On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216. This is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection workers are found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care. Findings therein confirm our views and support the merit of our cause. Continuous litigations between JP and the MCFD are summarized in JP Aftermath. Our commentary on the Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time was published on 4 January 2016. If you have evidence of misfeasance or abuse of children in foster care, please come forward and contact us.
Our site contains vast amount of information on child protective services (CPS). Please hover your mouse over the navigation icons below to access the most frequently sought information by various categories of browsers.
Due to an alleged physical abuse (Shaken Baby Syndrome) of the 6-week old infant, all three Bayne's children were removed by MCFD in October 2007.
The parents denied the allegation. At their own expense, they obtained expert evidence from many medical professionals confirming that the alleged abuse is a medical condition of pre-mature birth and other medical problems (such as rickets and osteopenia issues, severe anemia and vitamin K deficiency) not related to abuse. According to the parents, the injury that drew the attention of MCFD was an accident that their infant's brother falling on her in a head to head collision when she was only six weeks old. Despite expert evidence, countless character reference letters, petitions from the community and the obvious bond between the children and their parents, the MCFD maintains its position and seeks custody of these children. They demand admission of guilt from parents. Failure to do so is viewed as being uncooperative. Parents are considered not truly protecting the best interest of their children.
Because of the complaint from MCFD, both parents had been arrested and separately interrogated by the police. During the interrogation in the police station, parents had been told by the police that their spouse had admitted abuse on their children. Police demanded their admission of guilt. This interrogation tactic is frequently used by both "child protection" social workers and police. Despite such heavy-handed approach, parents maintained their position. No criminal charge was laid. The police took three sets of fingerprints and photographs of each parent. One set of photos and fingerprints mysteriously went missing when the parents sought destruction of these records at a later date.
Before this news was aired, the parents had a signed mediation agreement with the MCFD on May 16, 2008 obliging the return of the two older children (excluding the youngest daughter) to the parents under a supervision order. The two older children of this family were in a supervised living arrangement with the parents in the Surrey home of their grandparents.
After the news was aired, this agreement was unilaterally cancelled by MCFD alleging a breach of trust by going public. Consequently, the two boys were removed by MCFD's social workers with the assistance of the police on June 12, 2008 (a little more than 3 weeks after the boys were returned) while they were in a birthday party of the second child who was turning three. Amid tears and screams from the children and family, those in power removed the two boys from their loving home in a violent and traumatic manner. This shows how calculating, vindictive and unaccountable "child protection" social workers are.
The Global TV interview was recorded the day prior to the mediation on May 15, 2008 and hence impossible for any breach. In the alternative, if there is breach of trust, there is no increase in child protection risk that justifies cancellation of a signed agreement and a re-removal of children. Lawyer representing MCFD told the parents that this is a "control" issue and the parents should know what that means.
The parents lost their jobs after their employers were notified of "child protection" concern. Subsequently, parents lost their family home due to loss of income. MCFD seeks a 15 to 20-day trial for the custody of the children. Lawyer of MCFD insists that all medical experts be cross-examined in court at the expense of parents. At the point of writing, no trial date has been fixed.
The three children are placed in a foster home far away from the residence of the parents. The parents are given supervised access during regular business hours that effectively prevent them from seeking gainful employment. The children are showing negative effects of prolonged separation.
Their children received unexplained injuries while they were in MCFD's care. The older boys told their parents that they have been physically abused in foster home. The photo of the youngest daughter on the left hand side (provided by parents and reproduced with their permission) was taken during a supervised visit. To protect her privacy and the potential accusation from MCFD of placing such a stigma on a child (a kind of "mental abuse" or "exploitation of children" in their book), her face was hidden under the red arrow pointing at the bruise on her arm. These bruises appeared to be created by grasping of an adult's hand. The parents filed written complaints to MCFD seeking explanation of this injury and assurance that no such physical abuse would ever happen again. Their complaints were ignored and no explanation was given for this injury.
On another count in mid-2009, one of their sons had an injury on his finger while "in care". The gouge on his finger was deep and does appear like it has had received proper medical treatment. As usual, MCFD ignored the parent's complaints and offered no medical treatment to the child.
Using delaying tactics, MCFD avoided giving them a fair trial in court. The Baynes were helpless and despaired. On March 5, 2009, they protested outside Premier Gordon Campbell's constituency office. The Ministry gave the usual bureaucratic response that serve to cast doubt on parent's credibility and keep people in the dark. Their story was also aired by the Chinese media in Vancouver on the same day. Fairchild TV reporting is archived below.
This case demonstrates the typical heavy-handed actions from MCFD when parents deny that they have abused their children and go public to air the abuse of authority. With the power to remove children at will and to launch numerous legal actions against parents at taxpayer's expense, families are destroyed and children traumatized. Few parents could bear this atrocity and harm to their children.
If you remain unconvinced that a government ministry charged with a mandate to protect children and develop families in need would abuse its authority to retaliate when parents go public to expose corruption, watch the Jessica Laboy case aired by WPDF 25 in Florida by clicking this link. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Details of this case is archived on our Video Archive page under the heading "Corrupt Child Protection Agents Steal Kids".
After a supervised visit, one of the Bayne's children was crying before separating from his parents. Parents with children removed have to suffer this ministry-created heartache after every supervised visit. Some social workers smile when they see parents crying with their children or use this as a reason to suspense supervised visit alleging emotional harm to children.
Supporters from a good ethnic mix holding signs outside the Premier's office in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Cops came to the protest for an unknown reason. Despite the fact that they carry guns, they are a lot less powerful and less harmful than those who have absolute power to remove children at will.
This is an update of the Bayne's situation in September 2009. They talked more on corruption in the "child protection" industry, how MCFD uses their power to severe ties with their children, abuse, physical discipline and lack of medical care of children in foster homes.
