B.C.Government Scraps Children's Commission...

‘I miss her so much’
Grieving dad hopes daughter’s death will save another child Louise Dickson, Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Eric Bringsli hopes his daughter’s murder will save another innocent child one day.

“There’s really nothing left but this little hope,” says the devastated father. “I miss her so much. It’s not going to make me feel better. But I don’t want anyone else to be in Eveleigh’s position, or my position of having to miss their child forever.”

Bringsli is at home today, unable to work. He’s overwhelmed by the loss of his four-year-old daughter who was murdered on Sept. 1, 2003, the day before she was going to begin kindergarten. Eveleigh Rain’s mother, Astrid Literski, fed her sleeping pills then smothered her. Literski is now serving a life sentence for second-degree murder.

Bringsli’s loss is more acute because it’s been revealed that the government shipped the unfinished reviews of 713 child deaths to a Victoria warehouse after scrapping the children’s commission in 2002.

“I’m appalled. How could that happen?” he asks. “Just like Eveleigh’s case, there are lessons to be learned from those. There might have been information in those files that might have helped Eveleigh. There’s got to be something in there. There’s got to be.”

Bringsli has printed out the missions, goals and objectives of the B.C. Coroners Service Child Death Review. It sits with letters and legal papers on the coffee table in his living room. He’s put asterisks beside the 13 points he considers important such as reviewing deaths in a timely manner, and preventing future deaths.

The B.C. Coroners Service says it has reviewed the cases of 546 children who died after Jan. 1, 2003, but has released a report on only one child’s death since then, compared to more than 700 released by the Children’s Commission in the previous six years.

And two years and three months after Eveleigh’s death, Bringsli is still waiting for the coroner’s report. He phoned coroner Rose Stanton months ago after the criminal case against Literski was concluded.

“She sounded like she was picking up the file anew,” says Bringsli. “I know Rose is working on it but it was supposed to be out more than a month ago and it’s still a couple of weeks away. Maybe she’s going that much deeper. But I feel I had to jump-start the process by contacting her in the first place.”

The coroner’s report and the child death review is important, says Bringsli who is looking for recommendations that relate to Eveleigh’s situation.

“I’m hoping something will be learned from this. . . . It’s long past due to have learned something. But nothing’s been learned yet from Eveleigh’s case that will protect a child in future.”

Although the ministry says information about their services to families must be withheld to protect the family’s privacy, Bringsli has no objection to recommendations about Eveleigh’s death being made public. “It’s got to be out there.”

In a recent interview, Colin Harris, manager of child-death review, said the B.C. Coroners Service will not make public reviews or recommendations on individual cases. Recommendations will be contained in aggregate reports or periodic reports that don’t identify specific cases.

Bringsli says it’s wrong that recommendations won’t be linked to Eveleigh, and wrong that he will probably never know what recommendations were made in her name.

“My hope is that one day these recommendations will be read by the right people and someone will say, ‘You know. I know about this case and it sounds like Eveleigh Rain’s case. Because I know about Eveleigh Rain, I’m going to make that call because I don’t want to see this child get hurt.’”

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005

You know, I agree with Mr. Bringsli...the Government of British Columbia has an obligation to investigate the death of these precious children, precisely in a real attempt to prevent future incidents.

Not doing so indicates a tendency toward gross negligence.

In Eveleigh's case, I believe that the right professionals could have monitered and supported her mother in order to give her options other than the desperate and criminal action of smothering her own child.

If the government will not be accountable, we, the people must hold our government responsible.

Advisory Committee Should Review Children and Family Services Act

Standoff case and politics in N.S.: the need for a fix
By RALPH SURETTE
NDP MLA Graham Steele went to court this week to force the Hamm government to obey its own law and set up an advisory committee to review the Children's and Family Services Act. There's a statute that requires the province to do that every year, but there hasn't been such a committee since 1999.
In other words, there's a problem here even before we evoke the dramatic Carline VandenElsen/Larry Finck case, in which the Halifax couple's child was taken away last year after a heavily armed, dead-of-the-night police raid followed by a 67-hour standoff. Now the two have been jailed for three-and-a-half and four-and-a-half years respectively, amid public and media concern about whether officialdom's hostility to the spectacularly antagonistic pair is partly to blame for the debacle. There are demands for a public inquiry.

