Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 5 of 6 - Trial Two

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information

In Trial Two the plaintiffs sought damages based on the tort of misfeasance, alleging intentional and reckless misconduct by the Director and her agents acting in breach of the standard of care as well as fiduciary duty, being motivated by bad faith and malice. The same claim for costs was made at first trial but put over to the second trial. More specifically in Trail Two plaintiffs claimed that the Director and her agents failed to protect the children from B.G.; failed to investigate reports of sexual and physical abuse; wrongfully apprehended the children from their mother; unreasonably held the unjustifiable belief that J.P. was unfit to parent; ignored Court orders; abandoned statutory obligations. The result has been ongoing emotional harm to the children from abuse by B.G. and from being withheld from their mother for two and one-half years. Further, while in the care of the Director the youngest child, P.G. was sexually abused because of the unsupervised access.  

In Justice Walker's Second Trial judgement, for ease of reference, he referred to the Director and her agents as the “Director”. The Director and the Ministry cannot be sued. Therefore, the defendant was the Province of British Columbia since the Province is responsible for the Director and the Ministry. The Province denied any basis for a finding of misfeasance, asserting that the Director fulfilled all common law and statutory duties to the children. B.G. denied all claims against him.  Judge Walker in his ruling certainly disagreed. He determined that the infant plaintiffs established the liability of the Province for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty owed to them. The plaintiffs, including J.P., also proved the misfeasance claim. Judge Walker determined that the Director and certain Ministry social workers acted well outside of their statutory mandate and the duty to protect children and that the nature of their libelous handling of the case varied depending on the individual. It ranged from intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obligation to protect children, breach of the applicable standard of care to unreasonably supporting the custodial interests of the children’s father even if it meant he sexually abused them.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial
This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information.

The 'First Trial' commenced on October 17, 2011 and was a joint proceeding , that is, the hearing of the Director's application for an extension of temporary custody of the children was joined with the family law action brought by the mother of J.P. against her estranged husband B.G. whom she claimed had sexually abused her children. The trial was completed in 90 days.

During most of the trial, the Director (she and her agents) remained unwavering in her opinion that the sexual abuse allegations by P.J. had no merit and that sole custody should be given to B.G.; and that J.P. was unfit to parent because of alleged notable mental and emotional instability. B.G. represented himself although relying on the Director to advance his legal cause.

(Get ready for this) On December 14, 2011 during the Trial One, the Director admitted in a written statement that it was possible that the children had been sexually abused by their father but she continued to support B.G. for sole custody and guardianship. (Bonus surprise) Then (suddenly) after 64 days of trial, on March 29, 2012, after having appointed a new trial lawyer, the Director reversed her opinion and withdrew her protection concerns about J.P. and advised the Court that the children should be returned to their mother. Thereafter the trial issues were between J.P. and B.G. until the trial concluded in May 2012. Justice Walker found that B.G. had sexually abused his three eldest children and physically abused J.P. and he ordered sole guardianship and custody to J.P., also ordering that B.G. be denied access to the children.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information.

Mr. Strickland believed J.P. was acting maliciously toward B.G. Mr. Strickland shared these biases with his staff because he believed there was no merit to J.P.'s report that B.G. had sexually abused P.G., and consequently Strickland did not conduct an assessment of J.P.'s report, disregarding the standard of care and applicable legislation. Mr. Strickland's conduct adversely affected the case social workers and furthermore, as a result, the Director (she) did not assess the report of possible sexual abuse as required by her governing statute and the standard of care, nor did she investigate.

In mid December 2009, early in the VPD investigation of sexual abuse of P.G., her mother J.P. disclosed to both the Director and Mr. Strickland that her three children were all divulging that their father had sexually abused them and she was asking the Director and Strickland for help. The children spoke of sexual touching, digital touching of genitalia and the anus, oral copulation and partial penile penetration by their father. B.G. denied all of the allegations and the Director did not investigate these reports in the manner that the standard of care commands.

 Without suitable investigation of the children's disclosures, Mr. Strickland and other social workers marginalized this supportive evidence of the sexual abuse allegations, believing them to be fabricated, and that the children had been coached, and that J.P.'s relentless efforts to prove these abuses were indications of her mental instability. Subsequently, the Director did not carry out an assessment and investigation of the children's claims, and further concluded that J.P. was unable to parent the children. 

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow

JUSTICE WALKER'S OVERVIEW OF THE CASE, LEADING TO HIS SCATHING 2015 RULING AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

My synopsized version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presents the substance of his overview of evidence that necessitated his ruling against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. I present it in a prose style, in several segments. No stated opinion or fact appears here that was not in Justice Walker's ruling all of which has been made public.

Justice Paul Walker heard and ruled upon two cases between JP and BG. The plaintiffs in both cases were JP and her four children.  JP is the mother whose four children were sexually abused by BG, their father, her estranged husband. In the first case JP sought custody of her children as well as confirmation that BG was an abuser who should no longer have access to the children, and further that the Ministry was dead wrong in its assessment of both mother and father and had made a outrageous error in judging JP to be mentally unstable and placed children in BG's care. 

This second court case, J.P.'s lawsuit against the Ministry, began April 8, 2013 and ended July 3, 2015 with the published ruling by Judge Paul Walker on July 14, 2015.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow

The Director of Child Protection (CP) acted egregiously to the children's reports that their father sexually abused them.  The Director and her agents failed to assess and to investigate the children's claims and then imprudently apprehended the children and also granted the father unsupervised access to the children. The Director held an inflexible but unproven belief that JP had mental health issues and was unfit to parent and that BG was the most capable parent.  

