CARLINE: response to Michael Baker

June 2nd 2005
[This is Carline's reply to Justice Minister Baker as relayed in her telephone conversation last night.]

"Starving for the Children" is not only for Mona-Clare. It is for the 100's of children in Nova Scotia who have been snatched by a corrupt child welfare system. The public inquiry is needed to examine the activities of this Child Welfare System in Nova Scotia.

I have put in 4 requests to see a medical doctor. All have been refused. I will be contacting Tony Stores, ombudsman and medical laison for his help. Corrections supplies 2 cups of Ensure, milk and juice a day. While I'm at court they give me pop! Good nutritional support that is!

Repeated attempts by Larry and myself and by other advocates, to contact and meet with Premier Hamm,Justice Minister Baker and Community Services Minister David Morse have all been denied. There are 30 boxes of documents at the court every day on Water Street that Minister Baker should take a look at.

There are advocates here in Halifax who are willing to give him all the information he needs to call a public inquiry. Come on Minister Baker, lift the deliberate blindness,look at the information and open the lines of communication. Let the truth come out!

Carline VandenElsen

ANDRE: Response to Justice Minister Michael Baker

No Public Inquiry into Carline VandenElsen Case Justice
May 20, 2005 16:55

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

Justice Minister Michael Baker said today, May 20, that unless new information becomes available, he has no plans to call a public inquiry as requested by Carline VandenElsen.

"We will be monitoring Ms. VandenElsen carefully. We will do what we can to make sure that Ms. VandenElsen’s health is not jeopardized by her actions," said Mr. Baker, "However, based on the information we have at the present time, the Department of Justice does not feel that a public inquiry is warranted."

-30-

Contact: Carla Grant
Department of Justice
902-424-6282
E-mail: grantc@gov.ns.ca

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RESPONSE to Justice Minister Michael Baker
Re: "information available"
(and one other thing, or two...)

Justice Minister Michael Baker
Department of Justice,
Government of Nova Scotia

Dear sir,

This is in response to your posting on the Nova Scotia governement website, saying that "based on the information we have at the present time, the Department of Justice does not feel that a public inquiry is warranted."

Are you saying that the informaiton you have at the present time constitutes the inclusive sum of all that is available? Or are you saying that you cannot use any information that the court has not approved as representing the information you should use to make a decision?

Because there is a growing number of people who wonder what warrants the issuing of a court order to take away a baby that's still in the womb from a healthy, caring and loving family... with no reason given other than "There was a court order." But to this day, no details have been given to the parents or the media.

And so I'd like to know what you consider "available" information: ONLY what the judge deems as relevant, or what both sides, defense and prosecution, actually present? I believe a public inquiry will conclusively demonstrate that you DO have new information available. It is simply a matter of asking the RIGHT people. And not use this as a cope out to shy away from exposing the ills of this case and request accountability from those who need to be held accountable. Not the baby, not the parents. But the CAS.


Read More...

KIMBER: Why we need a public inquiry...

Why we need a public inquiry into the taking of Mona Clare

By Stephen Kimber

May 29, 2005

Forget for a moment the circus that their trial became: their lawyer firings, their seemingly ever-more-paranoid claims of baby-factory conspiracies, their spectator-shocking, judge-trying courtroom outbursts, their richly fertilized and cross-pollinated legal garden of lawsuits, appeals, briefs and petitions that are still growing wild inside Halifax court houses. Forget even Carline VandenElsen’s current “starving-for-the-children” hunger strike that threatens to turn this farce into tragedy.

Focus instead on the single critical — and still unanswered — question that is at the heart of the story of Mona Clare Finck: Did the Nova Scotia Children’s Aid Society have any reasonable legal grounds to seize the infant from her parents in the first place?

Everything else — policemen with battering rams and machine guns showing up at the Finck front door in the middle of one night last May, the single shot fired from inside the house, the 67-hour standoff with a heavily-armed police tactical squad that followed, the death by natural causes of Mona Clare’s grandmother in the middle of it all, the criminal charges, the trial, the application by child protection authorities for permanent custody… All of those events flow from an initial decision by Children’s Aid back in December 2003 to seek an apprehension order for the then still-unborn Mona Clare.

Why did Children’s Aid do that?

Could its decision to take the infant have been made on the basis of nothing more substantial than a relayed phone call to Ontario Children’s Aid from VandenElsen’s far-from-disinterested ex-husband, informing them — wrongly, as it turns out — that VandenElsen had already given birth in Halifax.

We do know VandenElsen and her husband Larry Finck had each been in conflict with child protection authorities in Ontario over the custody of their children from previous marriages. We know Finck served time for abducting his daughter, and VandenElsen was charged with kidnapping her triplets. But we also know a jury found her not guilty of those charges, accepting her argument she was acting out of what she considered necessity. We know too that the Crown successfully appealed the verdict, meaning VandenElsen — still not found guilty of anything — was awaiting a new trial at the time of the apprehension order.

Perhaps most importantly, we know now that there is nothing on the public record — other than their ongoing battles with child custody authorities — to indicate that either Finck or VandenElsen was an unfit parent.

