Children in Nova Scotia Being Abused by Child Protection System?

Did their baby really need to be protected?
Some say an inquiry is the only way to know if child welfare workers acted appropriately
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE / Staff Reporter
Examining the actions of child welfare authorities during last year's armed standoff on Shirley Street would conceivably be the purpose of a public inquiry into the incident.
But is an inquiry absolutely necessary?
Supporters of the parents at the centre of the controversy say an investigation is not only warranted, it's needed to probe what they consider to be a dysfunctional system harming families.
Others say they're not convinced public hearings, sure to cost taxpayers plenty, will solve anything.
Justice Michael Baker has said he won't authorize an inquiry unless new information comes to light.
Critics who say they've been ill-served by the child welfare system, and have had their children taken from their care, are not happy with the government's position.
"The children in Nova Scotia are being abused by this (child-protection) system," Marilyn Dey, a Halifax supporter of standoff couple Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen, said in a recent interview.
The couple had their infant daughter removed from their household at the end of the May 2004 siege. In a court ruling Thursday, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen lost custody of her permanently, though the decision can be appealed.
Ms. Dey acknowledged that backers of the pair, who face a sentencing hearing that begins today for their role in the 67-hour standoff, want a public probe to stretch beyond the Shirley Street event.
"This is the way Larry and Carline feel, too, that the whole child protection business, or industry, needs to be inquired into," Ms. Dey said.
Ms. VandenElsen has been on a jailhouse hunger strike to back demands for a wide-reaching inquiry; Mr. Finck has also been behind bars awaiting sentencing.
They were convicted May 12 of several charges after a jury trial in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.
Halifax police are doing an internal review of how the department handled the standoff, but that report is not expected to be made public.
The provincial Public Inquiries Act says one commissioner or more would be appointed by the government to look into a public matter. Witnesses would testify under oath and relevant documents filed with the commission during open hearings.
Once an inquiry's report is released, the government of the day usually provides an official response.
Recent inquiries called by the province have been linked to the separate deaths of three people: James Guy Bailey, Donald LeBlanc and Theresa McEvoy.
Nova Scotia has had other probes that weren't held under the Public Inquiries Act, including one, called a "review," that examined the province's youth detention compensation program.
The high-profile review was headed by a retired Quebec judge hired by the Nova Scotia government. In 2002, he released a 632-page report with 105 recommendations.
The Halifax standoff case, which made headlines when it happened 13 months ago and later during the trial stage, has prompted letters to the editor and other public commentary.
"Children are not apprehended on a whim; they are apprehended based upon fact," a former child welfare worker said in a letter last month to The Chronicle Herald.
She said an inquiry is unnecessary, adding, a child's "right of privacy far exceeds . . . anyone else's 'need to know' " what happened in the Finck / VandenElsen case.
"Histrionic demands for information by people who don't know the facts accomplishes nothing except to stir up public sentiment with half-truths," the letter writer said.
The apprehension order regarding Mr. Finck's and Ms. VandenElsen's baby was issued after child welfare officials in Ontario alerted colleagues in Nova Scotia. Officials here wanted the couple to agree to home visits to check on their child and undergo mental health assessments, and they wanted the baby to remain in Halifax.
They wouldn't comply.
Ms. VandenElsen's sister, Maureen Davidson, is hoping the government will change its tune and launch a public probe.
"That would be, for me, a miracle," the Mannheim, Ont., woman said, of an independent inquiry.
"I would love for people to see how this really all transpired."
If anything, the Shirley Street standoff has drawn attention to child protection services and prompted those who work in the field to try to explain why the province's 20 child welfare agencies do what they do.
Earlier this month, the Hamm government, along with the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, published a pamphlet on child welfare.
It says in 2004, there were about 11,500 child welfare cases in Nova Scotia. Some 840 of those involved court proceedings; less than one per cent of all cases involved taking a child from home.
Graeme Fraser, the association's co-ordinator, said his group has not formally discussed the inquiry issue. Speaking in general terms as someone who knows as much about the case as the public, he said: "I'm not aware of any factors that would warrant a public inquiry."
Mr. Fraser said apprehension orders are executed as "a last resort" in child protection cases, and "only after very thoughtful consideration."
He conceded "no system is perfect." But, Mr. Fraser said, the child welfare system is better at ensuring trustworthiness than most.
"There are a lot of safeguards and checks and balances in this particular system," he said. "Part of the reason for that is because of the kind of authority that the children's services agencies have."
Mr. Fraser added that in his experience, it's "fairly common" for police to accompany social workers removing kids from their homes. "It's such a highly-charged situation," he said, of the reason officers attend.
Halifax lawyer Burnley (Rocky) Jones, who has represented Ms. VandenElsen in the past, said her case opened his eyes "to such an extent, that I never want to see another (family law) case like this."
Asked about a public inquiry, he didn't hesitate before answering yes.
"There needs to be clarification of the role of Children's Aid, which we believe to be a private organization, which on the other hand works as a complete government agency," Mr. Jones said.
"They have it two ways."

Yeah, what's that about 'absolute power'?

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."