|
In this story, new material appears at the bottom. Link to earlier stories about the trial
Standoff pair will learn fate in June By DAVENE JEFFREY / Staff Reporter Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck, parents who held police at bay for three days last spring in an armed standoff, will be sentenced late next month. The pair were convicted Thursday of obstruction, abducting their baby in contravention of a child custody order, possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace and possessing the shotgun without a licence. Ms. VandenElsen, 42, was also convicted of three other weapons offences. During a hearing Friday, Mr. Finck, 51, demanded to be sentenced immediately and refused to participate in a court-ordered presentence report. "We're not talking . . . to any bootlicker," Mr. Finck yelled in court. That outburst came moments after Justice Robert Wright rejected the couple's application to have their convictions stayed because of what they said was police entrapment. "There's absolutely no merit to this application," Justice Wright ruled. He concluded there was no evidence of any plan by police or the use of fraud or trickery to cause the couple to try to hide their baby from officials or to cause them take part in a 67-hour siege that began last May 19. Ms. VandenElsen had argued police were unreasonable coming to their door after midnight with a battering ram and a machine-gun, and she continued to rail against the system Friday. "They exploited a set of parents and grossly abused a newborn baby . . . and killed (Mona Finck, Mr. Finck's mother) in the process." Mrs. Finck, who was very ill with heart and lung problems, died of natural causes during the standoff at her home at 6161 Shirley St. The jury convicted Ms. VandenElsen of shooting a shotgun during the standoff. Both Mr. Finck and his wife claim it was actually Mrs. Finck who fired the gun. The couple lashed out at police, the Crown and Justice Wright during Friday's stay-of-convictions hearing. "Ms. VandenElsen, I'm not taking any more abuse from you. Stick to the facts or sit down," Justice Wright said. During his arguments, Mr. Finck also criticized the jury of eight men and four women, who sat through nine weeks of evidence and deliberated on their verdicts for more than two days. "They are like pigeons in the Public Gardens," Mr. Finck said, complaining that the jury was too stupid to realize police had fabricated evidence in the case. The sentencing hearing for Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen will be held June 28 and 29. Source:
We Asked: - In light of the VandenElsen-Finck case,
to what lengths would you go to keep your children from
being taken away?  Perry Abriel, 58, Lower Sackville Source:
File photoPolice used a remote-controlled robot to deliver a package to a house on Shirley Street during an armed standoff last May. 
File photoA police emergency response team officer leaves the scene of a standoff on Shirley Street in Halifax last May. Siege of Shirley Street: Public inquiry needed By HEATHER LASKEY Well now, let's get this story right about the Siege of Shirley Street. According to an RCMP officer's testimony reported in The Chronicle Herald early in the trial, this is what we are to understand took place in Halifax last May: It's after midnight when police go to the house with a child apprehension order on behalf of the Children's Aid Society. Inside is a man, his elderly mother, his wife and their five-month-old baby. Members of the RCMP emergency response team position themselves on roofs and inside neighbouring houses in this residential area. They are armed with semi-automatic machine guns. I repeat - semi-automatic machine guns. The welcome mat isn't out, so they try to break down the front door of the house, by using a battering ram. Yes, a battering ram. Then there's a shotgun blast from inside the house. It whistles over the head of one of the police officers through the window of the opposite house. You may recall what happened next. Shirley Street was cordoned off; neighbours were awakened, told to hide in their basements and not to leave their houses. The area was crawling with all kinds of police in all kind of get-ups, and all kinds of vehicles. It was as though they were trying to raise the level of public hysteria. Or put on some kind of a show, or movie set - with the character parts being played by the man and woman. The "action" included the woman breast-feeding the baby on the porch roof, and the emergency response team propelling a robot towards the house loaded with baby diapers, milk and medicine for the man's ailing mother. Her doctor was not allowed to make a house call. The public, many of whom knew the man who'd grown up locally, remained bemused. There was a general feeling, reflected in the letters column of this newspaper, that the attempt to remove the baby from its parents was simply wrong. Sixty-seven hours into the drama, the couple emerge from the house. On a makeshift stretcher, they are carrying the body of the man's mother. She, not surprisingly, appears to have died of a heart attack. It is seen that there is a shotgun strung over the man's shoulder; the baby is in a carrier on the woman's breast. According to the Mountie's testimony at the trial, as the couple carry the stretcher down the block, a dozen police officers converge on them "carrying drawn weapons." The policeman says that they forced them to the ground. "She had her arms wrapped around the baby with a tight grip. She would not release the baby." He said he therefore drove his thumb into the "fleshy area" of the woman's shoulder until she loosened her grip. As the police struggled with her, she cried, "Don't take my baby!" In what the policeman describes as a "chaotic" struggle, another officer, who is wearing body armour, uses a knife (my italics) to cut the Snugli, with baby inside, from the woman's chest and he carries the baby away. (No description is given of the infant's vocal response.) The policeman continued, "At this point, we're concerned that she hasn't been properly searched for weapons." She doesn't comply with a police demand to release her arms from beneath her body, so, the Mountie said, one officer "shocked" her twice with a Taser gun. "I've been Tasered," says the policeman, "and it's painful, but it lasts five seconds and it's over." Here's a question: Had the police gone crazy? For what precise purpose did they intend to use semi-automatic machine guns? Who, for heaven's sake, OK'd the use of a knife to remove the baby from the mother? There should never have been an armed confrontation. Reflecting on the mock-siege scene, with the trucks and the intelligence centre and multiples of police wearing masks and battle gear, two points were clear not only to me, but to everybody I heard talking about it. The first was that the police response had nothing to do with the situation in hand - a Children's Aid demand for the baby to be handed over to them at birth (apparently because the woman had previously absconded with her triplets from a previous marriage). And yes, the couple clearly were odd-balls, but that was not an adequate justification. The second point was that the whole performance - and indeed, it was a performance - obviously had another purpose. The most logical explanation I heard, and with which I concur, is this: The situation was being used as an exercise in the deployment of Emergency Response Teams in urban areas in the event of a real threat from terrorists or a gang of violent criminals. In fact, it was a hysterical melodrama in the worst possible taste. And while we're at it, will the Children's Aid Society please tell us, the members of the public, what was their justification for demanding the removal of the baby from its mother from the moment it was born. It had better be good. Really good. We need a public inquiry. And fast. Cost? Not a fraction of what that ill-conceived and dangerous circus cost us last year. Halifax author Heather Laskey has written extensively on the abuse of children in institutional care, including a ground-breaking book (Children of the Poor Clares: The Story of an Irish Orphanage) and articles and radio documentaries on Indian residential schools, and the child immigration movement. Source: Larry Finck Speaks May 15, 2005 Here is an interview with Larry Finck (mp3) recorded after his conviction. The recording was posted by a member of Canada Court Watch.
