Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Carline's account of the Standoff

The standoff

Big Mona, Larry, and I are at the table after a pot of coffee is made. Mona won’t go back to bed as Larry suggests, she’s too wired, "those bastards! They’re not coming in here to take that baby." I hadn’t been around when Chantelle was brutally taken by the authorities, but from what I understand Mona was devastated. More so because she felt helpless. Now, it’s as though she has no intention of letting anyone take another child away, this one her namesake grandchild. And certainly not exactly like the last time - for no good, decent, or legal reason.

Before the coffee, she ordered Larry to make sure the doors and windows were secure. I helped him carry a sheet of plywood from the basement, which is used to wedge between the front and foyer doors. The rest of the time, I don’t know what I’m doing in a situation that surely isn’t happening. It can’t be. The phone rings but I pay no attention to it, or to Mona who’s telling us to ignore it. I’m hardly able to listen to Big Mona who’s got enough to say, and Larry who’s making enough noise, reminding me this night is for real. And all the while, our beautiful baby is sleeping peacefully in her bed … maybe for the last time.

The phone isn’t ringing anymore. The activity outside has stopped. The coffee pot is empty. It’s close to 3 o’clock. There isn’t anything we can accomplish by losing any more sleep and working ourselves up. Larry had said this earlier, that they were gone and wouldn’t be back until morning. He was upstairs already but knew he wouldn’t be sleeping. How could he, when another baby’s life was at risk again.

Mona and I, but mostly Mona, busies herself with putting things away, perhaps thinking that tidying up would make a difference. She speaks quietly, and sometimes to herself. I can’t quite make out if she is praying - she’s done both on occasion when I was around, and whenever Little Mona was being talked or thought or worried about.

She tells me to check the front door as we are leaving the kitchen. I know Larry would have be thorough but I also know Mona wanted me to feel safe just as much as she did. The little nightlight in the kitchen remains on, which gives enough light to walk down the hallway to the front of the house. The door leading into the foyer is shut, which I had expected, and opening it I see that the front door is thoroughly braced with plywood as I had also expected. Perhaps more for Big Mona’s satisfaction, I descend the one stair into the foyer, but have to open the door wide and step close to the hinged side because the end of the sheet of plywood is positioned against the back of the step. I make my way to ensure the front door is indeed fastened, shut well, guarding not against escape, but rather against entry.

It sounds like an explosion the first time and its nearness sends me reeling. When it hits the front door again and then again the glass shatters. By this time I’ve tripped on the step leading into the hallway and the newel post on the stair landing catches my fall. As though in fast-forward and in slow motion I attempt to get hold of myself and of what’s happening.

The tumultuous assaults are against the door - the assailants are trying to break it down. It’s when I’m turn around and only a second on my feet that I see Big Mona, she’s standing not two feet away, with uncle Wills gun aimed at the front door. Shock does not immobilize. My hand reach for Mona’s and I think it’s the weight of my quick and thrust like movement that makes her lose her balance. But the clamoring commotion on the outside, the end to the violent pounding on the front door and the heavy scatterings of several beet descending from the porch tells me that Big Mona was serious when she said she wasn’t letting anyone in to steal our baby. I don’t know if it’s the pounding in my head or the pounding in my heart, but I feel like it’s never going to go away. Mona-Clare. What is to become of you?

Larry’s back downstairs. He sits Big Mona in Albert’s chair in the living room trying to calm her - she insists she isn’t finished yet. She’s shaking, her sentences are broken and she’s going off in angry words. We’re all feeling it - it’s raw and instinctual fear. Larry tries to make light of the situation, telling her at least she knew to aim over their heads, but Mona, unlaughing, says it wasn’t’ her intention to aim high.

I don’t recall making the second pot of coffee or if I was the one who made it but it’s almost empty and it’s almost dawn, and it’s almost time for Mona-Clare’s day to begin, but it isn’t the time to understand her days with us are about to end. I go to my baby take her in my arms embrace her with all my mother emotion. When she awakens I put her to my breast and she suckles with hunger. She draws her feet up like a little monkey and I cup them and hold them against my womb. It’s as though we both can’t get enough of each other.

After my tears I hum to the tune of a Gloria and William Gaither song but sing the verse that really counts:

‘How sweet to hold a new-born baby

and feel the pride and joy he gives;

but greater still the calm assurance.

This child can face uncertain days

Because He lives...

Because He lives I can face tomorrow

Because He lives all fear is gone,

Because I know He holds the future;

and life is worth the living

Just because He lives’

Little Mona is full and Big Mona is waiting for her. She’s ashen, there are tiny beads of sweat around her brow and she’s wiped her eyes and blown her nose several times already, but she still expects her ‘baby’ in bed with her. Mona stays under the covers and I get on the other side of the bed with Mona-Clare, and Dolly and Friend between us. By the time Mass has started on TV Big Mona is asleep. Little Mona and I move into Larry’s and my bed, because he’s upstairs and awake and the three of us need to be together.

The police have cut the phone lines. They’ve disconnected our communications with everyone except for them. So every time we pick up the phone it automatically rings Halifax Police. Our lawyer Amy Roburn, whom we telephoned earlier, trying to figure out what to do, can no longer advise us. We can’t talk to family members or anyone else eager and anxious to assist in resolving matters.

Big Mona’s schedule is off - she stays in bed. Her energy is low after the most fitful night of her life. Larry’s been keeping watch on things, what’s going on outside and I’m wasting my time and energy with Tom Marten, who calls himself a negotiator, but both he and I know he’s been called in to antagonize. One call after another he’s got absolutely nothing to say except that the only way things are getting resolved is if we hand our baby to the Children’s Aid Society of Halifax and Larry and I surrender ourselves to the police.