Ron Unruh Blog (Dr. Ron Unruh, the pastor who married the Baynes, diligently documents what had transpired in court. Thanks to his tireless effort, we are able to archive his observations below as events of this ministry-created trauma unfold.)
The Long Overdue Hearing Finally Began
For an unknown reason, the Bayne tried to obtain a hearing date many times without success. Until Mr. Douglas Christie, a renowned lawyer from Victoria (the capital of British Columbia), took their case on a pro bono basis, their trial finally began in the Chilliwack Provincial Court on January 13, 2010. Since the removal took place when the Baynes were living in Hope and no party applies for a change of venue, the Chilliwack Provincial Court still has jurisdiction.
MCFD filed an application for a continuing custody order of all the Bayne's three children. If MCFD is successful in this application, the parents will permanently lose the custody of their children. MCFD will be in a position to legally adopt their children in the adoption market as its social workers see fit. The trial will last until March 2010 and will take over 20 court days. This trial attracts the attention of the media and the Bayne's supporters.
The Baynes provided a hearing update to us on March 3, 2010 comprising of the following:
Before Mr. Douglas Christie represents the Baynes, the parents were representing themselves. At a pretrial conference, Honourable Judge Thomas J. Crabtree was open to hearing the parents' application for the return of their two older boys based on the broken mediation agreement and the lack of evidence of their removal. On the hearing day (May 21, 2009), a different judge dismissed their application despite the fact that Judge Crabtree has seized the file.
Mr. Douglas Christie reopened this application in the current proceedings. Judge Crabtree is prepared to hear arguments from both sides and has instructed the court clerk to find a date for this hearing.
MCFD sought an adjournment alleging that its counsel Mr. Finn Jensen has an exigent emergency to deal with in another child custody application. The father of the children involved committed suicide lately. This is not the first time we heard parents killing themselves after receiving MCFD's "services". This proves the extent of the atrocity to families suffering from state-sponsored child removal. At the point of writing, no hearing date has been scheduled.
Zabeth Bayne gave an audio update of the hearing on March 5, 2010. Please click the loudspeaker icon on the left to hear the audio recording.
Before Judge Crabtree makes a decision on the continuing custody order (CCO) of the three children, Zabeth gave birth to her fourth child Josiah on February 10, 2011. Josiah weighed less than 4 lbs. As we expected, unsparing MCFD "child protection" workers removed him at about 1 p.m. the same day.
Food for Thought
Judge Crabtree originally planned to hand down his CCO decision on January 19, 2011. However, he delayed making his decision without giving a specific date of ruling. He is aware that Mrs. Bayne is pregnant and the expected due date is in February 2011. Is it a coincidence?
Despite how the good judge rules on the CCO application, MCFD now has a new case on the new born. The legal proceedings of this new case could drag on for years.
Atrocities like this are created everyday in this province, the best place to live on earth. How many could the Bayne's supporters save if they know these oppressed parents?
Zabeth and her newborn Josiah in a Surrey hospital
Judgment from Provincial Court Judge T.J. Crabtree Handed Down on March 2, 2011
[added on April 3, 2011]
Parents Went Public After Court Ruling
At 8:30-9:30pm Pacific Standard Time on March 8, 2011, Paul and Zabeth Bayne went on air to discuss the problems with MCFD surrounding the removal of their children. This program was hosted by Kari Simpson and Terry O'Neal. The Baynes stated their intent to cooperate with the Ministry of Children and Family Development with respect to completing services to show they are good parents. After 3-1/2 years of litigation and separation with their children, the order for Judge Crabtree pronounced on March 2, 2011 ruled out the shaken baby diagnosis. However, the four children will stay in care for another six months. The judge indicated that it was "up to the parents" whether they were willing to address Ministry's concerns with respect to safety of their four children.
To satisfy the Ministry, Paul Bayne stated that the Ministry requires admission of guilt as a prerequisite. Using children as pawns, the Baynes are not the only parents caught in a situation like this. The Ministry will continue to involve in their life for a long time.
A Happy Ending Or An Intermission?
After passing a parental assessment, the Bayne finally got all these children back under a supervision order. On 27 August 2011, they threw a party to celebrate the reunion of their family with their supporters, advocates and family.
An interesting observation is that the Baynes are silent to the media once MCFD agreed to return their children. One of the most despicable ruses used by "child protection" workers worldwide is to threaten oppressed parents not to go public. Otherwise, their children will be removed again. The father in the video on the right testified the foregoing. This threat serves service providers of the child protection industry well. "Child protection" workers are motivated to protect their best interests such as job security, power and money that they can disburse. What they fear most is the public becomes aware of their hideous business and the media is pointing the gun at them. Fear, secrecy, blind faith in social work, public ignorance and apathy are keys to their success.
Contrary to popular belief, return of removed children does not always mean that the nightmare is over. Many parents have their children re-removed with or without fresh evidence. "Child protection" workers have the power to do this without repercussion. Most oppressed parents roll over and play dead after tasting the power of the most oppressive and hypocritical bureaucracy. While it is understandable why they bite the bullet and become subservient after getting their children back (since now they have much to lose), such attitude will only encourage more abuse of power and more atrocities to other families. This also explains why the media seldom airs corruption in the child protection industry as most victims choose to remain silent. Those who do not and tell their stories in full are often dismissed as hyperbole and become target of reprisal.
As long as the government has the power to remove children, all parents with children under age 19 are at the mercy of "child protection" workers. Disagreements, complaints and disputes against what the Ministry seeks will attract retaliation. After going through an ordeal almost 4-year long, it remains to be seen whether the return of the Bayne's children is a happy ending or merely an intermission.
[This page was added on 24 January 2009, last updated on 7 September 2011.]