CANADA Child "Protection"
B.C. children spent years in limbo after shaken baby accusation: Court proceedings dragged on for 4 years
By Kathy Tomlinson CBC News
Last Updated: Jan 3, 2012 10:09 AM ET
Paul and Zabeth Bayne and kids Kent, Baden and Bethany in 2009
A couple whose children were removed from their home and eventually returned say the B.C. government caused needless suffering by keeping the family apart for almost four years.
“It’s going to take a lot of healing,” said Zabeth Bayne, mother of the four children. "There’s a lot of pain that gradually we have to deal with, and as a family."
“Children grow up very quickly, and they can’t wait,” said Paul Bayne, the father. “For four years, I couldn’t be a proper dad or provider or a protector. Now I can.”
The Baynes were accused in 2007 of shaking their six-week-old daughter. They’d brought her to hospital with inexplicable injuries, so the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development took her away.
No criminal charges were laid. The couple always insisted their daughter's injuries, which included internal bleeding, were not caused by shaking, and several medical experts agreed.
In 2008, after the parents protested publicly about the baby’s removal, the government seized their two boys, then about four and three years old, for involving them in the publicity. The couple later had a fourth child, a son, who was taken away at birth.
Supervised visits only
Over the years, the children were shuffled among foster homes and had strictly supervised visits with their parents.
“Our oldest boy kept saying, ‘I feel like I am the only one who visits his mommy and daddy,’” Zabeth said. “He didn’t understand what was going on, why he had to be separated from us for so long, and why he couldn’t see us. And we couldn't [weren't allowed to] tell him anything.”
Chief Judge Thomas Crabtree
After a lengthy court hearing — with repeated delays and adjournments — Chief Judge Thomas Crabtree of the B.C. provincial court ruled the baby was not shaken, calling her injuries “unexplained.” Crabtree's ruling came four months after he finished hearing the evidence.
A psychological assessment was then done on the Baynes, which was favourable, and in August 2011, the government returned the children, with no explanation or justification for why it took so long.
Bayne family at a reunification party. Baby Josiah was returned on August 2 and the other three children came home on August 25, 2011.
During their first weeks back home, the children clung to the parents.
“They were sleeping in our room,” Zabeth said. “They could not be apart from us or there were tears."
Although the shaken baby diagnosis was wrong, it took an unnecessarily long time to get it overturned and to bring the children home, she said.
"It’s not acceptable, and you see the damage that’s done, waiting for process," Zabeth said.
Paul compares the slow pace of the court case to driving slow motion during an emergency.
“It feels like your children are at home and someone’s trying to break into the house and you get a phone call — to get home as quick as you can. And your car is stuck in first gear. You’re driving five miles an hour trying to get home. It’s like, ‘Come on. Let’s go. Let’s go!’ It’s frustrating sitting in court saying ‘Let’s get going.’”
Zabeth says she and her husband were reluctant to complain in court, because the judge held so much power over their family.
“Any frustration over delays can be twisted, [This is the specialty of Children Services - twisting everything so they look good and the parents look bad ! ] and viewed that ‘Oh, there’s a temper there.’"
One-year limit exceeded
B.C. law specifies young children should not be kept in temporary care for more than a year. Although the Baynes say their lawyer raised this restriction several times, it was never addressed.
[Up front this law might sound good, BUT often the the government will use this law to take the children into PERMANENT care without due process or evidence or any good reason. In Nova Scotia, children can be taken away when there is no evidence of neglect or abuse - All the government has to do is state that they believe there might be neglect or abuse in the future ! - Wake up people and get active BEFORE anyone in your family is victimized]
“There’s no one held accountable for the timing,” Zabeth said. “There’s no questions asked.”
Ministry statistics show, on average, children are being kept in temporary care three months longer than they were five years ago. In 2006-07, the average temporary care order was 13 months. In 2010-11, that increased to 16 months.
A parents advocacy group called People Assisting Parents Association, or PAPA, (http://www.pa-pa.ca/)%20says says too many cases drag on beyond the one-year limit, for no good reason.