They know about Big Mona’s health - knew months ago already, when Larry had written the letter on her behalf advising the authorities to quit harassing her with those constant, never ending deliveries of documents. Marten wouldn’t say who authorized the attack on her by attacking her home in the middle of the night. And now adding insult to injury Marten asks, "How’s old Mona doing?"

Every once in a while I think he cares or at least I think he should, when he asks what else is going on inside the house. I give him an assessment of things but Larry’s assessment was right when he said the cops already know what’s going on because they probably have a throw phone (listening device) attached to the house somewhere since the early hours of the ‘stand off’, which is how it gets sensationalized across Canada. And as before, the press is purposefully ridiculous.

I’m furious when Larry turns on Mona’s new kitchen television - the one we bought her a week ago - a Mother’s Day present. Who said anything about Larry firing a gun!? The media is feeding the public exactly what the police want everyone to think - that a crazy man had started shooting at police. No mention of what really happened and how the police and Children’s Aid instigated the whole affair. Just that they arrived to enforce an apprehension order.

We wouldn’t know ourselves until later that we were followed to Wal-Mart the evening before, that the police had us and the house under surveillance, watching us through the window with high powered binoculars. The media doesn’t report that the authorities knew Mona-Clare and I had returned to 6161 Shirley St. days ago already, and that they didn’t bother to knock at the door at any decent or respectable hour when they could have or should have - there was no 911 call, and the police had absolutely no indication Mona -Clare’s life was in peril, which was the only legal excuse they could have used to come in the middle of the night.

And there was no report of their attempt to gain entry into Mona’s home by breaking down the door with a battering ram, while armed with machine guns.

Big Mona wants to keep Marten busy on the phone. I’m not interested in talking with him because I don’t get anywhere, and many times he just upsets me, especially when he tries to do amateur psychology on me. Maybe I’m the one who has it wrong - maybe it’s Marten’s role to needle, provoke, to be useless, to get a reaction from us, to do anything but resolve matters peacefully and quickly, to justify crossing lines already, to keep the stand off alive so Ronnie robot can stay on the force because they used it /him once. I tell Marten to send some apples over with Ronnie so I can make some apple sauce for Mona-Clare.

I’m quite serious however, when I want to know what’s going on with Children’s Aid, what the heck they have besides Smith’s criminal court order to justify wanting to steal our baby. I don’t bother wasting my time telling Marten that court orders and blind obedience were not enough to excuse horrific crimes in times of war. I can tell his mentality - I don’t think he’s equipped to appreciate how genocides were and can still be effected.

I want Mona-Clare secured with family before I have any intention of leaving the house. When Marten says it would take five days to get the order, I inform him he’s full of it - consent can be done in five minutes, just like the apprehension order. I also know there are enough family members that can and will take our baby, and the law says when parents aren’t available, extended family must first be considered. Besides, statistics show the majority of children in foster care are abused.

The police have now blown the situation to gross proportions. Entire streets are cordoned off, schools are closed, and neighbors are evacuated or ordered to say in their basements. Police are armed with machine guns, wear heavy armor and helmets and they’re everywhere - on the streets, on the corners, in the backyards, in front of TV cameras, snipers in windows, plus police dogs, congregations of reporters, dozens of police cars, and hundreds of bystanders compose a scene that is beyond reason.

Yet throughout this inflated affair it is not explained how at least one woman is able to stroll the entire length of Shirley St., right in front of the 6161 three-ring circus. And all of this because a mother and father possess a natural and primal need to nurture and raise their offspring and our Canadian government, in a so-called progressive society, will not respect this dying breed.

Larry and I watch the news reports and the only accounts that remotely resemble reality is when Dr. David Menslink makes an appearance on ATV. A mother distraught, he says, loving her baby too much to give her up. The fired shot, a warning to stay away. All other accounts: folly to fool the fool worthies.

To disclose the truth is an absolute horror. A societal nightmare with incredibly disturbing implication, alas ignorance is not bliss. It only allows those responsible for such an atrocity to get away with it. But who bares onus if the truth is bared? Feigned child protection agencies who steal the babies from good and loving parents? Lawyers and judges preparing the paper work? Ceausescu for giving Canadian government lessons? Or the Canadian people for allowing such gross criminality to continue.

I know the police want to keep the stand off alive, but I would not know that which Big Mona wants to keep from me. She’s dying. She and Larry are doing most of the talking while I’m not around. She was particularly anxious to have Wayne come to the house, to have a talk about his role as executor. I know Mona’s worked up and sickly with stress, who wouldn’t be? But I do not fully understand, maybe because my mind and heart refuse to believe.

I continue to tend to her as a nursemaid. I make porridge and toasts for Mona. I bring her soup, I draw her bath, help with her puffers, administer her meds, and comb her hair. I’m on the phone with Marten demanding that Dr. Fay come to the house to attend, but he advises yet again, no one will be allowed in the house - not even Mona’s doctor - even when Dr. Fay says he has absolutely no fear of coming over.

The police will however allow him to speak with Big Mona over the phone and she tells him she’s ill but she will not leave the house. She knows she won’t be going to hospital - it’ll be an interrogation room.

Larry is quiet a lot of the time. Once in a while he’ll talk to Marten but he knows it’s a wasted effort. Maybe he’s in working shock, like me, giving the impression that no much is going on, but if you allow yourself to think too much about what’s really going on, function turns dysfunctional. We’re hardly eating. We need sleep. Marten assures me that they won’t attempt another attack like they did the first night, but he doesn’t tell me that what they have planned instead is the use of a front end loader and gas bombs once they get clearance. Get a good night’s sleep, he says.