Standoff couple wants new trial By BILL POWER / Staff Reporter Among other things, the Halifax couple claim the trial judge was biased and as a result they did not receive a fair trial. Source: Standoff couple appeals to Supreme Court Last updated May 19 2005 11:43 AM ADT HALIFAX -- The couple found guilty of a number of offences stemming from a 67-hour standoff with Halifax police last year has filed an appeal in Nova Scotia's Supreme Court. Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen say that Justice Robert Wright erred on a number of matters throughout the 10-week trial. Those alleged errors include the exclusion of certain wiretapped phone conversations between the couple and police, and the refusal to allow the defence to call about 15 additional witnesses. Meanwhile, sentencing for the two is scheduled for the end of June. Source:
Jailed mother prepared to die VandenElsen launches hunger strike to protest loss of baby By DAVENE JEFFREY / Staff Reporter Carline VandenElsen says she's ready to die to change the system. "I am launching a Starving for the Children campaign," she said in a news release Friday. 
Carline VandenElsen: 'I am launching a Starving
for the Children campaign.'
The 42-year-old was convicted earlier this month of abduction in contravention of a child custody order, obstruction and a series of weapons-related offences. She is in custody at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth and awaiting sentencing late next month. She and her husband, Larry Finck, 51, held police at bay for three days a year ago after they barricaded themselves inside Mr. Finck's mother's home at 6161 Shirley St. in Halifax. The standoff ended when the couple emerged carrying the body of Mr. Finck's mother, Mona, on a stretcher. She had died of natural causes during the standoff. Ms. VandenElsen carried their baby strapped to her chest. Today marks the first anniversary of the end of the armed siege, the day Mrs. Finck died and the day the couple lost custody of their baby. Today is also the day Ms. VandenElsen vows to stop eating. "We're very concerned for her," says supporter Marilyn Dey. Jail officials have refused media access to Ms. VandenElsen for fear she will continue the hunger strike. As of Friday afternoon, prison superintendent Sean Kelly had not received notice from his staff that Ms. Vanden-Elsen is refusing to eat. Word of the intended hunger strike was announced through supporters. A letter released on Ms. VandenElsen's behalf says she will not eat "until Premier John Hamm and Justice Minister Michael Baker agree to investigate the actions of police and child welfare authorities and the disappearance of her baby." Ms. VandenElsen writes: "I do not anticipate my survival. However, I see (no) alternative." Mr. Baker issued a news release late Friday afternoon saying that unless new information becomes available, he has no plans to order an inquiry into the Halifax standoff. He said the government will do what it can to "make sure that Ms. VandenElsen's health is not jeopardized by her actions." If she stops eating, Mr. Kelly said, his correctional staff will do whatever they can to keep her healthy. The jail has dealt with other hunger strikes in the past, the superintendent said. It is the jail's policy to call a hunger strike "decreased nutritional intake." "We've had a number of different scenarios over the years," said the superintendent, who estimates that on average, one inmate per year launches a hunger strike. Prisoners have devised varying food or liquid intake plans, but most have been short-lived, he said. Some don't make it past the first skipped meal, he said. None of the hunger strikers at the facility has ever gone to the point of being in physical danger, he said. When a hunger strike is launched, prison staff monitor the inmate's health and offer nutritional supplements and counselling, Mr. Kelly said. In Ms. VandenElsen's release, she spells out her troubled past with children's aid organizations and family law courts in Ontario and Halifax. In 2000 she fled with her triplets, then age seven, before a court appearance she feared would cut off access to her children, who now live in Ontario with their father. Ms. VandenElsen is scheduled to be in court in Ontario this fall to face a retrial for allegedly abducting those children and fleeing with them to Mexico. More than a year ago, Ms. VandenElsen left Halifax after a family court judge granted temporary custody of her newborn to the Halifax Children's Aid Society. When officials were notified that Ms. VandenElsen had returned to the city with the baby, police went to Mrs. Finck's home to apprehend the infant, sparking the standoff. The pair were convicted by a 12-member jury after almost 10 weeks of trial and two days of deliberations. Ms. VandenElsen and her husband were both convicted of abducting a baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing police, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace. Ms. VandenElsen was also convicted of using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence, threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police and careless use of a shotgun. Source:
VandenElsen launches hunger strike, supporter says By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter and KRISTEN LIPSCOMBE Carline VandenElsen started her hunger strike Saturday morning and is now on a liquids-only diet, a supporter of the jailed mother said. Evangeline Godron said she visited her in a Dartmouth jail for an hour Saturday afternoon. She said about 10 people in Ontario and Nova Scotia are also participating in the hunger strike in support of the couple convicted in last year's police standoff in Halifax. "This is not just for her child - she wants a public inquiry," Ms. Godron, who is also fasting, said Saturday. She said Ms. VandenElsen claims "the jail is trying to shut her down" and are trying to punish her by putting her in solitary confinement. Another supporter of Ms. VandenElsen and her husband Larry Finck said she and others will keep trying to stay in touch with the jailed pair. Marilyn Dey said she spoke to Mr. Finck by phone Saturday. Ms. VandenElsen's hunger strike is to back demands for a public inquiry into her case. Justice Minister Michael Baker said Friday that unless new information comes to light, there will be no inquiry. Ms. Dey said "the system" has prevented important information from being disclosed. She said evidence deemed inadmissible at the couple's recent jury trial would help shed light on the standoff - and give Mr. Baker details needed for a government probe. "The justice system has prevented the information from coming out," Ms. Dey said. "The evidence was denied." Source:
VandenElsen on liquid-only hunger strike By DAVENE JEFFREY / Staff Reporter Three days into a hunger strike, Carline VandenElsen appears no worse for wear. The tall, lean 42-year-old is in jail awaiting sentencing for her role in a three-day armed standoff with police in Halifax just over a year ago. Source:
VandenElsen still not eating; living will puts Finck in charge By DAVENE JEFFREY / Staff Reporter Carline VandenElsen, who's in Day 5 of a hunger strike, has prepared a living will in case she falls into a coma, supporters say.