As far as Justice Minister Michael Baker is concerned, the courts have duly judged and there's nothing more to be said, and no reason for a public inquiry. As for the advisory committee, Community Services Minister David Morse has responded, absurdly, by saying that if Steele knows anybody who wants to sit on such a committee, he should send them to see the appropriate government officials.
In both cases, then, the response is no: no transparency, no openness, no explanations.
Let's do a little review that may, in part, explain why the VandenElsen case and such a reaction from government make many Nova Scotians queasy.

In Nova Scotia, we're just barely out of a 20-year nightmare where everything was going wrong in a big way precisely because of secrecy and political darkness where things festered. The Marshall inquiry that exposed a justice system embarrassingly rank with prejudice, the Westray mine disaster that revealed an inspection system that covered up deadly infractions, and the Shelburne boys' school abuse scandal that resulted in perhaps $100 million in avoidable expenses and a horrible miscarriage of justice for many employees of the institution who were falsely accused - these were just the biggest scandals in a long string of them.
Although things have settled down since, it's easy to trigger the question: Have the lessons of all that really been learned? Specifically, things have settled down since Premier John Hamm's Tories came to power. The method employed to bring this about has been that whenever the Tories were backsliding or overboard, they'd get broadsided by the NDP, even a few times by the Liberals, and they'd back off. In this way, ironically, Premier Hamm finds himself riding high in the polls.
In order to keep looking good, the premier will, I'm sure, do his number and call Baker and Morse in for a little chat, if he hasn't done it already. With regard to Morse, it should be a quick shuffle - before the embarrassment of a court order.

After all, the law - Section 88(1), Children and Family Services Act - is clear: "the minister shall establish an advisory committee . . . etc." Steele and two others are looking for a Writ of Mandamus - a legal order designed to force a public official to do his duty.
Whether an advisory committee is enough to do the job in this case is another question. However, Steele says the advisory committee was designed for precisely these situations, where parent, Legal Aid and minority group representatives can get answers, and make sure the law is working right. Parents whose children have been taken by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) often complain to their MLAs, "but we have neither time nor resources to follow up," says Steele. Plus, the complainants are often paranoid and into conspiracy theories, he says (as are VandenElsen and Finck), "but after all that is stripped away, they usually have legitimate questions." Indeed.
As for the embattled CAS, it says it has good reasons for acting as it did in the VandenElsen case, but can't reveal them because of confidentiality. Social workers are always in this bind. I fully assume that the social workers at CAS are trying to do the right thing. But the point is that without regular review and open give-and-take, even the right thing can become the wrong thing. And in terms of public perception, if everything is on the up and up, CAS would benefit from such a review, as would the cause of good government.
Ralph Surette is a veteran Nova Scotia journalist living in Yarmouth County.

Something smells fishy in this case, and it ain't the fish in NS.

Baby Mona Clare Should Have Had Her Own Lawyer

Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited
Infant needed her own lawyer, group says
By BILL POWER / Staff Reporter
Before an armed standoff with police late last spring, Larry Finck went to court to try to keep his daughter.
A group pushing for a public inquiry into the events surrounding the seizure of the newborn by child-welfare workers said Monday the baby should have had her own lawyer.
"No one is independently representing the interests and fundamental rights of (the child)," said Dulcie Conrad, a member of the group.
She said the lack of legal representation is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The group, composed of neighbours and academics, held a news conference Monday to reinforce their insistence that Justice Minister Michael Baker order a public inquiry into the forcible removal of the baby girl from the care of her mother, Carline VandenElsen, and Mr. Finck.
Members of the group said the public has a right to know what prompted the Children's Aid Society of Halifax to seek the court order that led to police descending on the family home in the wee hours of May 19, 2004. The standoff ensued and lasted until the evening of May 21.
Court documents indicate Nova Scotia authorities were responding to an alert from child welfare officials in Ontario.
"We still don't know why authorities really decided to seize this baby or why they used such massive force to do it," Ms. Conrad said.
The justice minister, in Greenwich for the Tory caucus meeting, repeated Monday he believes there is nothing to warrant an inquiry.
"I'm not aware of any new information . . . that would require an inquiry," Mr. Baker said.
He said the matter has gone before two different judges at two different levels of the court system.
"I don't know if (the issue) is more complicated than (that) people don't like the decision," he said. "That doesn't necessitate an inquiry."
Mr. Baker wouldn't talk about why the child did not have independent representation.
He said proper procedures were followed, "and that's to consider the best interests of the child, not of the parents."
Documents show Justice Deborah Smith of Nova Scotia Supreme Court' s family division had concerns about Ms. VandenElsen's mental health after she went into hiding with the child rather than comply with a court order to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
But some say evidence that the child was at risk was not presented. Lawyer Ray Kuszelewski said questions remain unanswered about the original court order to seize the newborn.
"It really is important to know how this entire matter got to the point that it did," said Mr. Kuszelewski, who provided some representation for the couple during their high-profile trial on charges related to the standoff.
He said an inquiry would review evidence presented to the family court by Children's Aid staff and also consider larger issues relating to child seizures when concerns exist about the mental stability of parents.
Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck were convicted of several offences in the standoff, and the 18-month-old child is in the care of children's aid.

