Stephen Kimber is Professor at the School of Journalism at the University>> of King's College in Halifax, NS. He forwarded this to me today...>>>>>>
=====Why we need a public inquiry into the taking of Mona Clare>>
By Stephen Kimber>> Posted on: http://newsroomwatch.blogspot.com/>>>>
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>>>> _____>> Stephen Kimber>>>> Professor>>>> School of Journalism>>>> University of King's College>>>> Halifax, CANADA>>>> http://www.stephenkimber.com>>>> http://journalism.ukings.ns.ca/magazine/>>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The problem here is that the general public is unaware that there is a premium on white babies for adoption. There is also the problem of social workers having their pay cheques cut if they don't meet with the quota put to them by the provincial ministers of child welfare. The demand for adoptable children is growing as baren couples wait too long to have their own children because the material lust comes before anything else in their lives. Most adopted children do quite badly in these new and improved envirements as is reflected in those children seeking out their natural heritage when they reach the age of 18. Natural parents who have had reunions with their found children find these children emotionally starved, angry, confused and very often out of control. The child protection services make a lot of money from bonuses as do the foster parents, police, lawyers and judges whenever they manage to wrest a child from it parents. These people think nothing of colusion to do this and when caught they have blanket coverage that prevents the law from punishing them. In fact, it is the law that they can do no wrong even when proved in the courts. Our federal government has no control what so ever over these agencies as child protection services is totally self controlling within their own provinces.
Post a Comment