Little Mona is being a little angel. She smiles, laughs, and puts her hands all over my face when I coo. I nibble on her ear, massage her scalp, play with her toes. Her extra suckling is nourishing me, probably more than it is her. Mona-Clare in my arms, Mona-Clare gnawing on Rabbit. Mona-Clare learning to crawl, Mona-Clare beginning to laugh. She keeps growing. She brings me peace, reminds me of who I am. When I’m not feeling sorry for myself, I’m feeling so lucky to be her mother.

Three times, after I’ve made Big Mona comfortable, I go to Little Mona’s room where I find her and Larry. He’s on his back on the floor and Mona-Clare is on his chest, on her tummy with her legs and feet kicking about expressing her energy, happy and nurtured. I lay beside Larry, trying to breathe the scene as much and as long as I can. ‘Let you father and mother be glad, and let her who bore you rejoice.’ Proverbs 23:25

Thursday afternoon. We’re all in Big Mona’s room. It’s the second time she’s ever been verbally upset with me - the first was last summer, when I was pregnant and told her I was thinking of terminating because of my fears of an unrelenting system. It’s after she sees a photo of Ronnie robot in a copy of the Chronicle Herald, which Ronnie robot had delivered, and after she learns what the authorities have done, how they’ve targeted her son yet again. "Why in hell did you try and stop me!" I’m speechless because I know she’s serious and even more so because I still can’t believe she was serious the other night. I can’t even say I’m sorry.

Hours later, I tell Mona-Clare how sorry I am for her even though she doesn’t understand. She’s busy splashing around the kitchen sink. She looks at her feet that are under the water while I put a warm wet washcloth over her hair. She keeps at her playful business while I’m trying to keep myself together. My infant daughter in a democracy. She can be sure of nothing, not an interpretation of the law nor a correct assessment of the danger she faces, nor liberty, security or life.

Little Mona smells pretty and she gleams, and I take her upstairs to Big Mona, who will not get out of bed except to go to the toilet. She doesn’t eat or watch Touched By an Angel or read her Bible. But she welcomes her granddaughter and talks to her, asks Mona-Clare if she’s had a good day, asks her where her big mouse went to. Big Mona and I say little to each other while Mona-Clare suckles before sleep. I ask her how she’s feeling and she tells me she’ll be better tomorrow. I leave the two Monas to find out what Larry’s up to. I want us to be held for a little while.

In the kitchen we tell each other we have to cook the pork chops, which were purchased when the Monas and I went to the Atlantic Superstore on Tuesday. Larry’s sure something’s being planned - they’re not going to let this go on - it’s a long weekend coming up - but what exactly, it’s hard to say. I think they’ll need to keep the Monas in mind - an infant child and an elderly woman. "Are you kidding?" he says, "they don’t give a damn about them - look what they did the other night!" It’s not the pork chop and beer that leaves a sick feeling in my stomach. It’s Larry telling me they’re coming after him because he’s cost the system too much money and he knows too much, and they know Larry’s no giving up and I believe every word he says.

Larry tells me he can’t sleep but I tell him he has to lay down and try. I go into big Mona’s room and waken my baby for some more suckling. While I change her diaper Big Mona awakens and now the three of us are laying on her bed. She takes Mona-Clare’s hand in her and says "I’m really going to miss you." I’m still not getting it. "Oh Mona, stop it."

The two Monas are asleep. Little Mona has burrowed in Big Mona’s neck. I take a picture because it’s a beautiful sight. I would not know that this evening was their last.

May 21- Tom Marten’s at if first thing in the morning, still saying anything but something that might assist in resolving matters. No, Mona’s doctor is not allowed, her family - not allowed, Mona-Clare to family members - no. No priest, no taking Mona to her church, nothing. Children’s Aid gets our baby and we go into police custody. End of negotiations.

But I am not so naive to think that Mona-Clare is merely a sales transaction about to happen. She’s the monkey wrench in the middle of a system plot to keep the corruption in family law hidden. The system’s enactment of Mona-Clare’s kidnapping, for reasons beyond control. A move to portray me as an unfit mother, necessary leverage for the Crown in my upcoming re-trial in Ontario for taking my children against court order. Otherwise my attendance with nursing baby might expose the criminal acts in Family Court that took my triplet children. How can I be a capable mother of my fourth but not my first three?

And Larry. Only living parent to a native daughter who was taken from him by criminal acts taking place during his own court proceedings. Nothing whatsoever to do with parental fitness or even a custody dispute. His girl, worth more to Indian Affairs if she is living on a reserve. And finally Larry and I will never be left alone after his success in having four lawyers criminally charged, and after I was exonerated for taking the law into my own hands after showing it to be a detriment to my children. The system, at any cost, will maintain a family law industry, the livelihood of too many lawyers at the expense of too many children.

No matter, the entire situation leaves my family in utter ruin. Now they’ve taken my 79 year old mother-in-law. She’s had enough; she doesn’t want to be witness to what might happen to the last of her grandchildren. Her son’s had the emotional snot knocked out of him. When he couldn’t stop the abuse and kidnapping of his daughter, Chantelle, even though he’s never let anyone know it. But a mother knows. She carries the burden too. And now, before police brutal force, she is too frail to overcome.

Mona-Clare is changed and nursed and nurtured. Then Larry plays with her for a bit, then puts her down for a nap, and goes downstairs.