So why did Children’s Aid seize Mona Clare?

Should there be — as Carline VandenElsen is demanding — a full public inquiry to answer that question?

Nova Scotia Justice Minister Michael Baker doesn’t think so. Shortly after VandenElsen announced she would stop eating until authorities agreed to such an inquiry, the Justice Minister issued a terse news release: “Based on the information we have at the present time,” he said, “the Department of Justice does not feel that a public inquiry is warranted.”

What information is that, Mr. Baker?

The province’s Children and Family Services Act, which governs child custody issues, is clear that the “purpose of this Act is to protect children from harm, promote the integrity of the family and assure the best interests of children.”

The Act specifically lists 14 different situations in which a child might be “in need of protective services.” Those include everything from actual and potential physical, sexual or emotional abuse, to neglect and abandonment, to the parents’ failure or unwillingness to provide proper medical care.

None of the criteria apply to this case.

Even if you were to stretch the Act’s Section 22.2(g) — which says a child can be taken from its parents if “there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer emotional harm [demonstrated by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or self-destructive or aggressive behaviour]…” — and tried to make the argument that someday perhaps Mona Clare’s parents’ disputes with child protection authorities over custody of children from before she was born might somehow, possibly, conceivably result in some unspecified emotional harm to Mona Clare, well, that is much, much more than just a stretch.

The Act itself is clear about what constitutes “substantial risk” of harm to a child: “a real danger that is apparent on the evidence.”

The evidence in this case, in fact, suggests quite the opposite. The doctor who delivered the child and met with the family before and after her birth reported: “Both parents appropriate with baby, caring, loving.” Neighbours, who saw mother and daughter in the weeks before the police assault, said they saw nothing to indicate the child was in any danger. Doctors and nurses at the IWK, who examined five-month-old Mona Clare after she’d been seized by police, described her as “a well grown and well developed baby with no clinical signs of any illness… doing well… active, playful and feeding well…”

So, Mr. Baker, let me ask you again: What information did your department have at the time that legally justified seizing this child from her parents?

Or does this really have anything to do with the law?

Could it be that Children’s Aid here over-reacted to an over-reaction by child protection officials in Ontario, who didn’t like Finck’s and VandenElsen’s attitude and wanted to punish them for the crime of being difficult? And could it be that judges here okayed this because our Family Court system has become more of a rubber stamp for the child-care bureaucracy than a careful check on the arbitrary powers of those agencies? Could there be other cases as egregious as this one that we don’t yet know about only because no shots were fired.

The truth, Mr. Baker, is that you already have plenty of information to warrant a public inquiry. It’s past time you called one.

Stephen.Kimber@ukings.ns.ca

LIGHTSTONE: Money raised for mom...

Money raised for mom on hunger strike
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE / Staff Reporter
The Halifax Herald Limited
May 29, 2005

A Nova Scotia couple who say they're full-time human rights activists are trying to raise money to support Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen - and other parents whose children have been removed from their care.

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, who have each lost custody of children from previous relationships, said Saturday any donated cash will go toward fighting what they say is an unjust child-welfare system.

Ms. Brauer of Falmouth said part of the money raised will finance planned advertising to target what they call government abuse of parents.

Another reason the couple is seeking funds is to build a database of children removed from their homes by child-protection agencies .

Ms. Brauer acknowledged she and her husband are friends of Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen. They've joined others who have called for a public inquiry into the case.

A little more than a year ago, Mr. Finck and his wife were involved in a 67-hour armed standoff with Halifax Regional Police. They were convicted of several charges and are to be sentenced in late June.

Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen are both in custody in metro; their 17-month-old daughter is in foster care.

Ms. VandenElsen has been on a hunger strike for about a week to back demands for an inquiry.

On Saturday, she phoned ATV news and said she expects to be put in solitary confinement soon.

"I'm not getting any health services, nor am I getting any counselling," she said. Ms. VandenElsen said she now weighs about 114 pounds.

Jail officials will not comment on a prisoner's hunger strike. Justice Minister Michael Baker has said the province won't authorize an inquiry unless new information comes to light.

A spokeswoman for Community Services, which handles child-welfare issues in Nova Scotia, has refused comment on the standoff case because it's still before the courts.

Ms. Brauer said only an independent probe can properly get to the bottom of the Finck-VandenElsen case.

She had harsh words for Halifax police and their use of emergency response officers during the widely publicized standoff.

She was appalled by what she called "Gestapo" police tactics used in the middle of the night.

A police spokeswoman told The Chronicle Herald recently the department is conducting an internal review of how it handled the incident but that it feels officers acted appropriately.

CARLINE RESPONDS TO ARTICLE

=== === === === === ===

"My baby was stolen and I want her back."

RESPONSE FROM CARLINE VANDENELSEN TO Michael Lightstone's (Staff Reporter at the Halifax Herald) article titled: "Child protection system comes under scrutiny" on May 22, 2005.

Either the media has misinformed the public, once again or Rollie Thompson has misinformed the media.And I'm not surprised that it would be both.