Ms. VandenElsen, 42, and Larry Finck, 51, are in custody and will be sentenced next month on several convictions after holding police at bay for 67 hours during an armed standoff in Halifax just over a year ago. The siege began after police went to the couple's home to enforce a child apprehension order. Ms. VandenElsen has said she expects to die and has vowed not to eat until an inquiry is announced into her case. In the meantime, she is drinking liquids and has prepared her will, says friend and supporter Marilyn Dey. Ms. VandenElsen wants medical intervention used to keep her alive and has given her power of attorney to her husband, states an Internet site devoted to Ms. VandenElsen's hunger strike, which she calls Starving for the Children. Updates are posted at blogspot.com. Following jail policy, officials will not confirm whether Ms. VandenElsen is on a hunger strike. It is also policy to refuse media access to prisoners on hunger strikes, jail superintendent Sean Kelly has said. Ms. VandenElsen's fast began Saturday, the anniversary of the day the standoff ended, the last day she saw her infant daughter and the day her mother-in-law, Mona Finck, died. The family had barricaded themselves inside 6161 Shirley St. Mrs. Finck died of natural causes during the standoff. Throughout the couple's many court hearings following the standoff, they had complained the system was out to get them. In a letter written by Ms. VandenElsen from the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth, and released to this newspaper Wednesday, she continued to rail against authorities, including police, child-welfare officials and lawyers. "It's the lawyers in the driver's seat, profiteering on the backs of babes in a multibillion-dollar family law system," Ms. VandenElsen wrote. She and her husband have both referred to the child-welfare system as the buying and selling of babies. "No one is minding the kiddy store," says the letter. "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 (it) rich." Ms. VandenElsen also recounts a tragic tale she claims was told to her by a fellow inmate who lost her baby to authorities. "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 newborn. Police release her and she never sees her baby again." Her letter ends "My baby was stolen and I want her back" followed by her signature. Source:
Money raised for mom on hunger strike By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE / Staff Reporter 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. Source:
Province won't force VandenElsen to eat Justice Minister Michael Baker says the province has no plans to force a woman on a hunger strike in a Dartmouth jail to eat. Carline VandenElsen, who started a liquids-only diet on May 21, was convicted last month of charges stemming from a standoff in Halifax last year. Source:
VandenElsen's tenacity appeals to me By PETER DUFFY / Hindsight Call me naive, but I feel sorry for Carline VandenElsen. She's the mother convicted of charges following last year's dramatic armed Halifax standoff and who has, over time, lost custody of all four of her children. Now the 42-year-old is on a hunger strike in prison, trying to draw attention to her demand for a public inquiry into her most recent case. Yes, she's unorthodox, and yes, she seems to have made a career out of battling with social service officials and the courts. And yes, I know she hasn't helped her own case over the years by the kind of behaviour which has left her facing a second trial in Ontario on charges of abducting her triplets from a previous marriage. But even so, something about her tenacity appeals to the underdog in me. What agony she must be in. She must be stressed beyond belief after all she's gone through, especially the loss of her children. And now she's willing to die to emphasize the point she's been trying to make for so long, namely that it's the system which should be on trial, not just her. I think we need to listen. Material on other topics omitted Source:
Bail application denied for Finck, VandenElsen - Couple appealing multiple convictions in armed standoff with Halifax police By SHERRI BORDEN COLLEY / Court Reporter Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen will not be released on bail pending an appeal of their recent convictions stemming from an armed standoff with Halifax police. On Thursday, Justice Jamie Saunders of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the couple's application for bail, saying he was not persuaded that Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck would surrender themselves into custody the day before their appeal, as they would have been ordered by the court. Source:
VandenElsen supporters pose questions at aid society meeting - Officials refuse to talk details By BARRY DOREY / Staff Reporter Some supporters of Carline VandenElsen tried to make things uncomfortable for those attending the annual general meeting of the Children's Aid Society of Halifax on Thursday night. Friends of the woman who was convicted last month on several charges stemming from a custody dispute that turned into a standoff with police in May 2004 peppered board members with questions. (See note on source below) Evangeline Godron asked whether thorough investigations precede every case in which the society seizes a child, alluding to allegations that Ms. VandenElsen's child was taken unjustly. "We follow the protocol in all cases," acting CEO John Rowan told her. He said the province sets out clear rules and guidelines that must be followed. The society held its 85th annual general meeting at a Halifax hotel just blocks from the Shirley Street home that was the scene of the three-day standoff. Ms. VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, were found guilty last month of obstruction, abducting their baby in contravention of a child custody order and other charges. The standoff began in earnest when a shot was fired over police officers' heads from inside the house and neighbours were evacuated. The society issued a news release in anticipation of questions about the case, which it did not mention by name. "The Children's Aid Society of Halifax is unable to comment on the specifics regarding any family it works with," the release said. "We appreciate that this allows unfounded allegations to go unanswered." Ms. Godron also requested a breakdown of how much money or work that legal firms have contributed to the society or its charitable foundation. The annual report states the society spent $571,412 on legal fees in the last fiscal year, roughly half of the overall administrative budget. She said she wanted answers about community services practices in general. "There are thousands of comparable cases, the VandenElsen case is just the best-known," Ms. Godron said in an interview. Source: Note: All but the first two paragraphs were recovered by André Lefebvre, who has access to the full article.
VandenElsen taken to hospital Carline VandenElsen is back in jail after spending a few hours in Dartmouth General Hospital on Sunday. Ms. VandenElsen, who began a hunger strike in the Nova Scotia Correctional Facility on May 21 was treated for migraine headaches and severe vomiting, one of her friends said. Source:
NDP: Lack of committee against provincial law Party to sue to force review of Children's and Family Services Act By DAVID JACKSON / Provincial Reporter New Democrat MLA Graham Steele plans on going to court to force the province to follow its own law. Mr. Steele said Community Services Minister David Morse is bound by statute to set up an advisory committee to review the Children's and Family Services Act. There hasn't been such a committee since 1999. According to the act, the committee should include two people who've had children who needed protective services, two members of minority communities, a legal aid lawyer, a representative of the department and the minister, and up to three other people appointed by the minister. Mr. Steele, who learned a few months ago about the requirement for a committee, said it's important because it would provide an outlet for people to express their views to someone other than decision-makers. He said the case of Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen has highlighted issues relating to child protection orders. The couple was involved in a three-day police standoff last year that started when Halifax police tried to enforce such an order. Mr. Steele said that case isn't the reason he's going to court, but it's caused other people to come forward with concerns. Mr. Morse said the province has advertised for people to serve on the committee but hasn't had any response. "If Mr. Steele wants to do something constructive, and he knows somebody that would like to participate on this, we certainly would encourage him to send those people to the executive council office," he said. Mr. Steele called that response "complete and utter nonsense." "It's the most feeble, most ridiculous excuse that I can imagine," said the Halifax Fairview MLA. "He knows that there are people out there who have asked him, begged him to set up the committee and volunteered to be on it." Mr. Steele plans to file court papers Monday. Source: Once again, we are relying on André Lefebvre for the whole story.
Standoff couple loses baby Judge denies VandenElsen, Finck access to child By SHERRI BORDEN COLLEY / Court Reporter The baby at the centre of a police standoff a year ago last month has permanently been taken away from the parents - Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck. 