‘The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy’ John 10:10

Big Mona doesn’t want her morning coffee but she will take my hand to the washroom. While I’m tending upstairs, Larry’s downstairs on the phone with the negotiators, getting nowhere. Mona’s request to be taken to the church is denied. By this time we’re sure police are waiting for Mona to die so they can take the next step which we suspect is a move to take Larry, one way or another, dead or barely alive. Larry’s already shown how good he is at stinking out the corruption, and there are too many who are too nervous to want him sniffing around anymore

No matter if Mona-Clare’s nap is longer than usual because God extended it Himself. I’m able to concentrate on Big Mona whom I now know is dying. I bathe her, speaking to her softly. " You’re going to Albert, Mona. But I’m sorry it had to be like this." I’m washing her as she watches me. "Larry’s a good man, one of the sturdiest men I know and no matter what anyone thinks or believes, Larry’s heart is in the right place and as his mother I believe you have God’s blessing to be proud of your son." My arm brushes against her hand and she squeezes. Her mouth is turned, a smile. I look at her and I will take her last request to my grave, " Don’t let them take our baby."

Propping pillows, arranging the blankets, kissing Mona goodbye. I don’t cry when I go downstairs to tell Larry, I can only cry when he does about an hour later. My love for Larry was partly grounded by his relationship with his mother. His commitment to Mother love and his unfailing respect and admiration for Mona will be one of Larry’s greatest gifts to me. He's looking out the back porch window. When I hear he’s sad to tears I hold him from behind and very firmly when I tell him how much I love him.

I can hardly contain myself. I get on the phone demanding to get the arrangements legalized, so that Maureen or Jackie have temporary custody of Mona-Clare before we leave the house. We have no choice. Larry and I have to get Mona out of the house, soon. Larry’s talking about some law about harboring a dead body which deadens me even more. He fashions a make-shift stretcher while I’m upstairs. Changing Mona, nursing Mona-Clare, taking a quick shower, just going through the motions. Then my baby squeals, reminds me that I’m still needed. I fill the tub and take her for a swim.

Larry’s outside on the second floor, purposely in view, half-expecting to get shot. 10 minutes later I hand him Mona-Clare and now I’m out there too. Here I am. Here’s my baby- my beautiful healthy baby. In my arms, at my breast. An image normally respected, bringing joy, representing life. Shoot me! I have nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of except for those who are watching in judgment, blinded by perversity, by immunity, stunted by ignorance. My suffering is hard but it’s nothing compared to the affliction of our next generations.

Larry and I have the discussion again. He thinks the police will let us get Mona to the church. I’m not sure. I want to believe but the alternative continues to drive my fear. It’s late in the day and Mona’s been deceased for several hours. We don’t have a choice. We’re not leaving Mona on the sidewalk. We know the SWAT-like team is waiting, waiting for Larry, and I know they’d like to bring him down in the house, most likely in the night when no one’s watching, just like before, and I won’t let those bastards take my husband that way. Halifax police, no man should have to endure this just because he wants to protect his family, wants to see the end of the abuse of all those children.

Halifax police have anything but finality in mind; they want Larry and me to remain in the house. One call after another, " Don’t come out of the house! Don’t come out of the house!" Even when we have to end the situation and tell the police we’re going to the church they will not allow us to. "Stay in the house!" " Stay in the house!" "You can’t leave the house!" Tom Marten makes it very clear it’s orchestration, not negotiation.

While I’m preparing Mona-Clare, Larry is saying goodbye to his mother, gathering the wreath with Albert’s picture in the middle, Big Mona’s Bible, and her little St. Anne statue with baby Virgin Mary in her arms, placing them with Mona on her stretcher. He covers her with Albert’s special blanket. We talk about the rifle. Do we take it- who takes it- will it even be in offensive or defensive position- will it be loaded. We talk about potential moves by the police, their reputation, their type to shoot first and put the story together later. In the end Larry takes it, loaded, defensive position. He'll leave it at the church doors.

Larry also takes the knapsack with a few toiletries, a few things for Mona-Clare, Rabbit hanging out the back. I put my baby in the 'Snugli', at my bosom. My hands are free to take the front of Mona’s stretcher. Just before we leave, I kiss Larry, tell him he did the best he could, and that I love him all the more for it. There's a lifetime of things I'd like to tell Mona-Clare but I realize there is little hope for a lifetime.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Support Meeting in Halifax

The Halifax group for an inquirey into what's happened to The Fincks is meeting again on Wed., August 31 at 7pm at
The North End Community Health Care Center
2165 Gottigen St., Halifax.

Take Care-God Bless-Shelley.

ALICE MILLER: Shattering Effects of Child Abuse

The Newly Recognized, Shattering Effects of Child Abuse

[Translated from the German by Hildegarde and Hunter Hannum]
[Alice Miller is a Swiss psychoanalyst. Her books include The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self, Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society's Betrayal of the Child, Banished Knowledge: Facing Childhood Injuries, and For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and Roots of Violence.]


For some years now there has been proof that the devastating effects of the traumatization of children take their inevitable toll on society. This knowledge concerns every single one of us, and--if disseminated widely enough--should lead to fundamental changes in society, above all to a halt in the blind escalation of violence. The following points are intended to amplify my meaning:

1. All children are born to grow, to develop, to live, to love, and to articulate their needs and feelings for their self-protection.

2. For their development children need the respect and protection of adults who take them seriously, love them, and honestly help them to become oriented in the world.

3. When these vital needs are frustrated and children are instead abused for the sake of adults' needs by being exploited, beaten, punished, take advantage of, manipulated, neglected, or deceived without the intervention of any witness, then their integrity will be lastingly impaired.

4. The normal reactions to such injury should be anger and pain; since children in this hurtful kind of environment, however, are forbidden to express their anger and since it would be unbearable to experience their pain all alone, they are compelled to suppress their feelings, repress all memory of the trauma, and idealize those guilty of the abuse. Later they will have no memory of what was done to them.

5. Disassociated from the original cause, their feelings of anger, helplessness, despair, longing, anxiety, and pain will find expression in destructive acts against others (criminal behavior, mass murder) or against themselves (drug addiction, alcoholism, prostitution, psychic disorders, suicide).

