Babysnatchers?

Some of you may have seen a recent report by CBC detailing the story of a British Columbia family who had their four children methodically taken away from them by the Ministry of Child and Family Development, and who were just this last August able to take custody of their children. For those of you who haven't, here's a brief synopsis (from the CBC):

"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.

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."

To any parent, current or potential, this is worrying, to say the least. The MCFD's actions, as well as the Court's, have removed from this family the opportunity and right to be a family, when that family needs to be the most. Paul and Zabeth Bayne will never have the chance to raise their now four year old daughter through her most crucial stages of childhood. They will never be able to fully form the deep bond that develops between the parents and child so early in life.

The Bayne's story is that of a series of bad judgments, reactionary measures, and unwarranted delays. Why did it take the state four years to return the Bayne children to their parents, especially in light of the one-year limit for temporary separation? Why didn't the MCFD try to work with the parents to find out if their daughter really was shaken? This family's story reflects a serious and growing problem within the legal system, as well as the childcare system, that needs to be addressed. Read through the comments at the bottom of the article and you'll find plenty more complaints about the MCFD (though I am reluctant to give credence to unverifiable stories put forth by anonymous internet posters).

So why did this all happen? My take on it is that this problem flows from a cultural undercurrent in the Western world that is slowly becoming more prominent and more aggressive; it is the idea that the state must protect children from their parents, who are no longer seen as the positive and primary caretaker, example, authority and guardian of the child --that responsibility now belongs to the state-- but simply as financial providers. Parents are to house their children, feed them, and send them to school (as early as possible, or earlier, it would seem). Beyond those basic responsibilities, parents cannot be trusted to educate or guide their children academically, socially, morally or religiously, nor can they be trusted to adequately care for their child's physical, social or mental well-being without close supervision by the state.

The quick reactionary measures of the MCFD to immediately take away the Baynes' first child can be seen as a symptom of a growing paranoia surrounding parents' ability to care for their children. Rather than give the parents the benefit of the doubt, investigating further, and working with the parents to find out if they were caring for their child properly, the MCFD resorted to the knee-jerk reaction of ripping the child away.

They took this to the next level by taking away their fourth child at birth. Up until that point, all the parents had done in relation to that fourth child was give it life, and yet they were denied even a chance to raise him properly, all because of a misdiagnosis and a failure on the part of the MCFD to properly investigate and assess these parents' ability to care for their children. Apart from the fact that this family was denied four years of their life together, I think this part of the story worries me the most. It is morally reprehensible and indefensible to take a child away from its parents at birth, purely on the basis of the state's conjectural opinion of the parents' ability to care for the child.

What's your take on it? Are parents not to be trusted with their children's health and education? Are they a dangerous influence that needs to be kept in check by the state? Is the state more fit than parents to care for our children?