Get Carline's book for FREE

Carline VandenElsen has asked me to make her book available for free. Beside shipping and handling charges ($5 USD will ship anywhere in North America),
you can get the book for the asking. Pay via Paypal using any credit card. If you don't have a credit card, write us and we'll let you know how to forward
payment.

This book will hopefully help you connect the dots... get to know Carline, the mother. Read about the battle for her children, read about how compliance to
the rules can be used by others to steal from you what is most precious.

DEY: Update on Court hearing today

Just got back from the court. L and C were not present; they were contacted by phone, each on a separate line. Today, J.MacDonald (newly appointed Chief Justice) mostly set guidelines and dates for the next stage. Larry was representing Carline. Twice MacDonald cut Larry off. There is a struggle about what material/documents will be allowed in for the Appeal. Whelton wants to start from the November ruling by J.Smith, Larry wants to start from the beginning with the originating notice. CAS wants to avoid the issue of what started all of this and start somewhere in the middle. The next date for the court is July 28. It's going to be a big time drag out.

The lawyer for the Attorney General/Minister for Community Services is trying to get the Minister off the case?? I don't know how the Minister of Community Services can not be party to this. From what I see in the Family Court there seems to be some kind of struggle as to who is the authority here, Children's Aid/Children's Services or the Minister of Community Services. The cases in the family Court yesterday were Minister of Community Services V. the parties whereas, before they were CAS V. the parties. I think something is going on.

The judge refused to make a ruling that L and C be allowed communication with each other with regard to the court matters, instead left it up to the institution authorities. Larry's aim is to get it through the N.S. courts an then take it to the Supreme court of Canada. MacDonald could have passes it on today but, instead he is willing to drag it through the court here. Could be another six months at least. Part of what they want to do is keep Mona Clare in limbo and that way they have control over C. and L. Also, there is a perpetual problem of getting transcripts and documents to both L. and C.

One other thing, the judge wants to appoint an amicus curiae again in spite of the objections of both L. and C. If they have a court appointed amicus, L.and C then lose some amount of control. There is a greater chance of losing control over getting in things they want, or keeping out things that they want.

Marilyn Dey

Breaking NEWS

Thursday July 7th, in the morning, there is scheduled a court case to appeal the apprehension of Mona Clare. It is believed that Larry intends to ask for a decision from the court to take the case directly to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than have the court here make a ruling.

DEMAND A PUBLIC INQUIRY

Write, call, fax the Nova Scotia Justice Minister Michael Baker and request a public inquiry: Address: 5151 Terminal Rd., Halifax, N.S. B3J 2L6, phone 902-424-4044 or e-mail bakermg@gov.ns.ca or michaelbakermla@ns.sympatico.ca .

STEPHENSON: McEvoy inquiry not just about justice

(Weblog Note: Food for thought when we think about PUBLIC INQUIRY. Our motivation might very well be about JUSTICE, however is JUSTICE a politically-correct term to use when approaching those who grant those requests? It can be argued that it is not. Sadly.)

By MARILLA STEPHENSON/Commentary
The Halifax Herald Limited
Wednesday, July 6, 2005

THE INQUIRY into the death of Halifax teaching assistant Theresa McEvoy could end up shining light well beyond the workings of our youth justice system.

So it should, if the evidence leads matters in that direction.

The mandate granted to inquiry commissioner Justice Merlin Nunn contains a "basket clause" that could also permit an examination of the response of the Department of Community Services, says Hugh Wright, the lawyer for the McEvoy family.

McEvoy died last October when the car she was driving was struck by a stolen vehicle. A 16-year-old boy, who had been released from custody in relation to other charges just two days before the accident, is facing charges in the tragedy.

"What steps were taken by social services officials and others to respond to someone who is clearly a young person at risk, before the events of September and October occurred, because warning signs were out for quite a long time," Wright said in an interview.

"The mother, for example, has said that she did seek help for the young person, so we think it's relevant to get into that and see - was there a response, what was it, was it appropriate and that sort of thing."

The squirming that is already going on in the justice community could spread to Community Services, should Justice Nunn decide to examine the social services response. An internal review by the Justice Department has already been critical of the role played by two Crown attorneys.