The group cites another case, that of an accountant and father of four from Victoria, whose one-year-old son was removed from the home in 2007. PAPA said the child has been in temporary foster care ever since, [that's 4-5 years!] while the court case is repeatedly delayed. A custody hearing date is now set for June 2012.
“The modus operandi of the ministry is to set a court date for a custody order and seek a long trial length (usually from five to 10 days), citing calling many witnesses and evidence,” said spokesperson Stephen Luk. “In most courthouses, the date for a 10-day trial is generally 10 months to 15 months later.” [wait time]
Carol Ross of the B.C. Association of Social Workers confirms that temporary care orders often extend beyond one year, partly because the court system is notoriously slow. [trying to blame the court]
Limits 'not enforced'
"Time limits are not enforced,” Ross said. “As long as the (court) case is initiated within 45 days, it can drag on and on. It’s frustratingly slow for parents.
“What I see over and over is they don’t get the support they need … there is very little access to legal advocacy.”
She says social workers who are bound by process also feel the frustration.
“It ultimately hurts the child … and it is heartbreaking," she added. "Within three months, I would think you can figure out what is going on."
Minister of Children and Family Development Mary McNeil
Mary McNeil, the minister for Child and Family Development, refused to comment on the Bayne case, but she agreed court delays are a problem.
“I totally understand the frustration — I understand the frustrations for me — to make sure that families are returned together,” McNeil said.
“Each case is so different, and we’re not alone in making these decisions. And the decision to apprehend a child is taken very, very seriously.”
Minister wants mediation
She says she wants to see more cases settled through mediation.
“I’m really pushing the ministry … to make sure that we have the system in place and alternatives in place so families don’t have to go the court route. So that families can try to resolve what they need to through mediation, through family dispute mechanisms and through family group counselling.”
Paul and Zabeth Bayne say they couldn't have agreed to mediation, however. In that scenario, they would have had to admit they harmed their baby. [ That is stupid! Mediation should not hing on the parents having to admit guilt. ]
“We fought back,” Paul said. “When someone [in the ministry] makes a mistake, it’s pretty hard to go back, especially with what happened to our family and all the money being spent.
Documentary on the Child Protection Industry
Includes fining, jailing and disbarring of lawyers who tried to expose the abuse in the system. Even Social workers speak out and expose what is happening - See more on Senator Nancy Schaefer by linking here.
[ What is not being understood here is that the ministry taking children, is a money-making venture: Children Services are getting money for taking these children to begin with and all the other "stakeholders ( the courts, lawyers, psychiatrists etc. are making a pile of money too and the longer the child is in the system, the more money everybody makes]
“They’re not used to resistance,” Zabeth said. “It went south and people dug their heels.”
The couple say they get emails every day from parents asking for help. They said they do not plan to sue the ministry for what happened. They'd rather try to help others in similar situations.
“Your heart breaks over some of the stories that you hear,” Zabeth said. “Something needs to change.”
CourtWatch — October 06, 2008 — Ontario Member of the Legislature for Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington speaks outside of the Legislature Building at Queens Park regarding the subject of Ontario's CAS agencies.
August 17, 2007 — The Archbishop Dorian A. Baxter is the founder of Canada Court Watch. This clip is Archbishop Baxter speaking about the injustices in Family Courts
December 30, 2007 — Author interview by Hamilton CHCH TV of newly published book(lulu.com), Courts From Hell - Family Injustice In Canada. The book details the destruction done to families by the dysfunctional Canadian Justice System.
September 17, 2007 — A short clip complete with live interview with one father who immigrated to Canada and now says he would never have set foot in this country had he known about the Family System of Injustice here in Canada
May 18, 2009 — View the testimony of two children who report how Children's Aid Society workers in Ontario embarassed and humiliated them at their school.
Schools should not allow CAS workers to interview children at their schools. Interviews with children should be conducted outside of school.
Schools should not allow CAS workers to interview children at their schools. Interviews with children should be conducted outside of school.
abusiveministry — June 29, 2007 — 3 sisters taken out of the blue from their home, separated, isolated, interrogated for months, lied to by the police and social workers. The girls call it jail. They want to see each other more, see their friends, and go home. But BC MCFD have their best interests at heart by antagonizing them to hate the system they have been thrown into. They are not allowed to talk about any thing that happens to them in foster care no matter how outrageous or abusive. If they really have our children's best interests at heart what is BC MCFD trying to hide by not letting the children be allowed to speak out about their feelings and thoughts.
http://www.abusive-ministry.ca/ Sign on and tell your story.
