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'?

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"?