering this disorder. The timing of that call to MCFD approximate to the time of the Bayne infant's admission to and examination in Children's Hospital in Vancouver fueled the MCFD persuasion that the children needed protection. That combination of factors has led the Bayne family to the point today that the fate of their family rests with a provincial judge who will decide whether evidence presented by the Ministry lawyer proves that Paul and Zabeth are unfit parents who should never have custody of their children again in this life, or whether they should receive those children back immediately because the Ministry file folder containing three years of data on the Baynes is filled with subjective and biased hearsay rather than conclusive evidence.

Did Zabeth actually do what the syndrome scenario suggests? For one moment do you think that when her small daughter vomited, didn't eat, didn't poop, couldn't breath, didn't respond to stimuli and she took the child to hospitals and clinics in Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford over a period of days because no one was making an accurate diagnosis, that she was actually trying to gain attention for herself? Was she so needy that she inflicted injury to her child so that she would have reason to go the hospital and make a scene? No, Munchausen doesn't relate to her daughter's life in even the remotest sense. MCFD has never attested that it accepts the Munchausen possibility but it has not needed to because a medical diagnosis at Children's Hospital assessed the daughter's condition and speculated that it derived from non accidental trauma, that is an inflicted wounding. So regardless of the motivation, the implication is that mom did it, or dad did it. If the diagnosis of these symptoms was as conclusive as Children's Hospital or MCFD have maintained for almost three years, Paul and Zabeth would not have a hope. However, the ministry case in court has been paper thin. The Ministry lawyer's problem is that shaking a baby, as horrific an act as it is, is not the only probable cause for what the baby suffered in 2007 and has since then. That is why August 9-13 is so important as the Baynes present the alternative medical expert opinions that controvert the SBS diagnosis and which MCFD should have been diligent to pursue if quality investigation is a Ministry commitment.

It has been and it is an uphill battle for this mom to establish credibility which she lost involuntarily. She didn't need attention. She received it naturally and deservedly as a concert pianist and a music instructor. She is not now personally thriving on the media attention by which she hopes to regain her children, but rather is wilting under the discourtesies of insinuations and allegations. She is compelled to be a parent by proxy. She would much prefer to slip quietly away in the embrace of her three children, never to be heard from again.

See M.A.M.A.

FUNDRAISING CONCERT THIS SUNDAY / Part 209 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

The following is an important notice regarding the Bayne Campaign for Justice. The conclusion of their case to recover their three children is scheduled for August 9-12, 2010. While they hold evening jobs to provide a home for themselves and eventually their children, legal expenses are imposing. So many of their friends are helping. I am inviting you to the fund raising classical music concert this coming Sunday evening.

“For Love & for Justice” The Second Fundraising Concert for the Bayne Family legal expenses ~

Musicians are Violinist Mark Ferris, and Pianist Zabeth Bayne
Mark Ferris is a composer, concertmaster of the Vancouver Opera Orchestra and the Sinfonia of the Northshore, and has been in the first violin section of the CBC Orchestra since 1989. Zabeth is a talented concert pianist and music instructor whose music has been on hold for the past 2 1/2 years as she has struggled to regain her family.

This Sunday, June 6, 2010 @ 7:30pm to 9:00pm at Vancouver Chinese Baptist Church, 7474 Culloden Street, Vancouver, BC

Admission is Free - Gifts will be received for the Bayne legal fund

Some Suggested Action Steps

1. Make a donation at the concert or right now by making the cheque payable to
Lau, Chiu, Hunt Legal Trust Fund for Bayne
9406 Pauleshin Cres, Richmond, BC V7E 6P2
OR
Donations will be accepted by deposit to this trust account at any branch of TD Canada Trust. TD Canada Trust [bank # 004] Continental Centre Branch [branch # 9713]
Account Number [6415554]

2. Pray. Pray for the Baynes, for their children, for Lawyer Doug Christie, for Judge Thomas Crabtree, for employees of the Minister of Children & Family Development. Pray that the children will be home soon.

3. Share this invitation with your friends. Point them to the GPS blog.