6. If those people become parents, they will then often direct acts of revenge for their mistreatment in childhood against their own children, whom they use as scapegoats. Child abuse is still sanctioned--indeed, held in high regard--in our society as long as it is defined as child-rearing. It is a tragic fact that parents beat their children in order to escape from emotions stemming from how they were treated by their own parents.

7. If mistreated children are not to become criminals or mentally ill, it is essential that at least once in their life they come in contact with a person who knows without any doubt that the environment, not the helpless battered child is at fault. In this regard, knowledge or ignorance. on the part of society can be instrumental in either saving or destroying a life. Here lies the great opportunity for relatives, social workers, therapists, teachers, doctors, psychiatrists, officials, and nurses to support the child and to believe her or him.

8. Till now, society has protected the adult and blamed the victim. It has been abetted in its blindness by theories, still in keeping with the pedagogical principles of our great-grandparents, according to which children are viewed as crafty creatures, dominated by wicked drives, who invent stories and attack their innocent parents or desire them sexually. In reality, children tend to blame themselves for their parents' cruelty and to absolve the parents, whom they invariably love, of all responsibility.

9. For some years now, it has been possible to prove, thanks to the use of new therapeutic methods, that repressed traumatic experiences in childhood are stored up in the body and, although remaining unconscious, exert their influence even in adulthood. In addition, electronic testing of the fetus has revealed a fact previously unknown to most adults: a child responds to and learns both tenderness and cruelty from the very beginning.

10. In the light of this new knowledge, even the most absurd behavior reveals its formerly hidden logic once the traumatic experiences of childhood no longer must remain shrouded in darkness.

11. Our sensitization to the cruelty with which children are treated, until now commonly denied, and to the consequences of such treatment will as a matter of course bring to an end the perpetuation of violence from generation to generation.

12. People whose integrity has not been damaged in childhood, who were protected, respected, and treated with honesty by their parents, will be--both in their youth and adulthood--intelligent, responsive, empathetic, and highly sensitive. They will take pleasure in life and will not feel any need to hurt otherss or themselves. They will use their power to defend themselves but not to attack others. They will not be able to do otherwiss than to respect and protect those weaker than themselves, including their children, because this is what they have learned from their own experience and because it is this knowledge (and not the experience of cruelty) that has been stored up inside them from the beginning. Such people will be incapable of understanding why earlier generations had to build up a gigantic war industry in order to feel at ease and safe in this world. Since it will not have to be their unconscious life-task to ward off intimidation experienced at a very early age, they will be able to deal with attempts at intimidation in their adult life more rationally and more creatively.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

STINSON: WHOSE CHILD IS IT ANYWAY?

WHOSE CHILD IS IT ANYWAY?

The case of a Halifax couple who have been ordered to never see their young daughter again has raised troubling questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare system.

National Post Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Page: A7
Section: Canada
Byline: Scott Stinson
Source: National Post


In the early hours of May 19, 2004, heavily armed officers of the RCMP Emergency Response Team descended on a home on a quiet Halifax street. Four people were inside, and none of them planned to come out. Sixty-seven hours later, two of the home's occupants were under arrest, one was dead of an apparent heart attack, and the fourth resident – a five-month-old girl -- was in the care of the local Children's Aid Society.

The standoff was only the beginning of the problems for the husband and wife taken away in handcuffs on that night 14 months ago. They were sentenced last month to lengthy prison terms for their roles in the confrontation with police -- in which a blast from a shotgun sent pellets over the heads of the RCMP officers -- and their daughter has since been placed in the permanent care of the Halifax CAS. Child apprehensions in this country are nothing new, but some Haligonians -- including university professors, lawyers, and the local Elizabeth Fry Society -- say the case raises troubling questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare system. They want a public inquiry to explain what compelled the CAS to seize a child from the care of its own parents and why the police arrived bearing semi-automatic weapons and a battering ram to do so.

The province, critics say, took the baby girl from her parents not because of what they did but because of who they are. The 43-year-old mother and 51-year-old father -- who may not be named in order to protect the child's identity -- share an unusual bond beyond their marriage. Both have lost acrimonious custody disputes from previous marriages and both were charged with abducting those children from their legal guardians.

The mother was briefly an international fugitive in October, 2000, when she packed her seven-year-old triplets in the trunk of her car and drove them across the Ontario border into the United States and eventually to Acapulco, Mexico. Their history with the child welfare system has caused the couple to distrust authorities with an intensity that borders on the pathological, as even some of their supporters acknowledge. During criminal trials that ended in May, the couple insisted they were victims of a vast government conspiracy to remove children from low-income families and place them with
wealthy benefactors. They fired their lawyers and represented themselves in court, which local reports said led to frequent outbursts from the defendants, who levied wild accusations at witnesses, lawyers and judges.

Ray Kuszelewski knows first-hand the difficulties of dealing with the father. He represented the man in the early stages of the criminal proceedings, before being fired when he refused to use his client's defence to promote the conspiracy theory. Mr. Kuszelewski says that despite his former client's abrasive, combative nature, the man has a point. ''Regardless of [the father and mother] and their statements and their beliefs ... there are still issues that need to be addressed," he says. Mr. Kuszelewski, one of eight Haligonians on a committee that is pushing for a public inquiry into the Halifax CAS, says there has never been a proper explanation for why Children's Aid had an order to put the couple's child under supervisory care before she had even been born. (The mother fled Halifax with the newborn in January, 2004, when she learned of the custody order and returned a month later under a Canada-wide warrant for her arrest.)