Is she really? How do we know? How do we know that she is even alive?

Perhaps a request under the Information Act might provide an answer? Then again....

Gunmen Used by Children's Aid Society to Remove Baby From Mother

Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited
'For all the children . . . affected by CAS'
Friends form a small army of support for woman, man who've lost their kids
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter

Seven people gathered at Ann Kelly's home in Stratford, Ont., one night this month, just two doors down from Carline VandenElsen's former Hibernia Street residence.
They are ordinary people - men and women, younger and older and parents, none with custody battles of their own - who have become activists after meeting the woman who has lost two huge battles over her children.

In 2003, Ms. VandenElsen was denied all access to her triplets and last Thursday, she and husband Larry Finck lost custody of their Halifax-born baby girl.
Now the group wants answers.
"We could smell injustice right from the start," said Ms. Kelly, a friend and former neighbour.
Distrustful of a media they say has maligned the couple, they politely asked to videotape the interview.

But once the conversation started rolling, there was a feeling of warmth and purpose, a genuine belief that a tragic wrong has been done.
"I don't think she thinks she's any kind of hero," Kimberly Lefebvre said of Ms. VandenElsen.
"But I look at it and think (that) this woman is not just an ordinary woman. She is not doing this just to get her kids back but for all of the children that are being affected by CAS (Children's Aid)."
During the four-hour meeting, they presented prepared statements on the need for a public inquiry and letters they've sent to politicians and media. They also played a videotape of various Ontario news accounts of Ms. VandenElsen's previous trial on charges of child abduction for allegedly absconding with the triplets to Mexico in October 2000.
She was acquitted in 2001, based on the defence of necessity: it would likely have caused her children psychological harm to be without her. Her retrial is scheduled to begin July 18.
Watching Ms. VandenElsen on television, the friends cheered her on when she offered a quick answer to a reporter's question. They talked about how healthy she looked and how much she loves her children.
Their eyes filled with tears when she reacted bitterly to being granted two daylong visits with her children while awaiting trial.
Ms. VandenElsen was a striking woman in her early Stratford court appearances - her long, dark hair flowing behind her as she strode past reporters in a form-fitting black shirt and long skirt. With her dark, thick-rimmed glasses, she projected a trendy, yet purposeful image.
It's a sharp contrast to the woman in a Halifax court: incredibly thin with a gaunt face, often wearing camouflage army pants and big, baggy woollen sweaters.
Ms. VandenElsen's drive to publicize allegations of abuse within the family court and children's services system is seen by some as proof of her instability, while her supporters see it as a commitment for change.
It's that drive that has led her to her latest protest: a hunger strike.
"She's in jail - what more can she do?" asked Ms. Kelly, who followed a liquid diet for 21 days in support of Ms. VandenElsen.
Worried about her health, supporters hoped Ms. VandenElsen would stop. They don't want to see her die.
Maureen Davidson, one of Ms. VandenElsen's sisters living in Mannheim, Ont., said in a separate interview that the VandenElsen family is very worried about her condition, especially given that she is so thin.
"I say a little prayer for her at night and hope God will take care of her," she said.
The Stratford group is pushing for a public inquiry into the role of Children's Aid in the May 2004 seizure of the Halifax-born baby.
They maintain websites related to Ms. VandenElsen's case and that of others fighting for family justice, share information with those in Halifax who speak to her and critique media reports.
They believe the seizure of the baby in Halifax was unjust and unnecessary.
Friend Carol Bast believes it was driven, in part, by a need to punish Ms. VandenElsen, who some say got away with breaking the law.
They also believe that children's services in Nova Scotia and Ontario acted against their mandates.
"They didn't try to keep the child with the parents," Ms. Lefebvre said.
"They had a tip and that was it. (It was) 'We have a court order, we have a court order, we have a court order,' and they went in with all the gunmen and took the baby."
Ms. Kelly believes a public inquiry should start with the Halifax standoff and seizure order and go back to 1995 when a judge granted interim custody of the triplets to Ms. VandenElsen's then-husband, Craig Merkley.
Mr. Merkley was represented by a lawyer at that hearing but the couple didn't attend. Ms. VandenElsen has testified that she didn't know the proceedings were going ahead.
There were no transcripts of the hearing in the unsealed portion of an Ontario Superior Court file in Stratford.
Andre Lefebvre believes this case serves to illustrate the pain and suffering being felt by many parents and children.
"These people are being set up," he said in a telephone call after the June visit.
"There was no reason (to take the baby). They've never been proven to be unfit parents by anyone."
Instead, he said, they've been "pushed to the limit."

