WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE TAKING OF MONA-CLARE

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/>>