The lawyer notes that the father lost a fight to raise his other daughter, now an adolescent, whom he wanted to remove from an Ontario native reserve after her mother died, while the mother lost her children in a dispute with her former husband. ''But this is a child of that couple, of two people who had problems individually of a different sort,'' Mr. Kuszelewski says. ''Any rational person would say these things are not the same [as their problems in the past]. ''How is it that some Ontario issue in the past is enough to trigger a call for an unborn child, which trumps all the other cases in Halifax to the point where the child is 20 days old and is already before the court?''

Stephen Kimber, a journalism professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax and another member of the newly formed committee, says he sees this case as a simple issue: ''What was the reason for taking this kid? Unless they can come up with a better reason than '[the couple] were involved in a custody battle and they challenged authority,' then I don't think they have much of a case.'' Mr. Kimber says if the Halifax CAS, which declined a request for comment on the case and the calls for a public inquiry, could show that the man and woman ''were a danger to their child, then that's a different thing, but
they haven't shown that.'' The Nova Scotia Supreme Court saw things differently, ruling late last month that the two were ''consumed with their perception of a corrupt family
justice system,'' that they were unable to act in the best interests of their child and that she ''would be at substantial risk of physical and emotional harm if returned to her parents' care.''

Mr. Kuszelewski says there is no doubt the couple were confrontational and difficult from the moment they learned the CAS wanted a role in the care of their child, which as he says was the point ''when the whole thing went off the rails.'' ''What happened in the standoff, and the shooting of the gun and all that stuff is terrible and there is legitimate reason why you can't let that go,'' Mr. Kimber says, ''but if it all keeps coming back to the question of why did [CAS] do this in the first place, if they can't justify that, then
it seems to me you have a problem.'' Michael Baker, the Conservative Justice Minister, has said he will not hold an inquiry into the case or the CAS, which says it will not discuss its reasons for action due to privacy laws.

Mr. Kimber suggests that many people in Nova Scotia are ''appalled'' by the series of events that began with the Halifax standoff, but he thinks it will take pressure from opposition politicians to convince the Tories to hold an inquiry. ''Because of what happened in the standoff, and the gun being fired, and because of [the couple's] personalities, there seems to be a lack of desire to get deeply into this by the NDP or Liberals,'' he says. ''I think they'd just prefer it goes away.'' There are hints, however, that the government will feel some pressure to provide answers to the questions Mr. Kimber and his associates are asking.

Graham Steele, an NDP member of the provincial legislature, has gone to court to force the government to appoint an advisory committee to review legislation governing the child welfare system. Mr. Steele says the Child and Family Services Act requires the review be carried out annually, but it hasn't been conducted since 1999. He says his court action is not directly related to this case, but that the furor it created ''threw a spotlight'' on the lack of oversight in the child welfare system.

The Halifax chapter of the Elizabeth Fry Society, while also choosing not to directly address the complaints raised by the mother, said recently it supports a CAS inquiry to explain what it sees as a sharp jump in the number of children taken into state care in the past couple of years. Donna Phillips, executive director of the non-profit organization that supports women in conflict with the law, said her staff has seen ''a huge increase in the number of women who are losing their children, particularly involving women with mental illness.''

Ms. Phillips said the society's outreach co-ordinator estimates 35% of her clients ''are involved with CAS trying to get their children back,'' up from only 5% two years ago. Mr. Steele says the statements from Elizabeth Fry will add to pressure on the government to give some of the questions surrounding Children's Aid a full public airing. ''The fact that a very well-regarded and serious organization is calling for the same thing makes it that much harder for the department to dismiss it as a few paranoid crackpots.'' The mother and father vow to continue their fight. She claims to be on a hunger strike while in prison, where she is serving a 3 1/2-year sentence. Her husband was sentenced to 4 1/2 years, but both have appealed their convictions. They are also appealing the court order that said they would never see their daughter again. They continue to represent themselves in court.

=-=-=-=-=
NOTE from NewsRoomWatch:

Just wanted to point to the fact that Carline didn't pack her kids in the trunk and drove off to Mexico. Border crossings were done that way, as well as times when it would be more likely to be spotted in big cities, the chidlren rehearsed how they would do that, they were eager and it was an adventure for them. They were always free to tell their mom to go back to Canada. Which they didn't.

Contrary to what the custodial father said to the press, they didn't spend 4 weeks of horror! They LOVED IT! Who then REALLY abducted the children?

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

LEFEBVRE: Michael Baker, unaware or unconcerned?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hon. Michael Baker
To: andrelefebvre@
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: MORE iNFORMATION is available in the case of Mona-ClareFinck

Dear Mr. Lefebvre:

Thank you for your e-mail about the child custody issue.

The family matter you referred to and related criminal matters, have both been addressed in Nova Scotia courts. I am satisfied that matters were dealt with appropriately and I am of the view that there is no public interest in a further inquiry.

The best interests of the child are paramount and the actions of child protection authorities are examined carefully by the Supreme Court, as is required by our legislation. The legal process for child protection is described at www.gov.ns.ca/coms/families/pdf/child_welfare_brochure.pdf.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views.

Michael G. Baker, Q.C.

-------

Dear Mr Baker,

I appreciate you took the time to personally write back.

It is very unfortunate however that you seem to be unaware of the importance of this request. More and more people are completely agreeing that a public inquiry is the only mean we have to serve the public interest as too many questions remain unanswered even after the trial. Which focused on criminal charges stemming from the standoff and not on the content of a court order that certainly has never been proven valid.

What happened to the Fincks had nothing to do with the proper administration of justice, although you expressed satisfaction at the outcome. It does not matter what Carline and Larry were like in court, so much as why they were driven to such extremes in order to resist such order and try to defend themselves against alleged abuse of power on the part of the CAS. So many more similar cases exist today to make us all wonder why you are not stepping in to make changes. And restore justice to the Fincks. Why continue to defend a system that failed them? Why not correct the wrongs? Isn't what justice is about?