File Carline VandenElsen kisses her baby outside their home during a May 2004 standoff. On Wednesday, Associate Chief Justice Deborah Smith of the family division of Nova Scotia Supreme Court placed the couple's infant in the permanent care and custody of the Children's Aid Society of Halifax - with no access for either parent. A written copy of the ruling was made public Thursday. "I am satisfied that (the baby) continues to be a child in need of protective services," Justice Smith wrote in a 48-page decision. "Serious mental health concerns have been raised throughout this proceeding about both of (the child's) parents." Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck, who are in jail pending their sentencing next week on convictions stemming from the standoff, were not permitted to speak to the media Thursday. "The issue is in relation to not feeling it's in their best interests at the time to speak to the media and the fact that they still have outstanding matters before the courts," said Sean Kelly, superintendent of the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth. Marilyn Dey, a friend who visited Ms. VandenElsen in jail on Thursday afternoon, said Ms. VandenElsen found the ruling too upsetting to even read it. "If this report is anything like the previous orders and renderings of Justice Smith, it is libellous and slanderous and shows a grave conflict of interest," Ms. Dey read from a four-page statement Ms. VandenElsen wrote. Ms. Dey said her "emotionally strong" friend expected the decision to go against her. "She's known that right from the time (the baby) was a fetus, when they (Children's Aid) were after it," Ms. Dey said. "I mean, this is the written word but she has known that this was going to come. I mean, she is devastated. There's no question about it." In January 2004, the month after the child's birth, Children's Aid asked the court to find that the child was in need of protection. At the initial hearing, the society requested a supervision order that would have allowed the child to be left in the care and custody of the parents but would have permitted social workers to periodically visit the family home to make sure the child was being properly cared for. The society also requested that both parents undergo a psychiatric and psychological assessment, which the court subsequently ordered. Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck have never complied with that order. Evidence from the interim hearing, particularly that given by the doctor who delivered the baby, indicated that the child appeared to be well-cared-for by the parents. But other evidence raised serious concerns about the mental health of both Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck. Both have been charged in the past with child abduction. In November 2003, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen, well along in her pregnancy, moved to Nova Scotia from Ontario because they knew Children's Aid officials in Ontario wanted to seize the baby soon after birth. On Dec. 19, 2003, the Huron-Perth Children's Aid Society in Stratford, Ont., issued a Canada-wide child protection alert telling authorities that Ms. VandenElsen's access to her triplets from a previous marriage had recently been terminated. The alert also noted Ms. VandenElsen's pending trial for the alleged abduction of those three children and that Mr. Finck was on probation for abducting his older daughter and bringing her to Nova Scotia. It also said he had refused a psychological assessment. The supervisor who wrote the alert recommended a warrant be issued to apprehend the couple's baby, who was born just days later. Based on information received from its Ontario counterpart, the Children's Aid Society of Halifax became involved with the family in December 2003, the month the baby was born. The standoff began in the early hours of May 19, 2004, when police tried to enforce Justice Smith's court order from Jan. 15, 2004, mandating that the baby be placed in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society of Halifax. That order was upheld in subsequent reviews. Last summer, in Mr. Finck's criminal case, a psychiatrist at the East Coast Forensic Hospital in Dartmouth found that he suffers from chronic delusions of persecution and has serious psychotic illness along with a personality disorder. While Justice Smith had no expert opinion evidence concerning Ms. VandenElsen's mental state, she had no hesitation in finding there are "serious and legitimate concerns about her mental health." Ms. VandenElsen presents herself in court as an intelligent individual but "her conduct is often grossly inappropriate, aggressive, antagonistic and sometimes bizarre," the judge said in Thursday's ruling. "There have been a number of occasions during the course of these proceedings when she has either been unwilling or unable to control her behaviour." Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck dispute any suggestion that they suffer from mental illness and claim they are being persecuted because of their strongly held belief that the family justice system is corrupt. They also believe that the court violated their charter rights by ordering them to participate in a psychiatric and psychological assessment. Ms. VandenElsen also alleges that government agents "systematically kidnapped" her baby. Justice Smith said Ms. VandenElsen's involvement in the child's disappearance from Halifax on Jan. 15, 2004, and the couple's role in the armed standoff in May 2004 put the child "at substantial risk of physical and emotional harm." Since the standoff ended on May 21, 2004, the couple have done little to deal with the issues that put the child in temporary care, the judge said. "They refuse or are incapable of recognizing or dealing with the mental health issues that have been raised throughout this proceeding - opting instead to charge ahead in what appears to be a relentless pursuit of fighting 'the system.' "They appear to be consumed with their perception of a corrupt family justice system and seem incapable of recognizing their role in (the baby) being placed in care." The judge concluded that the parents are unable to focus on or act in the best interests of their child and that the child would be at substantial risk of physical and emotional harm if returned to their care. The custody decision comes on the heels of the couple's criminal trial stemming from the standoff. On May 12, Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck were convicted of obstruction, contravening a child custody order and weapons offences during the standoff. Their sentencing hearing begins Tuesday. Ms. VandenElsen, who is demanding a public inquiry, began a hunger strike in jail on May 21. She is also awaiting a new trial in Ontario on charges of abducting her triplets after an acquittal was thrown out in 2003. Mr. Finck was convicted in 2000 and served prison time for abducting his daughter, then four, from an Ontario reserve in 1999. Source:
Wondering about standoff couple By PETER DUFFY / Hindsight WELL, it's game over. A judge has ordered that the baby of Carline VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, be permanently taken from them. Given issues of confidentiality and the wall of secrecy attached to the activities of the Children's Aid Society, it's difficult to know all the facts leading to this drastic step, especially since both parents are now officially gagged. Perhaps the closest we'll ever come to knowing can be deduced from the wording of the decision to make their child a permanent ward of the state. The judge mentions "serious mental health concerns" about both parents. Given the war these misfits have waged with the authorities, not just here but in Ontario, in futile attempts to keep custody of this and other children from previous marriages, obviously something isn't right here. But when all is said and done, you have to wonder which affliction was visited upon these two people first, the mental health problems or the all-powerful Children's Aid Society. Paragraphs on other topics omitted The Daily News (Halifax), Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Group: only inquiry will settle standoff questions By Kim Moar, The Daily News Comparing Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen to the wrongfully accused Donald Marshall Jr., a citizens’ group wants people to write the provincial justice minister demanding a full, public inquiry into the couple’s case. Calling themselves the MCF Inquiry Committee (MCF is how Finck and VandenElsen’s child is described in court documents), the group was not formed to support Finck and VandenElsen. It says there are legitimate questions concerning a child-custody order that lead to a 67-hour armed standoff on Shirley Street in May 2004. Finck and VandenElsen have been found guilty of numerous criminal charges related to the standoff, and are to be in