First things first. 700 child protection cases a year? Try 700 a month, and that would be an underestimate. Devonshire Family Court in Halifax- 4-5 days a week, 4-5 court rooms, 15 minute hearings, morning and afternoon sessions. The parking lot is full, the fancyest cars belonging to the lawyers. half are child welfare cases.

If only 30 cases involve children being taken into protective custody, as Mr. Thompson would so boldly suggest how is it then that foster care continues in crises, that the Department of Community Services and the Foster Care Agency for Canada advertises regularly, looking for anyone to warehouse children seized by the authorities? Local motels also take in children apprehended, unilaterally taken from their parents, many taken from their schools or daycare. And could there be any other reason why taxpayers are "buying into" state group homes for children, once again seized by child welfare agents?

Mr. Thompson suggests that there might be 14 situations in which a child requires protection. If this figure is accurate, then this makes the child welfare business all the more critical and disturbing as thousands of children are deemed "in need of protection”, with figures rising. And we would call ourselves a progressive society?

I'm not surprised Mr. Thompson would grab the opportunity to disseminate the actions of child welfare

Authorities as somewhat salutary to the common good. He is a lawyer, making efforts to gain credence to information fallaciously.

Propoganda For Profit


With a lawyer like Mr. Thompson and the wannabe's he teaches at Dalhousie, the more babes and children "in need of protection" the more money the lawyers make.

According to my research and studies, which were done in part at the same university where Mr. Thompson teaches/indoctrinates there are over twice as many child protection cases by the Children's Aid Society of Halifax and the Department of Community Services than there are in Toronto- frightening when you compare populations.

Mr. Thompson may be correct in that the "Halifax stand off" is so unique, however what he fails to state is that the activity by the [police and child welfare workers, breaking into the homes like sneaking thives in the night is not unusual. It is increasingly occurring throughout Canada and more particularly in the Atlantic provinces.

Look at the statistics-increasing infertility, decreasing birth rates but unconsenting and undisclosed adoption sales on the rise. The babes/children have to come from somewhere.

I'm surprised, but not really. that Mr. Thompson hasn't more fully explained how and why Canada has moved from the prevention of cruelty to animals to child welfare to "child protection" so that a child doesn't need to be abused, neglected or abandoned before the state will "move in". Today in our progressive society, a lawyer working on behalf of a state agency need only apply to a court to seize a newborn or child on the grounds that she is at possible risk of a future event- what that event is, no one knows. In fact a court order is not necessary to apprehend a child. The child can be taken and never to see it's parents again.

Mr. Thompson is almost quite right when suggesting, "legislation isn't what drives the system" that it's the "child welfare authorities" driving it. I would add/emphasize that it's the lawyers in the drivers seat-Profiteering on the backs of babes in a multi billion dollar family law system.

I would also suggest closeted facism from 50 years ago, private ownership overtaken by the state forging ahead with it's rendered version of "child welfare" as the underlying reason why today Canada's most precious resource- the child- is endangered.

There is a very good reason why the intellects are leaving Canada, why the population cannot be sustained without scrounging for immigrants.

Other implications are equally disturbing. Take Canada's law on same sex marriages. The waiting list for babes/children to be adopted/purchases has increased drastically. Imagine, come to Canada, get married, adopt/buy a baby. What a holiday!

No one is minding the kiddy store. It isn't surprising that Mr. Thompson says there hasn't been a demand for massive changes in child welfare laws in Nova Scotia. One third of the population doesn’t know what’s going on, a third knows but can't do anything about it, and the other third either knows but doesn't care or knows but isn't making a stink because they're too busy making rich. Ask Rolllie Thompson.

Ask Rollie Thompson how much a lawyer makes through these adoption sales, through the child protection process. He says the law stipulates that details of cases be kept confidential. In the protection of the child!! Fat chance!

It’s the systematic abuse, psychological and emotional rape, it's exploitation of children and families. Any decent parent or taxpayer would be outraged to know what state authorities and lawyers are doing to the Canadian family.

I didn't think I could cry anymore. I'm a good and loving mother who has lost four beautiful children to a corrupt family law business and I've heard countless testimonies and read hundreds of cases.but the story a fellow prisoner shared with me the other day sent me to my cell in tears.

She'd been walking down the street, pregnant. The cops pick her up, tell her there's a warrant for her arrest, take her to the hospital, where she's induced and children's aid are there to take her new born. Police release her and she never sees her baby again.

NO one is going to tell me it was just a coincidence. Sgt.Lindsy Hernden, Halifax cop dressed in SWAT fatigues- using a battering ram to break in my mother-in-laws door, the son of Ruth Hernden- CAS worker who participated in initial meetings relating to the apprehension of my baby,Mona Clare, Also the one who participated in the decision to move in for permanent custody.

Mona Clare never stood a chance.

And no one is going to tell me Debra Smith, who made the apprehension order to seize my baby was promoted to Associate Chief Justice because of her judicial integrity.

My baby was stolen and I want her back.

(signed May 23, 2005)

Carline Vandenelsen