The court order hearing sought by the
Ministry to take custody of then 14 day old Josiah, is scheduled for
Thursday, February 24
th at 9:30 am at the Surrey
Provincial Court. BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THE BABY FROM HOSPITAL AND PLACED HIM WITH FOSTER PARENTS. YESTERDAY WAS PAINFUL FOR THE BAYNES IN MEETING WITH PEDIATRICIAN ETC.
 |
| Daddy Paul and Josiah |
The author of the supporting affidavit
for the custody of Josiah is the same social worker, Loren Humeny,
who has been charged with responsibility for this case for the past
three and one half years. He was delegated by the Director last year
to write the affidavit that reasoned for the continued care order for
Josiah's three older siblings. We have an unconfirmed hint that this week Judge Crabtree who oversaw the trial will be hearing this one too. He has heard before, everything that is contained within the newest affidavit. He doesn't have to hear it again. However, if the forecasted snow doesn't stop Doug Christie, the presiding judge can expect to hear from Doug, who will unquestionably make it clear that
there is no new evidence. Certainly none that pertains to Josiah.
Read my words. NO NEW EVIDENCE. Josiah
will be 14 days old tomorrow. He was only seven days old last
Thursday when the affidavit was scheduled to be ruled upon by another judge. It should be assumed that it was penned some hours/days before that. During that first week of the child's life there would have been little opportunity for contact between parents
and child and whatever contact there was, occurred within the careful
view of attendant hospital staff. There is no evidence that concerns
Josiah that Mr. Humeny can present in support of this order. If in fact Judge Crabtree is presiding tomorrow, it will be most interesting to hear what he does with this order application. Will he grant the custody order based upon that affidavit information? If he does, should the MCFD assume that he will similarly rule in its favour concerning the other three children on Monday? Will he himself decide that the ruling concerning Josiah will be rolled into his ruling concerning the three children, since the supporting evidence is identical? Numerous spin-off questions come to mind, too many to cite here.
 |
| Zabeth and her new baby |
On Mr. McNeill's behalf, Loren must
rely upon the same supportive material used for the CCO case for the
three siblings. Yes, that's correct. The 'stuff' upon which the judge is expected to rule on Thursday with respect to Josiah is the same
'stuff' upon which Judge Thomas Crabtree will rule no later than
Monday, the 28
th, four days later with respect to the
other three children. That's the substance of the MCFD allegation that Paul and/or Zabeth are a risk to their children. It is no surprise that the judge last week in
adjourning the hearing for a week when MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen and
social worker Loren Humeny did not make an appearance, said that the
Josiah hearing should be heard by Judge Crabtree. And now we understand Judge Crabtree will be present. Well we hope that may be the case. Certainly no other
judge would presume to rule on the same material upon which the Chief
Justice of B.C. will rule days later (28th). Judge Crabtree has been deliberating for the past six
months. In any case, what mysterious strategy it is to press forward with the order
application for Josiah when the Chief
Justice may make a landmark decision that explodes the CCO application
and Shaken Baby Syndrome and MCFD practice concerning '
the Bayne
Three' which will render irrelevant the affidavit concerning Josiah. The wisest course for MCFD would have been to
posture for another adjournment tomorrow but instead they took the child and here we are. Perhaps Judge Crabtree will see through the legal devices and will make the Baynes and the children wait even longer for a ruling, but I doubt that. He is very sensitive to the hardship created for the Baynes by this tedious process.
Do you want to know what was going on at
the hospital nursery these past few days? Do you wish to know what the
hospital staff were witnessing? Josiah was doing very well. He fed
well and he had regained weight to his birth weight. He responded
to Zabeth's and Paul's voices, and to the sound of his daddy’s
voice when he sang softly to him. Staff noticed that Zabeth and Paul
were the only parents who remained all day to hold and to feed their
baby boy. They saw Paul leave in order to attend to his evening work
contracts. They saw two parents who enjoy every moment with their
child, the way he smells, the way his tiny whimper sounds. They saw
parents whose hearts rejoiced when Josiah looked up at them. And this
loving care took place while the threat of his removal hung like a
pall upon them. Then yesterday, someone was authorized to try fitting him into a car seat, to be ready for eventual transportation and at 2 PM Kim Tran, Surrey social worker, removed him from the hospital. This was done even though Josiah's tiny 4 pound form had to be stuffed round with filler material for him to be restrained within the car seat straps. Did you know that his ability to endure the car seat travel mode was tested, for up to an hour and his responses monitored. Did you know that the hospital pediatrician who met with the Baynes and approved Josiah's readiness to be moved, is a colleague of Dr. Margaret Colbourne who diagnosed SBS in 2007. Don't know what if anything that indicates. It's just that the lower mainland is a virtual citadel of SBS proponents.
Oh, by the way, Judge Crabtree knows
the outrageous action that took place on Thursday February 10th. I surmise that Mr. Humeny stated in the
new affidavit that the child was removed under the authority of the CFCSA
because the Director had valid reason to believe the child needed
protection. That would be standard. And if as I suspect Mr. Humeny marked the box with an X that indicates that there was no less
disruptive protective measure available, that could be regarded as not wholly true? The less disruptive measure was in his face on the 10th. As soon as he knew that due to Josiah's prematurity the baby had to stay in hospital for two weeks, that of itself was the less disruptive measure for protecting the child, don't you think? That is, unless Paul and Zabeth are psychopaths. Therefore when Mr. Humeny drafted the affidavit he did know that this less disruptive option of simply waiting for two weeks was available. We must conclude that the Director and the
social worker were determined to hurry to seize the child, even though the latter could say, "I am only following orders." So, considering the larger MCFD entity rather than the Fraser Valley Region, it really was in
MCFD's best interest to hold back on Josiah's custody order and forego tomorrow's hearing and
simply wait for D-day on Monday, but again, here we are. Oh sure, because of that cute tactical manoeuvre, that is, two weeks have now passed because the MCFD team was a no-show in court, so of course, there is no less disruptive protection measure.
As I have earlier pointed out, it won't
matter whether Finn Jensen himself or a substitute counsel is present
for the MCFD on Thursday, since the MCFD counsel will have to point out to Judge Crabtree or another judge, everything that was earlier heard by Judge Crabtree
over several weeks that spread over all of 2010. It is all the same.
There is nothing new. I can't imagine how Judge Crabtree or another his/her honour will process this but even if the ruling concerning Josiah tomorrow is to grant MCFD the order, it may be obliterated within hours by the Crabtree
decision when he rules on Monday.