Police Remove Baby Mona Clare from Mother by Force

Sunday, June 26, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited
File

A member of the Halifax Regional Police emergency response team carries away a baby after the Shirley Street standoff ends. The baby was just days away from turning five months old.
Merkley told Children's Aid VandenElsen had new baby
Agency issued national alert
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter
Just what triggered the chain of events leading to a 67-hour armed standoff in Halifax?
It may have been a conversation Carline VandenElsen's ex-husband, Craig Merkley, had with Children's Aid officials in Stratford, Ont., in December 2003.
According to a report by the Huron-Perth Children's Aid Society dated Dec. 18, 2003, Mr. Merkley's family told him that his ex-wife had given birth. And he told Children's Aid.
Mr. Merkley and Ms. VandenElsen had been embroiled in a nasty custody battle that began in 1995. But in November 2003, she lost all rights of access to the children and was facing a retrial for allegedly abducting them in October 2000.
The report states that in December 2003, a person identified as Loran Green, an associate of Ms. VandenElsen's, said she had given birth to a baby girl, the letter states.
Mr. Merkley "further stated . . . that he believes (she) is in Halifax, Nova Scotia."
The child actually wasn't born until Dec. 23.
A Canada-wide child protection alert had been issued calling for a warrant to apprehend "expectant mother" Carline Antonia VandenElsen, also known by the last names Finck and Merkley.
"Baby - birth expected December 2003 or January 2004."
The exact date the alert was issued is unclear, as a court stamp covers that part of the page.
The alert said Ms. VandenElsen's access to her triplets had recently been terminated and "concern existed for their emotional safety due to her attempts to have the children align with her throughout a lengthy custody and access dispute."
It also said the mother was being tried on abduction charges and her husband, Larry Finck, was on probation for abducting his daughter.
The pair are "confrontational and verbally aggressive," the alert states.
"Mental health requires assessment."
Mr. Merkley declined to be interviewed, but his lawyer, Alfred Mamo, said Children's Aid workers "kept in touch with Mr. Merkley in terms of their monitoring how the children are doing."
His client spoke to Children's Aid but "it wasn't intended to provide information to say: 'You better do something about it.'"

WTF?

Isn't this beginning to look and sound like Orwell's "1984"?