Grand-mother hasn't seen Grand-children in over a year
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
http://www.fixcas.com/news/2005/b2005a.htm
http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Search.aspx?searchtext=between a rock and a hard place
May 26, 2005
Today Ontario Ombudsman André Marin released his report Between a Rock and a Hard Place (pdf) to the public.
André Marin The following quote from the report shows that the senior Ministry officials are clueless, and suggests a weak ministry manipulated by the career bureaucracy:
103 How prevalent is this phenomenon? It is impossible to say precisely. Senior Ministry officials advised my Office that the Ministry is unaware of how many children with severe disabilities are currently in the protection of Children's Aid Societies either under Temporary Care Agreements or society or Crown wardship orders because their parents are unable to provide necessary residential care. The Ministry advised that it has never investigated the issue of whether there are Children's Aid Society files in which protection concerns have been "manufactured" so that children with severe disabilities could obtain residential placement.
In response to scandal, Mrs Bountrogianni said:
The report was written in February, it was given to me in March, and I did indeed immediately act. Those 30 families were given the services they needed, following the process of the communities solving the problems and finding the resources for those children, and they didn't have to go to the courts to give up custody of their children.
According to Mr Marin, Mrs Bountrogianni lied, or in his more diplomatic words, failed to appreciate that the problem exists. The services mentioned were in fact not delivered.
The Ombudsman deals with families of severely disabled children. He estimates there are 150 to 200 cases of parents humiliated by being compelled to sign documents officially abandoning their children. Mother Tina Grignard reports:
That was the most disgusting lowest point of my entire life. I so regret going. ... When I walked in the corridor, there were about 30 people there and I wanted to die. I work for the Ministry, the rent geared to income office. I recognized many of our tenants in that court. It was kind of awkward. This is a small community ... My CAS worker ... walks in the door and I clearly heard three different people say "[the CAS worker]" is here and [she] comes, walks right over to me and sits beside me and starts talking. So now its been confirmed that I'm here not for divorce court but I'm here for Children's Aid. So I just wanted to die. I was just so embarrassed.
Mrs Grignard's unease is the consequence of the true reputation of Children's Aid. Not a good experience indeed. We wonder, will Mr Marin now go on to deal with the humiliation, and horror, of thousands of parents who find that their children do not return from school, or who have their children kidnaped (protected) by armed policemen invading their home?
Mr Marin identifies the problem that handicapped children are shoehorned into the child-protection system, without grasping why child-protection bureaucrats prefer crown-wardship over in-home assistance to competent parents. Once a child is a crown-ward, the bureaucracy presents the legislature with the dilemma of providing funding, or letting children go without food and shelter. Since legislators will not take the latter choice, continued funding is assured. No such assurance exists when providing in-home assistance.
164 On a final note, I feel the need to point out that parents have expressed palpable fear of the consequences of coming forward to my office to complain. They are concerned that they will be punished by the bureaucrats that they depend on to assist them. I intend to monitor the outcome of my report and vigorously act, if there is any sign of reprisal against those who have demonstrated the courage to speak out against this manifestly unfair situation.
This is the problem Dufferin VOCA, and other CAS opponents, have faced for years. We have hundreds of stories of abuse of families in the name of child protection, yet must remain silent in nearly all cases, because of the threat of retaliation by Children's Aid. Unlike Mr Marin, we cannot protect families with the powers of government.
Mrs Bountrogianni has responded with a press release in which she promises more money, increasing the bounty on the heads of Ontario children payable whenever Children's Aid succeeds in snatching a child. She does offer to repatriate children taken into custody. Since the laws of Ontario permit publishing family names when there is no protection involved, we are waiting for the names of repatriated children.
Addendum: CBC reporter Jane Hawtin speaks to André Marin and mother Cyndi Cameron. (mp3) runs 7:36. http://www.fixcas.com/news/2005/marin.mp3
Source: CBC