Wright says the McEvoy family is pleased with the mandate and was consulted by the Justice Department during its development.

"The terms of reference in their final form reflect what we're looking for. Justice Nunn can use his discretion to look at what he deems necessary. So the ultimate shape of his mandate is up to him.

"The basket clause also avoids debate of whether something is or isn't in the terms of reference."

The family has also responded positively to the choice of Justice Nunn, a Harvard University-educated, energetic veteran of the court system. The Sydney native was appointed to the trial division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in 1982 after 22 years of practising law in Halifax.

The now semi-retired justice has also served as the province's conflicts commissioner since 1997.

Justice Nunn does not have the power, under the province's public inquiry legislation, to hold individuals responsible or lay blame, but will release a public report that is expected to include recommendations.

"We thought he was an excellent choice," said Wright. "He's been a longtime justice with the Supreme Court. He has a reputation as a guy who gets down to work and gets the job done."

This is a good thing, because come fall, when the inquiry is expected to get underway, Justice Nunn will be called upon to delve into the complex details of the teen's release from court in Windsor two days before McEvoy's death, despite the fact he was facing 26 charges.

In January, the boy pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and causing death while evading police. He recently applied to withdraw his pleas. Time has been set aside on July 20 for a hearing on that request.

The roles played by various justice system officials will be probed, and the findings could prove painful for some of the individuals involved.

And if the performance of our social services network finds itself in the spotlight, this will be a good thing.

We must be careful not to presume where the inquiry will go and, even when young people are involved, maintain the principle of personal responsibility for one's actions.

It is also clear that Justice Nunn's primary responsibility is to review the release of the young person and the procedures and practices surrounding that release. That said, if the family of this teen sought help from our social services network and it was not forthcoming, Nova Scotians deserve to know it.

The McEvoy family clearly has specific concerns about the role of social services in this case.

Whenever questions arise about specific cases and social services responses and decisions, confidentiality requirements typically prevent the details from becoming public.

This is meant to protect the public, but when individuals are unhappy with the outcomes, these requirements also have the potential to shield poor decisions - or, perhaps more likely, an underfunded, overburdened social services system.

Nothing wrong with shedding a little light on that.

KIMBER: Potholes litter path to public inquiry

By Stephen Kimber
The Daily News
July 4th, 2005

It’s been an interesting week on the other side of the media trenches.
I’ve recently become a member of a community group pushing for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the infant child of Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen. I usually steer clear of joining such groups, partly because I already have a pulpit for my views, partly because I want to maintain my independence and partly — if I am to be honest — because I hate meetings.

But I’d become frustrated only writing about this particular case. Since the May 2004 highly publicized 67-hour standoff between Finck and VandenElsen and a heavily armed police swat team, I’ve written a half-dozen columns outlining my concerns about the role the Children’s Aid Society and Family Court played in taking this child from its parents, and about the massive use of police force to do it.

Each column generated e-mails, letters and phone calls, many from ordinary readers with no direct connection to the case or personal histories with Children’s Aid, most supporting my call for a public inquiry and many asking what they could do to help make an inquiry happen.

My only suggestion — that they write their MLA — seemed lame and unlikely to have much effect without an organized campaign behind it.

So when I got a call a few weeks ago from author Heather Laskey, a resident of the neighbourhood where the standoff took place, inviting me to a meeting she and some others were holding to discuss what they could do to right what they too saw as a wrong, I quickly agreed.

Last week, we — now known as the MCF Inquiry Committee (MCF is how the infant is described in court documents) — called a news conference to explain why a public inquiry is needed and to announce the committee’s plans to insert an advertisement in the next day’s Halifax Chronicle-Herald. The ad would outline the case for a public inquiry and encourage readers to write Justice Minister Michael Baker demanding one.

Just before the news conference, however, a Herald official called to say the paper wouldn’t run our ad without editorial changes (reasonable ones, in fact, to which we quickly agreed), and unless — as well as paying upfront for the ad — each member of the committee signed a letter to “indemnify and hold harmless The Halifax Herald Ltd., its officers and individuals acting on its behalf from any claims or causes of action” that might result from the ad.