court today for sentencing. Last week, a family court judge ruled the couple will not get their 18-month-old daughter back, and awarded permanent custody to the Children’s Aid Society. “We still don’t know why authorities really decided to seize this baby, or why they used such massive force to do it,” said group spokeswoman Dulcie Conrad. Other members include Daily News columnist Stephen Kimber; University of King’s College journalism head Kim Kierans; former CBC reporter Ian Porter; author Heather Laskey; Shirley Street neighbours Joyce Dempsey and Susan Stuttard; and lawyer Ray Kuzelewski, who represented Finck briefly before being fired. The group wants a public inquiry to address the evidence Children’s Aid had against the couple and on what basis the family court issued a custody order for the then five-month-old girl. “This is very important because it could happen to anyone,” Conrad said. They also want to know why authorities “used massive force” to apprehend the child in the middle of the night, why the child is not represented in legal proceedings and what external mechanisms are in place to oversee the process. “Those are fundamental, important questions that can only be answered by a full public inquiry,” she said. Pointing to the case of Donald Marshall Jr., a native who served 11 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit, Kimber said objecting to a family court decision does not make you a bad parent. An inquiry concluded that the justice system had failed Marshall at every turn. While calls to the Justice Department were not returned yesterday, Justice Minister Michael Baker has repeatedly rejected the idea of an inquiry. The group will take out an ad urging people to write Baker and their MLAs demanding an inquiry. Source: MacLeans.ca, June 28, 2005 - 17:49 Crown wants three-year sentence for woman who barricaded home in standoff ALISON AULD HALIFAX (CP) - A man convicted of barricading himself, his wife and their five-month-old baby in his house while police massed outside lashed out at the children's aid system Tuesday and accused authorities of provoking him into an armed standoff. The man, who cannot be named because the case involves a child, repeatedly condemned the Children's Aid Society in Halifax and claimed the group was set on seizing his child without cause. "We were provoked into the situation - we had no choice and we had no intention of fighting with authorities," he said while representing himself and his wife at their sentencing hearing. "We did not abduct our baby. We protected her." The couple were convicted earlier this year on several charges stemming from the incident that began at their home in south-end Halifax when police arrived to enforce the temporary seizure of the then five-month-old girl. Crown attorney Rick Woodburn said police knocked on the door of the home and telephoned numerous times, but got no response. Authorities called in an emergency response team after realizing the man was fortifying the windows and doors to prevent police from getting in. As police were circling the house, the 42-year-old woman fired a shotgun out a window, narrowly missing an officer. Police then evacuated homes in the neighbourhood and ordered other people nearby to go down to their basements. The conflict came to an end 67 hours later when the couple left their house. The baby was strapped to the woman's chest and they carried the man's dead mother on a home-made stretcher. It was later determined the ailing 79-year-old grandmother died of natural causes during the standoff. Woodburn said the couple showed so little regard for their baby, his frail mother and their community, that they should be given stiff sentences. "She has little or no insight into the danger she brought to that baby," Woodburn told the court. "That blast (from the gun) had the ability to be lethal." The woman, looking gaunt and thin from a hunger strike she's been on since May 21, laughed aloud at the Crown's comments and repeatedly criticized the judge. "I haven't eaten in 30 days and I can't stand the abuse," the woman, who was dressed in a baggy charcoal cardigan and loose green pants, said to the judge. "Taking my family wasn't enough. Killing my mother-in-law wasn't enough. You gotta keep going." In a handwritten note to one of her supporters in court, she wrote, "Nothing further can be done to me. My children have been violently and viciously taken from me by a profiteering family law industry." Woodburn asked that the man be sentenced to six years with the possibility that it be reduced to just over four months factoring in time he's been in custody. The woman is facing more than three years in prison after being convicted of firing a weapon and abduction. The man, who claims he was only trying to protect his child from being taken from them and sold "for a profit," said his baby has now lost her ability to speak and is being passed from different caregivers. "The baby is 18 months old with three mother figures," said the man, who was dressed in a wrinkled blue sweatshirt and green pants. "That's the danger we were trying to protect her from." Supporters of the couple are urging Justice Minister Michael Baker to order a public inquiry into the removal of the couple's young daughter. The group wants an inquiry to address the evidence the Children's Aid Society had against the couple and on what basis the family court issued a custody order that led to the standoff. The sentencing hearing continues Wednesday. Source: Thursday, June 30, 2005 Still defiant Standoff couple argue – in vain – they should go free By Kim Moar HALIFAX – Calling the case a “rare combination” of crimes, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge sentenced Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen to 41/2 and 31/2 years respectively yesterday. 
Larry Finck: Sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison. (File photo)
“To state the obvious, there was nothing usual about the present case,” Justice Robert Wright said during the couple’s sentencing hearing. Finck and VandenElsen were convicted by a jury last month on several charges stemming from a three-day armed standoff on Shirley Street in Halifax in May 2004. Police were trying to enforce a temporary custody order of their then five-month-old daughter. The couple barricaded their home and VandenElsen fired a shot at police. In sentencing VandenElsen, Wright said that instead of responding to the initial Children’s Aid application for supervision by proving her child was not in need of protection, she took the baby and ran. When authorities tried to apprehend the child, VandenElsen escalated the abduction situation and “recklessly resorted to extreme violence” by firing a shot through the front door. “Incredibly, Ms. VandenElsen began laughing in the courtroom as Crown counsel spoke of the seriousness and near-fatal consequences of her actions,” the judge noted. VandenElsen has no appreciation of the wrongfulness or gravity of her actions or the danger she put her child and others in, he said. “She continues to blame everyone else for her troubles: child-protection agencies, the executive arm of government, lawyers and the judiciary alike in the ridiculous theory that these institutions are acting in collusion with one another to make babies available for sale or adoption to childless couples,” he said. As for Finck, Wright said what’s particularly damning is the fact he was on probation at the time of the standoff from a previous child-abduction conviction that included a weapon prohibition. In imposing sentence, Wright said the Crown’s request for six years went a “notch too far,” and that a 41/2-year total sentence was fit and proper. The Crown wanted 31/2 years for VandenElsen. Crown attorney Rick Woodburn was happy with the judge’s decision, even with Finck’s reduced sentence. “The Crown finds it very acceptable,” he said. With double credit for remand time, Finck has two years and 3 1/2 months left to serve; his wife will be out in two years, 11 months. Both will be subject to mandatory weapons prohibitions and VandenElsen will be required to give a DNA sample. Wright suggested both undergo psychiatric counselling. Wright said despite the self-represented couple’s contemptuous conduct during the 10-week trial, “which ranged from the belligerent to the bizarre,” that behaviour was not held against them in sentencing. The couple have already appealed their convictions, calling the 10-week trial a miscarriage of justice. TIMELINE Timeline of events leading up to the sentencing of Larry Finck and and Carline VandenElsen;
Source: Stephen Kimber put the following paragraph in an article published July 3, 2005:
We invite anyone with a paper copy of the series to forward it to Dufferin VOCA (at the contact address on our home page). Addendum: We thank Connie Brauer for transmitting copies of the Halifax Herald stories not posted on their webiste.
