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."