There exist another level of injustice that is shocking the population and it concerns directly the circumstances that forced the Fincks to run from a CAS court order, and the excessive use of force to get the baby anyways. The use of a taser gun on a suspect already in custody, a handcuffed woman, is also very disturbing. Some people have some explaining to do.

As you yourself should know through your own experience with the Lunenburg CAS, there has been many instances of abuse of power on the part of CAS, as well as lack of passion in being involved in serious cases of child molestation, leaving children in criminal hands because of very poor judgment on the part of CAS workers. Or was it because of sheer corruption or favoritism?

Parents need to be able to trust. And right now, the CAS has lost that trust. And restoring it can only be done publicly. There is a dark history of Nova Scotia in terms of child abuse by government agencies or orphanages. Our slogan: never again.

This is such a situation. The public nowadays is VERY informed, and many are doing very extensive investigative work, sharing information over the web and connecting the dots. If this situation was legally sound, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You are basically telling us you are implicitely trusting the whole chain of command that was activated in Nova Scotia from the CAS all the way through the trial and the sentencing. If this is the case, then don't think that you realize how hurtful this is going to be for your Ministry as well as the exercise of justice in Canada. This has a deep impact on the ability of the population to trust the political and legal institutions of our country.

If we, citizens, know enough of the truth to rally thousands of other citizens in support of a public inquiry, then we have to wonder what it is you're trying to do by denying this one. It is well-known inside and outside of Nova Scotia that there is protectionism within the legal and law enforcement system. We are acquainted with the existence of rules governing child protection and have also read public documents revealing that these rules have been violated by CAS workers in some cases.

Consider seriously the odds, Mr Baker. Either you participate in a cover-up, either you open the door to further reform the CAS. There are thousands of victims of the CAS in Nova Scotia.

Further, the insistence of your office to refuse a public inquiry could be seen as very suspicious when considered in light of your history with the CAS. No offense, Mr Baker. Justice does not mean righteousness.

I plead with you, before God and the Queen, to consider again the consequences of a denial of a public inquiry in the Fincks case. Their case is not unique as you know. Why would insurance companies refuse to cover the CAS ...

http://www.grahamsteele.ca/media2003a.html#anchor21634

We need to see some kind of deterrent for sloppy work in the case of agencies who are endowed of civil and criminal power for the protection of our children. Because of your past history, you are obvioulsy the last person who could convince anyone that he is ignorant of those cases of abuse.

We take into consideration the fact that since 1999, there as been no annual reviews of the Child Protection Services in Nova Scotia. That too is of grave consequences.

Mona-Clare Finck has been damaged not by her parents, as was the reason invoked to take her away, but by the CAS actions. And compounded by subsequent interventions by other instances based on that basic error.

Make history: grant a public inquiry. If not for justice sake, at least do it because it makes a whole lot of sense politically and socially. Finally reform the CAS in a way that would ensure the true protection of the children, and not mean the decimation of families.

Thanks for taking time to read despite your busy schedule,

Regards,

Andre Lefebvre

LEFEBVRE: Amnesty International and TASER GUNS

When Carline VandenElsen was "arrested," her baby was cut free from her snugli with a combat knife by a police officer, the mother then was hand-cuffed and put face down on the ground. THEN, even though she was no threat and already in custody, the police tasered her twice.

This is police brutality and further support our request for a public inquiry in the actions of the CAS and the police on May 19, 2004, which resulted in a conviction for both parents who were trying to defend themselves against abuse of power on the part of the CAS and the Halifax police.

Who then should be charged and sentenced? The parents or those who were supposed to serve and protect the child and the parents? The real criminals are not necessarly those who are behind bars today, their baby girl in limbo between foster homes.

Excessive and lethal force?

USA / Canada: Pattern of abuse -- suspend use of taser guns

November 30, 2004

More than 70 people in the USA and Canada have died since 2001, after being electro-shocked with taser guns. While coroners have generally attributed cause of death to factors such as drug intoxication, in at least five cases they have found the taser played a role.

"Tasers have been used by police officers against unruly schoolchildren; unarmed mentally disturbed or intoxicated individuals; suspects fleeing minor crime scenes and people who argue with police or fail to comply immediately with a command," said Amnesty International today as it launched two new reports examining the use of taser guns in the USA and Canada.

Evidence suggests that, far from being restricted to narrowly-defined circumstances in order to avoid lethal force, tasers have become the most prevalent force tool in some police departments. More than 5,000 law enforcement and correctional agencies in 49 US states are currently reported to be deploying or testing taser equipment, with the take-up rate continuing to grow. In Canada approximately 60 police departments have been issued with tasers.

Despite being widely deployed, there has been no rigorous, independent and impartial study into the use and effects of tasers, particularly in the case of people suffering from heart disease, or under the influence of drugs.

"Many experts believe taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in people who are under the influence of drugs or suffer underlying health problems such as heart disease, risk factors present in many of the cases we examined," said Amnesty International.

Tasers have been purchased by the US army, including for use in Iraq. The US Air Force is reported to deploy tasers aboard aircraft carrying suspected al-Qa’ida members to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. While few details have been provided about the use of tasers by US military forces, one of the units deploying them in Iraq in 2003 was the 800th Military Police Brigade, accused of grave abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of tasers
November 30, 2004

Deaths in custody (Canada)

Within the last fifteen months, nine people have died after being shocked with a taser by law enforcement officials in Canada. More than 60 people have died in the USA after being hit with police tasers in the past three years. While coroners have usually attributed the deaths to other factors, such as drug intoxication, some medical professionals believe taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where people are agitated or under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems. Furthermore, in at least five recent US cases, coroners have found the taser directly contributed to the deaths, along with other factors such as drug intoxication and heart disease.