File Carline VandenElsen was jailed last month for a standoff with Halifax police over a child custody case. Ontario drops runaway mom case No retrial for VandenElsen on charge of fleeing with triplets By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter Carline VandenElsen won't be retried for allegedly abducting her triplets in Ontario in October 2001. Henry VanDrunen, assistant Crown attorney in Stratford, stayed the charges Tuesday morning in Ontario Superior Court. "It is no longer in the public interest to continue this prosecution," he wrote in his submission. The stay of proceedings means that after a year, it will be as if all three counts of abducting a child under 14 in contravention of a court order were never filed. Mr. VanDrunen said he has no plans to revive the charges. Ms. VandenElsen's ex-husband, Craig Merkley, had asked the Crown to stop the trial from proceeding. "After watching just the bizarre antics and behaviours with that trial down in Halifax recently, I made the decision that there's just no way that I would subject my kids to that," Mr. Merkley said in a telephone interview from his Stratford home. Justice Robert Wright, when sentencing Ms. VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, two weeks ago in Nova Scotia Supreme Court for their roles in a Halifax standoff in May 2004, noted the couple's "contemptuous conduct at trial" that "ranged from the belligerent to the bizarre." Ms. VandenElsen is imprisoned at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro and is not yet allowed to conduct media interviews. She didn't attend the Ontario hearing but her defence attorney, Tony Bryant, called her with the news and described her response as "neutral." "I didn't get the sense one way or the other as to what her feelings were," he said. "It may well be as a result of what I understand is her ongoing fast." She has been on a liquid-only diet in jail, saying she would not eat until there is an investigation into her case. Mr. Merkley said the triplets, the subject of a lengthy and acrimonious custody battle, have made slow but steady emotional gains since November 2003 when their mother was barred from contacting them. He called the time since then the most peaceful and tranquil in the 12-year-olds' lives. "The spectacle that this trial (in Stratford) would create would simply turn their lives upside down," he said. Court documents state that the triplets - Peter, Gray and Olivia - suffered emotional harm throughout the fighting. One child became aggressive, hurt others and tried to commit suicide. Another wet the bed and the third was extremely withdrawn. The couple divorced in 1996 but the battle for the children didn't end even when Mr. Merkley was awarded full custody in March 2000. That October, Ms. VandenElsen fled to Mexico with the children, then seven, during one of their weekend visits. At the time, an Ontario judge was shortly to decide what access, if any, she was to have to her children. The triplets were found in Acapulco in January 2001 and were returned to Canada. Ms. VandenElsen was extradited and charged. An Ontario jury acquitted her in 2001 on the basis of necessity - she said she left with the children because it would have caused them emotional harm if the court had kept her out of their lives. The Crown won its appeal on the issue of necessity and the acquittal was overturned. "Accordingly, no new trial is required for the purpose of resolving the legal issue of necessity; it has been settled," Mr. VanDrunen wrote. The Crown pointed to Ms. VandenElsen's 3 1/2-year prison term in Nova Scotia, calling it a "substantial sentence for serious violence and abduction offences." Police went to a Shirley Street home in Halifax in May 2004 with a court order to seize Ms. VandenElsen's and Mr. Finck's infant daughter. The ensuing standoff lasted almost three days. On May 12, a Halifax jury found Ms. VandenElsen guilty of child abduction in contravention of a court order, using a shotgun while committing a crime, threatening to assault a police officer with a shotgun, obstructing police, having an unregistered shotgun and having a shotgun dangerous to the public peace during the 66-hour standoff. On June 29, Ms. VandenElsen was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, with 200 days shaved off for the time she spent in custody before sentencing. Her husband was also sent to prison. The couple lost all access to their baby daughter but an appeal has been filed. Even if Ms. VandenElsen had been found guilty on the Stratford charges, it's unlikely she would have received a "dramatic increase in custodial sentence," Mr. VanDrunen wrote. The stay means Ms. VandenElsen - who Mr. Bryant said is "passionate about her cause" and has a fierce love for her children - will never know if a Stratford jury would have acquitted her again, Mr. Bryant said. "She can always say . . . 'I am presumed innocent. I have never been and never will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Andre Lefebvre, one of Ms. VandenElsen's supporters in Stratford who attended the hearing Tuesday, had mixed emotions about the Crown's move. Although the supporters knew a court fight might be hard on the children, they had hoped the triplets would finally get a chance to say what they feel in open court. "They would be asked, 'Were you told that you would never see your mother again?' " Mr. Lefebvre said. "And they (authorities) would have to look into this whole thing. "I think that he (Mr. Merkley) has way more to lose in this situation." The support group meets regularly and maintains a website on the VandenElsen case. The members planned to meet again Tuesday night to digest the news and plan their next move. For now, Mr. Lefebvre remains hopeful about his friend's future. "It is my hope that Carline will keep quiet and not exacerbate the public opinion or the legal opinion against her by anything she will do from this point on," Mr. Lefebvre said. "It is my secret hope and prayer that she will bite the bullet and realize that as soon as she comes out of jail in 3 1/2 years or before, her children will be 16 and they will have the right to choose where they want to live." Mr. Bryant said his client plans to apply for a transfer to a prison in Kitchener, Ont., to be close to her family. "Maybe somehow she still has a dream that maybe she'll get a chance to see her children, but that will be their choice, not hers," he said. Mr. Merkley said he was unaware of his ex-wife's wishes. Source:
Standoff couple gets extra week to file appeal papers By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck got an extension Thursday on the deadline to file their grounds of appeal in their fight to reclaim their little girl. "I was diagnosed last week with a life-and-death medical problem," Mr. Finck told Justice Linda Lee Oland of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal via telephone from the Springhill Institution. "I was hospitalized last weekend and I'm still dealing with that problem." The nature of the problem was not disclosed, but Mr. Finck said he left the hospital Saturday "when I didn't agree with the dangerous treatment that was imposed on me." The couple are serving prison sentences stemming from a 67-hour standoff with police in Halifax in May 2004. The standoff began after police tried to enforce a court order requiring them to surrender their baby to child welfare workers. Ms. VandenElsen also took part by telephone in the in-chambers hearing before Justice Oland to sort out preliminary matters before their Oct. 14 appeal hearing. The couple is challenging the family court order placing their daughter - now 19 months old - in permanent care, arguing it was a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen had until Thursday to file detailed, written grounds of appeal. In addition to his hospitalization, Mr. Finck told the court that at 1 p.m. Wednesday, he finally received two boxes of court documents related to the case to help him prepare their appeal. Earlier this month, Mr. Finck said in court that Springhill prison officials denied him access to his court documents and that another 35 full boxes remained at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth where he was held during trial. Justice Oland gave him until Aug. 5 to file the appeal. "Whatever you have by next Friday, I want you to send it in," she said, adding that if Mr. Finck feels it is incomplete, he is to advise the court when he faxes the grounds of appeal that there is more to come. If the document isn't received on time, filing deadlines will be even tighter for other parties, as those dates cannot be pushed back. "That's not satisfactory for any of us, particularly not satisfactory to the child who is at the centre of this," Justice Oland said. In other matters, the lawyer for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia didn't object to her client being a named party as long as the grounds of appeal include constitutional issues. But she asked that Community Services Minister David Morse be removed as a respondent. Mr. Finck agreed. "Get him the hell out of there," he said. "He's hid his responsibility and ducked his responsibility in this case." Mr. Finck objected to the documents filed by the Children's Aid Society of Halifax, which only include transcripts dating back to January 2005. He wants the society to file the transcripts going back to the first court proceeding on the matter, in January 2004. The couple also refused to have a lawyer appointed for them, and Mr. Finck objected to the court having a lawyer appointed to act on its behalf. But Walter Yeadon, the lawyer representing Nova Scotia Legal Aid, said another lawyer has agreed to work in that capacity if Justice Oland rules it necessary. The judge postponed her ruling on those matters