That unusual request — when was the last time any newspaper asked Sobeys officials to sign a waiver absolving the paper of legal responsibility for the contents of their ads? — isn’t really so unusual in this very unusual case.

Ever since the standoff, in fact, media outlets have been grappling with a difficult dilemma: what can they legally publish or broadcast?

On the one hand, this is a child-custody case, and there are very clear rules in place that prohibit publishing any information that might reveal the identities of children involved in such cases.

On the other hand, the standoff — shotgun fired, police emergency response teams, snipers on roofs, neighbourhood evacuated — was a major news event that could not be understood without writing about the custody issue that triggered it all.

To complicate matters, the story raised a number of important questions of legitimate public interest. Were Children’s Aid and Family Court really acting in “the best interests of the child” when they took the five-month-old from her parents, or were they vindictively punishing two admittedly difficult parents for challenging their arbitrary authority? Did the police act appropriately, or did the massive deployment of police power actually create the crisis that followed?

How do you ask those questions without writing about the custody issue?

Even now, no one seems quite sure how to juggle these competing pressures. It took CBC Radio, for example, more than five hours and eight local newscasts’ worth of internal discussion last week to finally decide to run a story about our committee’s call for a public inquiry.

And the Herald, which had published its own first-rate, four-day series on the background to the case last week — the first real attempt to put the issues and personalities in context since Richard Cuthbertson’s excellent story on Larry Finck’s personal history appeared in The Daily News immediately after the standoff — decided not to post its own series on its website on the advice of its lawyers.

(Having raised the issue of how other media outlets have dealt with the story, I should note — gratefully — that my editors have not censored or substantively altered any of the columns I’ve written about the case.)

But this media conundrum — like the standoff circus and the courtroom craziness — is ultimately beside the point.

We are still left with questions — Why did authorities take the child in the first place? Who authorized the use of massive force to seize the child? Why does the child not have her own independent legal representation in court? What external checks and balances are in place to make sure that Children’s Aid, Family Court and the Community Services Department act in the interest of the child? — that can only be answered by a full, independent and public inquiry.

If you agree, I encourage you to write (5151 Terminal Rd., Halifax, N.S. B3J 2L6), call (902-424-4044) or e-mail the justice minister bakermg@gov.ns.ca or
michaelbakermla@ns.sympatico.ca demanding he appoints such an inquiry. It won’t happen otherwise.

Stephen.Kimber@ukings.ns.ca

HFX DAILY NEWS: Inquiry justified

Inquiry demand has justification
By The Daily News
The Daily News
June 28, 2005

The ripples from Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen’s battle against the courts and child-protections agencies continue to spread. The latest one could rock a few boats, even though the couple’s recently concluded trial over last year’s armed standoff had more than its share of turbulence.

Yesterday, a group called the MCF Inquiry Committee called for the public to persuade Justice Minister Michael Baker to call an inquiry to examine the circumstances behind the child-custody dispute.

The images from the standoff are indelible. Halifax residents will not soon forget the sight of police officers geared as though going to war. And the end of the incident, with Finck’s mother dead, the couple arrested and their baby daughter taken from them by force, was not HRM’s finest hour.

There are doubts over both Finck and VandenElsen’s stability and fitness as parents. And there are also concerns about the way child-protection services responded when they learned of VandenElsen’s pregnancy.

The group is concentrating on the latter concerns.

Why did child-protection officials in Ontario seek to apprehend the child so quickly?

Why was a Canada-wide alert issued for VandenElsen?

Why did the Children’s Aid Society here consider Finck and VandenElsen problem parents?

Why did Halifax Regional Police use robust force in their midnight attempt to apprehend the child?

These and other questions are relevant, regardless of the character and background of VandenElsen and Finck. The policies under which Children’s Aid operated apply to anyone. That is reason enough for an inquiry.

To emphasize its point, the committee chose to liken Finck and VandenElsen’s case to that of Donald Marshall.

That comparison is, at best, premature.

Marshall’s wrongful-conviction ordeal was a miscarriage of justice. In the Finck-VandenElsen case, that is yet to be determined. And it needs to be.