The rising death toll heightens Amnesty International’s concerns about the potential health risks involved in taser use. While the manufacturers claim the electrical output of tasers is far below the threshold that would trigger cardiac ventricular fibrillation (severe disturbance of the heart rhythm), there remains a lack of rigorous, independent research into the medical effects of such weapons.

While there is a limited amount of literature describing the clinical experience of earlier tasers, there has been virtually no independent, medical literature published to date on the effects of the more powerful M26 or X26 tasers currently deployed in the USA and Canada. The only medical studies prior to the marketing of these new generation taser models were tests on animals commissioned by the company; none of these studies has been peer reviewed by independent medical experts. Meanwhile, a number of medical experts have continued to raise concern that tasers may have adverse effects on certain vulnerable groups, including those under the influence of certain recreational drugs – often the very people who have come into contact with police tasers. Further information on health concerns relating to tasers, and studies or reports conducted to date, is contained in Amnesty International’s report on police taser use in the USA, published in conjunction with this report.(6)

Amnesty International is further concerned that many of the nine men who died in Canada were subjected to high levels of force, including other restraint procedures in addition to the electro-shocks. These procedures include hogtying, chest compressions and pepper spray, all of which can dangerously restrict breathing especially when combined with other force. While autopsies are still pending in some cases, Amnesty International is concerned that these restraints may also have been a contributory factor in some deaths.

In six of the nine cases reviewed, the deceased appear to have been coerced into restraint positions which have been associated with deaths in custody from "positional asphyxia". Such positions include being held face-down on the ground with weight or pressure applied to the chest. [Note: this is exactly what happened to Carline VandenElsen. She was already cuffed, face down on the ground with her hands in front of her when the police officer tasered her. Not once, but twice].

Individuals who are obese, have underlying heart disease and/or who are severely agitated or intoxicated from drugs or alcohol are believed to be at increased risk from such procedures.

In at least five cases, the deceased were placed in a "hogtie" or "hobble restraint", with their wrists or elbows bound behind them to their shackled ankles. This form of restraint is believed to be a particularly dangerous and potentially life threatening procedure, especially if the subject is in a prone position.(7) Standard-setting bodies discourage the use of hogtying and urge that law enforcement officers avoid holding anyone in restraints, even handcuffs, in a face-down position.(8) While some US departments have banned hogtying Amnesty International is disturbed that police departments in Canada still authorize such procedures.

Several of the deceased were pepper sprayed before being tasered. Pepper spray, which acts on the mucus membranes and respiratory system, can further restrict breathing and has been associated with in-custody deaths in the USA and Canada. Amnesty International is concerned that use of multiple restraint techniques, including pepper spray, might increase the risk of respiratory failure.(9) In two cases (see below), an unarmed suspect died after being pepper-sprayed, electro-shocked and restrained.

Positional asphyxia was listed as a direct cause of death in one of the cases examined, and use of restraints was noted as a contributory factor in another. In other cases, however, restraint was not listed as a causal or contributory factor even though death or loss of consciousness appears to have occurred very shortly after the use of restraints.

Experts have noted that multiple factors may play a role in deaths where restraints have been applied, particularly if other risk factors are involved. Amnesty International believes that all the cases require further evaluation. They also underscore the need for clear protocols and training for law enforcement officers on use of restraints and how to avoid excessive or dangerous force when dealing with people with mental health problems and/or acute behavioural disturbance.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

LEFEBVRE: Stay in proceedings in Ontario

Well, there was a court appearance today leading to the staying of the upcoming trial for Carline in Stratford. She will not face a new trial in Ontario next week.

[ Here is a copy of the Crown's Submission, July 12, 2005:

The Crown, upon the authority of Criminal Code 579(1) and having been delegated the authority under that section by the Attorney General of Ontario, is directing that these proceedings against Carline Antonia vendenElsen be stayed. The Crown concludes that it is no longer in the public interest to continue this prosecution. The reasons for the Crown's taking this position are these:

1. Craig Merkley and his 3 children, Peter, Olivia and Gray are the victims of the accused's conduct that resulted in these criminal charges. Mr. Merkley has consulted with the Crown respecting consideration of whether or not these charges should proceed. His position is that he and his children were victimized by the accused when she abducted his children. They were victimized by the accused in her conducting the first trial. He does not want them to be victimized yet again by her conduct in the course of another trial. The triplets were abducted in the year 2000 when they were 7 years old. Now, in the year 2005, they are age 12. Craig Merkely considers that the impact upon them in this trial of their mother in Stratford would be negative to the extreme.

2. The accused, is presently serving a substantial sentence for serious violence and abduction offences committed in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia offences were committed after the Stratford abduction. Accordingly, in the Crown's view, the likely outcome, uin the event of a finding of guilt on the Stratford charges, cannot be a dramatic increase in the custodial sentenmce that the accused in now serving. Also, in view of the sentence imposed in Nova Scotia, the continued prosecution of these Stratford charges for the purpose of the need for deterrence is significantly diminished.

3. The legal issue raised in the first Stratford trial was the nature of the defence of necessity in the context of the child abduction by a parent. the Crown took that issue to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The issue was resolved in favour of the Crown position. Accordingly, no new trial is required for the purpose of resolving the legal issue of necessity; it has been settled.]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

A few points jumped at me, but I will take a day to regroup before committing to anything here.

Regards,

Andre Lefebvre


=----=0=----=
For the love of our families
http://www.familyheadquarters.ca
Thoughts, Articles, Links, Real-Life Stories, Free book
=----=0=----=