and will issue her decision in writing. Another hearing and telephone conference is scheduled for Aug. 5. Ms. VandenElsen, whose husband spoke on her behalf throughout the session, said little early on but soon lashed out at Justice Oland. "Why don't you just dismiss this right now and get it up before the Supreme Court of Canada," she said, raising her voice. "With all due respect, Ms. VandenElsen, I can't do that," Justice Oland said. "No, you'll do that at another time," Ms. VandenElsen said angrily. "It's called skullduggery." Mr. Finck interrupted and told his wife to let the judge speak. She fell silent and at some point, hung up the phone. Source: 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 Scott Stinson 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. Source: OACAS (pdf) Saturday, August 6, 2005 Finck appeals court ruling in custody case By Cathy Nicoll, The Daily News (Halifax) Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen have given the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal 21 reasons why a court order giving permanent custody of their daughter to the state should be overturned. Finck faxed a 15-page handwritten document with grounds of appeal to Justice Linda Lee Oland yesterday. Last week, Oland gave the couple an extra week to file the necessary papers after a telephone conference. In the preamble, Finck complains that he was unable to speak to his wife to see if she agreed with the document, and was denied use of a computer. “Our hands are tied, we’re blindfolded and the system continues to disregard court directives which were all provided to the authorities here at Springhill Institution,” he writes. Finck and VandenElsen are in jail after being convicted on numerous charges stemming from a 67-hour armed standoff with police in May 2004 on Shirley Street. The standoff erupted when Halifax police tried to serve the couple with a temporary custody order for their daughter, then five months old. On June 23, Associate Chief Justice Deborah Smith, of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court family division, ordered that the baby be released into the permanent care and custody of the Children’s Aid Society of Halifax, with no access to either parent. Finck states that Smith “erred in law with total disregard for fundamental justice and due process of law.” As a result, he states, the baby’s rights and the parents’ rights were “violated and not respected. That constitutes a miscarriage of justice.” Finck also complains that Smith erred in law by “controlling the adducing of evidence ... that led to a pre-designed conclusion in favour of the state (CAS).” He continues that Smith erred in law “with the total disregard to the best interests of the unrepresented child when failing to provide the infant child with access to her parents, starting a year-long pre-designed alienation from her parents. ” Finck also states that Justice Oland “erred in law in the further continuance” of the appeal. The appeal is scheduled to be heard Oct. 14. Source: Halifax News
Carline VandenElsen walks toward a courtroom in
Halifax earlier this year. (File)
Police may keep standoff report secret By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter Sixteen months after the fact, Halifax Regional Police's internal review of their response to last year's armed standoff on Shirley Street isn't finished. Once it is completed, it may not be made public. The 67-hour drama ended after the natural death of an elderly homeowner inside the house under siege. The standoff included elements of public safety and community relations and cost untold taxpayer dollars. Some members of Halifax Regional Municipality's board of police commissioners said last week they're not sure why the review's findings could be kept secret. Halifax police personnel have been examining how fellow officers handled the May 2004 standoff with parents Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen, a desperate duo who were charged and convicted in the calamity. They are both appealing. The widely publicized three-day siege happened after child protection officials tried to remove the parents' baby from 6161 Shirley St. Armed emergency response officers were deployed in the leafy neighbourhood after a shot in the dark was fired at police from the modest-looking home. The standoff was a rare event that raised questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare laws, parents' rights and the actions of police, and it prompted calls for a public inquiry. Police Chief Frank Beazley told The Chronicle Herald on Monday he can't say when the internal review will be ready. "Part of not being able to work on that has been the overall court action, and there's still some other stuff that (is) going on, and I can't go in and look at something like that while all this is going on," he said. Chief Beazley said the finished report will probably be presented to the board of police commissioners. "If there (are) issues that have to go to the board, yes, it would go there," he said. "But the (internal) operational review that I do is just to look at the performance of my people, and what they've done well and what they may not have done well, and that's for me. But in many cases, I will take reports like that to the board." Coun. Jim Smith (Albro Lake-Harbourview), one of three councillors on the board of police commissioners, said he doesn't know why the review isn't finished. "A year seems like plenty of time," he said. Asked if he supports the public release of the completed report, Mr. Smith said he wants to read it first. "I always like to give the public as much information as possible," he said Friday, (but) "sometimes with police matters, there is a difficulty." Mr. Smith expects police commission members will read the report. He said he knows "there are many residents living around there that certainly are interested, and I'm sure would be interested in seeing what that review says." Board member Coun. Brad Johns (Middle and Upper Sackville-Lucasville) said he, too, doesn't know why the report would be kept confidential. He said he'll reserve judgment until it is presented to the board of police commissioners. "Until I hear what the justification for (confidentiality) is, it's hard to make a judgment whether or not it's a legitimate justification," he said. Coun. Linda Mosher (Purcells Cove-Armdale), another board member, said if the probe pertains to personnel issues, such as commenting on the conduct of a specific officer, "then I would support it being kept confidential - it just depends on what the outcome of the report is." Ms. Mosher said past municipal reports originally deemed confidential have been declassified and made public. "It's very possible that I could change my mind" once she's read the review, she said. Chief Beazley acknowledged it's possible the report will be released publicly, "but not if it's just a straight operational review for me." Asked if its release would constitute a public service, the chief said: "I know that the media have been carrying it and looking at it, and I know that there's a number of people looking at it from a legal perspective, and as long as those legal things are ongoing, no, I won't make it public." Chief Beazley said he doesn't know if the report will be presented to the board of police commissioners behind closed doors or in a public meeting. "They could ask for it in either (a private or public) session, and unless there's a strong argument to put it in (behind closed doors) ... most of these things are public." Ernestine Gouthro, a citizen member of the board of police commissioners, didn't want to say whether the review should be kept secret because she hasn't seen it. "I don't really have a comment," she said. Ms. Gouthro said she figures when senior police management eventually recommend making the report public - or not - that decision "is probably what the board will agree with." The standoff, which ended sadly after Mr. Finck's 79-year-old mother died in her home, began shortly after child protection officials and police went to the house at night to remove his child, a five-month-old girl. They were rebuffed by gunfire. Officers blocked off part of the neighbourhood and tried to negotiate a resolution. Supporters of the police response say officers acted properly and exercised restraint. Critics object to what they say was a heavy-handed approach to a household struggling with personal issues. After the siege, the baby was turned over to child welfare staffers and later placed in foster care. In other Canadian cases involving health and safety, such as transportation accidents, environmental disasters or medical crises, the results of probes are often released publicly. Coroner's inquests, industrial fatality inquiries and transportation safety probes routinely release findings and recommendations. Chief Beazley launched another round of "town hall" meetings this week to listen to concerns and suggestions from residents and business operators. He also says in a message on the department's website that police want to "maintain strong two-way communication with the community." Heather Laskey, a Halifax writer and journalist and a grandmother who lives near the standoff site, wrote a commentary in May in The Chronicle Herald in support of an inquiry. She called into question the conduct of police, saying "the whole performance" was a "hysterical melodrama in the worst possible taste." "There should never have been an armed confrontation," she said. On Tuesday, Ms. Laskey said the ordeal included "a dangerous and disturbing using of a militarized police force. ... I think it's a highly disturbing affront to Canadian standards." Ms. Laskey said the report should be made public. "I think most people in Halifax would like to know