Vandenelsen Children Want to be with their Mom and Dad

Sunday, June 26, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited
The Canadian PressCraig Merkley and his wife Jan answer reporters' questions following the trial of Merkley's former wife Carline VandenElsen in Stratford, Ont., Oct. 26, 2001. VandenElsen was found not guilty of abduction when she took her children out of the country and evaded authorities for three months.
PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURGThis is the Stratford, Ont., home Carline VandenElsen shared with her former husband and triplets.
Triplets wanted their mom
Children asked for access to both parents, 2003 videotaped interview reveals
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter
It had been 19 months since the triplets had last visited their mother.
On Sept. 8, 2003, the 10-year-old triplets drove their bikes from their elementary school to see their mother, Carline VandenElsen, who was living in a nearby bungalow in Stratford, Ont.
Their mother was at an appointment, but the visit prompted her husband, Larry Finck, to call the Children's Aid Society.
The children stayed, but just days later, a judge ordered them returned to their father and temporarily barred their mother from all contact.
The triplets, seen sitting around a table at their mother's home in a videotaped interview with a social worker on that Sept. 8, tell him they want to live with their mother.
They say that if they live with their father, Craig Merkley, they're not allowed to see their mother. But if they live with their mother, they say, they've been told they can see their dad any time they want.
"Any problems at Dad's?" the social worker asks.
Yes, they say.
"Like with Jan, our stepmom," Olivia says.
The little girl with the brown hair tucks her long, skinny legs up toward her chest at times during the interview.
Her father had earlier reported that after their mother allegedly abducted the triplets for a few months when they were seven, Olivia was incredibly afraid of being taken again and extremely shaken to visit her mother.
But on the videotape, Olivia, at 10, is quick to answer the social worker's questions and appears angry with her stepmother, Jan Merkley.
Gray, a child with many reported difficulties including aggression and a suicide attempt, appears talkative and outgoing. Their brother Peter is quiet and at one point stares wide-eyed at the camera.
All know they're being videotaped.
Olivia and Gray say their stepmother is mean to them and doesn't let them go play further than their own street.
When asked about their stepmother, Gray begins: "She was the one who . . ."
"If Jan didn't live next door or anything . . ." Olivia interrupts.
"Jan's who told our dad to go to court and get custody," Peter blurts out.
"And if Jan wasn't in our life, our mom and our dad would still be divorced but they'd still be friends," Olivia says.
The four fall silent as Olivia sits back in the wooden chair, folds her arms and looks around.
"She ruined my life," Olivia says.
"You think she ruined your life?" the social worker asks.
"Yes," Olivia says.
Peter rubs his eyes but doesn't say anything.
"We know she hates us," Olivia says.
Hate is a pretty strong word, the social worker says.
"Then she dislikes us," Olivia says with a sneer.
Neither she nor Gray is able to explain why.
But Olivia says: "I want to live with our mom and visit our dad whenever we want."
One of the triplets then explains that their mom and Mr. Finck are going to Supreme Court to get his daughter Chantelle back.
And one of the triplets says: "If we didn't come here, they're going to try to go to the Supreme Court to get us back."
"Our mom is pregnant and if we stayed there (at Dad's), we wouldn't be able to see our little brother," Gray says.
The social worker asks if they're excited about the baby. They light up, talking all at once about their mom's big belly and how fat the baby will be when he's born. The baby, a girl, was born in December 2003 in Halifax.
On the videotape, Olivia and Gray are clear - they want to be with their mother and see their father whenever they want. And that's what Ms. VandenElsen's family and supporters say.
Ms. VandenElsen's friends in Stratford say she always wanted Mr. Merkley to play a role in the children's lives.
Her sister, Maureen Davidson, who supervised Ms. VandenElsen's court-ordered visits with her children while she was awaiting trial for child abduction, says the tapes show what she saw during those times together.
"They can't get enough of her," Ms. Davidson says.
The children would climb over each other to sit in their mother's lap and laugh and play.
"They love their mother and they really do want to be with her," Ms. Davidson says.
But Alfred Mamo, the lawyer representing Mr. Merkley, believes the triplets' wishes are not that easy to determine.
"Given the history of this file, it is very, very difficult to ascertain what the children's true wishes are because the children have been involved in so much and because Ms. VandenElsen has manipulated them so much and put them through so much."
It's only natural for children to want a relationship with both parents, he says.
"They know their father's love for them is unconditional," Mr. Mamo says, adding that "they did enjoy various moments that they had with their mother."
But, he says, "they don't have the maturity to be able to appreciate that some of the things that they were being drawn into were inappropriate and not good for their emotional and psychological health."
Court documents state that when the children were very young, they were often subjected to Ms. VandenElsen's accounts of her court proceedings. Mr. Merkley claims this and other actions on her part caused stress and behavioural problems in the children. She has denied those claims.
Mr. Mamo attributes the children's desire to live with their mother to Ms. VandenElsen and says she offered them no real choice.
"If you put it on the basis to the children that the only way you can have a relationship with both your parents is to be with me, then of course they're going to say, 'Well, then we want to live with you because we want to have a relationship with both parents,' " Mr. Mamo says. "That's really what that tape was about."