B.G. was arrested and removed from the family home in October 2009 for assaulting both JP and her eldest daughter K.G. (then 5 years old), and on a charge of the uttering death threats against J.P. She immediately sought divorce and sole guardianship and custody. A restraining order was issued that prohibited B.G. from having direct or indirect contact with any of the plaintiffs. Investigative social worker Jeff Tymkow reported to the Director that K.G. had not been assaulted by B.G. Further, B.G. told Tymkow that P.J. suffered from mental health problems that Tymkow determined were not then a protection concern to the children.

Mr. William Strickland was investigative team leader responsible for assessing potential harm to children. He and Mr. Tymkow signed a letter at B.G.'s request that purported to clear B.G. of physical abuse of K.G. B.G. then used this against J.P. in court. J.P. confronted Mr. Strickland, accusing him of acting inappropriately and she also voiced her concern that B.G. may have sexually assaulted the youngest child, who was one year old at that time. Strickland apologized and assured her that he would send a written retraction and that the Director of MCFD would conduct an investigation into J.P.'s concerns about potential abuse of her children.  However, Strickland discouraged Vancouver Police Department (VPD) from taking J.P.'s claims seriously, suggesting to police that she was unstable and selfishly motivated.  Mr. Strickland's conduct adversely affected the police investigation.

THE MCFD REVIEW BUBBLE MAY BURST AGAIN

This month the child welfare ministry in B.C. has been censured for sickening misconduct in a decades old litany of disturbing stories. This time it was for defiance and deceptive of the courts and supplying four children into the hands of their abusive father. The public and the media are outraged, well perhaps only annoyed. I'm not convinced too many people take this Ministry's chronic dysfunction seriously. Yet Premier Clark sounded sincerely disconcerted by Judge Walker's pronouncement of culpability against the Ministry. Both the Minister of Children, Hon. Stephanie Cadieux and Premier Clark pledged to conduct a review. Well of course. But I suspect that it is merely a bubble that will burst.

JUDGE CRABTREE’S RULING REVISITED / 555

Judge Crabtree noted in the report that accompanied his conclusion, that from the outset of the Ministry’s involvement with the Bayne children, the parents were devoted to having access to their children and dedicated to asking for as much time as possible. He noted that they had applied several times for more time than the Ministry wanted to provide and they continued to pressure for more time and Crabtree saw this as a positive indicator. However, it also strained relations with Ministry personnel as he perceived it. (Now whose fault is that?)

Judge Crabtree gave indication that he understood the parents’ reluctance to be involved in a parental capacity assessment by the Ministry because he could appreciate that parents might feel this was an admission of guilt for an abuse alleged against them already. Even Judge Crabtree could discern and then write in his report that the relationship between the Baynes and the social workers had deteriorated so much that there was no longer trust, and communication was eroded. Neither party wanted any longer to deal with the other.

Yes it's Official! It is Three Months. Temporary Care Ends June 2, 2011 / 503

Written on behalf of the Bayne Family and looking forward to the day of their reunion.

Yes we have known for a couple of weeks now.

The word is official that the temporary custody order that Judge Crabtree granted to the Ministry of Children with regard to Kent, Baden and Bethany Bayne, an order which began therefore on March 2, 2011, the day the judge's ruling was released, will come to an end on June 2, 2011. That's right, three (3) months of further care for the children outside the Bayne home. The date has been quietly changed. What happens next?

JUDGE CRABTREE'S RULING ONLINE / 501

Thanks to a commenter who informed me that Judge Crabtree's March 2nd ruling on the Bayne Case has been posted online at the Provincial Court database website. It notes the change from 6 mo. to 3 mo of care for the three children.

SAFE AND RISK FREE / Part 351 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The transcripts have been delivered to the Baynes.

Within days their legal counsel will present a compelling refutation to Judge Thomas Crabtree. Upon reviewing all court reports including this last document, Justice Crabtree will deliver a ruling that will determine the future of a family. It will be a just ruling when he clearly discerns the truth. We are trusting that Mr. Crabtree will not be influenced by the name, education, position or reputation of the information source but rather, be passionate to distinguish truth regardless of who stated it. I have sometime commented on actions outside and inside court because that is all we can see. We cannot know motives despite the certainty with which some of my readers speculate.

Through this long ordeal Paul and Zabeth have exhibited tranquillity despite the accusations directed at them. That spontaneous deportment of peace and contentment is unsurprising from people whose consciences are pure. They will not be better people if Judge Crabtree awards them their own children. Nor are they unworthy parents because Finn Jensen told the Judge that they are. They are who they are. And for them, it matters that God sees them. Understandably their attention is on their own family and the outcome of Judge Crabtree's deliberations, but I can tell you this. When peace controls their futures, Paul and Zabeth are the kind of people who will speak peace to other sufferers.

Only love can lighten heavy burdens like this and Paul and Zabeth not only have love for each other but have an abundance of it from an army of people. All of that love helps to carry the heavy burden. They are fortunate that is true.

I assure you that both Paul and Zabeth have improved their lives during the past three years – not financially of course. Yet they have stared fear in the face and have battled for family and in that brave effort have attained skills and virtues they never considered before. Perhaps some of the greatest victories have already been won. When these children get their parents back, this will be one great family. Three children will have diligent and sincere parents like few others because they have already made progress in these important areas. These parents have lived peaceably while facing people who do not like them and have not cared for them and their three children will be entirely safe and risk free in their biological family home.