what the heck was going on," she said. mlightstone Source: Halifax Herald TheChronicleHerald.ca, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, Friday March 24, 2006 Standoff dad denied parole By TOM McCOAG Amherst Bureau SPRINGHILL — Larry Finck won’t be getting out of jail any time soon. The man, made infamous after an armed standoff in Halifax two years ago in a child custody case, reacted angrily Thursday when he was denied parole. "Thank you for protecting me from this fascist . . . government and the police," Mr. Finck said loudly as he was escorted out of a National Parole Board hearing at the Springhill Institution. At the outset, Mr. Finck, 52, attempted to have the hearing adjourned, claiming he didn’t have time to prepare because he was involved in several court cases, including one in which he was recently found guilty and sentenced to four months in jail for assaulting a fellow patient at a Dartmouth hospital. The four months were added to the 4½ years he is serving for several convictions that resulted from the 67-hour standoff at his late mother’s home. The standoff began when police attempted to enforce a child apprehension order to remove Mr. Finck’s baby daughter from the house and ended with he and his wife, Carline Vanden-Elsen, carried his dead mother out of the house on a stretcher. She died of natural causes. Ms. VandenElsen is serving a 3½-year sentence at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro . His request for an adjournment was denied by the board. Parole officer Jim Lowerison said Mr. Finck’s case management team recommended he be refused parole because he refused to have a psychiatric assessment and failed to take responsibility for or show remorse for his crimes. Mr. Finck repeatedly evaded questions from parole board members, particularly when they asked if he posed a risk to the community, but eventually he told them there was nothing wrong with him, and that no one had a reason to fear him, though he would need protection from society if released. If given full parole, he said, he and his wife planned on living in Falmouth until they could move to Halifax to set up a centre for the protection of Canadian children. When questioned about employment, he said he had a consultation business in Ontario called Keep Your Eyes on Scumbag Lawyers, but admitted it probably wasn’t a money-maker. He said he and his wife would like to leave Canada but their criminal records prevented that. The panel rejected his request for "parole by exception" because there was no evidence that his mental or physical health would be jeopardized by continued incarceration. They denied his request for day and full parole because he did not acknowledge his crimes, did not have an acceptable release plan, did not take psychiatric counselling and refused to take courses that would improve his conflict resolution skills. (tmccoag@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Herald The Halifax Herald May 5, 2006 Siege of Shirley Street: two years later, still no answers By HEATHER LASKEY 
A police emergency response team member leaves the
scene of a standoff on Shirley Street, Halifax, in
May 2004. (FILE)
Two years have passed since Halifax’s "siege of Shirley Street." Two years this month since the police seizure of a five-month-old infant, the death of her grandmother, and the arrest of her parents. Since that time, there has been a plethora of court proceedings – criminal trials, family court hearings, decisions and appeals. The parents are in prison and the toddler – as far as we know – is still in the custody of the Children’s Aid Society. It was the parents’ refusal to relinquish her to the CAS shortly after her birth which had led to the police action. There is still unease among many people in this area about the use of a militarized police/SWAT team during the May 2004 events in what appeared to be a convenient opportunity to rehearse for a possible terrorist strike on the city. Many of us are also uneasy about the opaque powers of the CAS. The CAS is a quasi-private, government-funded, not-for-profit organization which, though well-intentioned, is in effect answerable only to its board. This absence of public accountability is a comment you will hear even from other social workers. No formal explanation has been given to the public for why the CAS wanted the baby removed from her parents: "Client confidentiality" is the mantra used to hide behind this wall of silence. As far as can be established, the apparent reason the newborn baby came to CAS attention was that her parents, Carline Vanden Elsen and Larry Finck, had previously run afoul of the legal system in Ontario by abducting children of their previous relationships. Neither had been accused of neglecting or abusing these children, and there was no suggestion before or after she was seized that the five-month-old nursing infant had been neglected or abused. But it was clear that her parents had antagonized authorities by dissing the legal system and the CAS in Ontario, as they were to do here in Nova Scotia. Their behaviour may have been intensely annoying, block-headed and eccentric. It was, however, no justification for the state to condemn their baby to the damaging uncertainties of a childhood in the foster-care system. (One year ago, at the age of 17 months, she was already in her second placement, and it was officially recorded that she had been upset by her move, at the age of 12 months, from her first placement. We do not know what her present situation is). As for the siege itself – the violent means employed to seize the baby were profoundly inappropriate. They could easily have resulted in her being injured or killed. They did lead to the death from heart failure of her grandmother, Mona Finck. The weaponry with which the Halifax police and the RCMP (according to their own testimony) were armed included semi-automatic sub-machine guns, and Taser guns. There was also the battering ram used in the middle of the night in a residential street against the home containing the five-month-old baby, her parents and frail grandmother. When the couple emerged after nearly three days with the body of Mrs. Finck on a stretcher, there was a melee in which a knife was used to cut a Snugli – with the infant in it! – from off the mother. Then a Taser gun was used to force her to remove her arms from under her body when she was lying on the sidewalk. It would have seemed reasonable if the people responsible for ordering the attack had been charged with endangering life, but even calls for a public inquiry were ignored by the minister of justice. The Halifax police promised that there would be a formal review of the events. Two years on, and despite questions from Mayor Peter Kelly, there is still silence. There is a similar silence from the Mounties. These are not healthy signs in a democracy. Last summer, a group of people, who wanted the whole business exposed to the air, got together to push for the inquiry. We wanted the public to be told what evidence of actual or potential harm had been presented to the Family Court to justify ordering the baby be taken from her parents, and why massive force had been used. The informal group included five independent and experienced journalists (Stephen Kimber, Kim Kierans, Ian Porter, Dulcie Conrad and myself) as well as Ray Kuszelewski, who had been Larry Finck’s Legal Aid lawyer; Joyce Dempsey, a neighbour of the Fincks; and Susan Stuttard, a retired professional. We have been supported in our demands by a wider group of citizens, from engineers, nurses and lawyers to professors and social workers, all of them equally disturbed by the behaviour of police and government-associated agencies in these events. To quote a letter to this newspaper from Winifred Milne, the retired director of social services for the Nova Scotia Hospital, "a climate has been created which may put subsequent vulnerable children and families at further risk." None of us should forget a lesson of both Mount Cashell and the Indian residential schools: You cannot always trust the state to protect children; sometimes it can be the instrument of their destruction. It’s time we had a careful look at how we are dealing with our children deemed in need of state protection, and ask how we could do it better. One major step forward would be the creation of the post of an independent children’s advocate, a suggestion made to government by a group including Mrs. Milne – in the early 1960s! It’s not too late to call or write to MLAs or to the minister of justice, requesting that a public inquiry be set up into the events around that baby’s seizure in May 2004 by the RCMP and Halifax police. And residents of HRM could write to or call their councillors, requesting that they push for the release of the police report. It’s the very least that is owed to the late Mona Finck, to her little granddaughter, and to all the children who may be taken into care. Heather Laskey’s book The Children of the Poor Clares: The Story of an Irish Orphanage, published in Ireland in 1985, was the first to expose the abuse of children in church-run institutions. She also wrote and broadcast about the child immigration movement from Britain to Canada. Source: Halifax Herald The Halifax Herald Limited No parole for mother in standoff Calm VandenElsen says she’s focusing on forgiveness, peace By MARY ELLEN MACINTYRE Truro Bureau TRURO — Carline VandenElsen took it remarkably well when told she would not be released on full parole Wednesday. "Thank you," she said quietly to the two-member parole board before quickly leaving the hearing room. In sharp contrast to the last time she appeared before the board, Ms. VandenElsen looked calm and demure, wearing a crisp, white shirt and a pair of grey pants. She spoke softly and sincerely, taking time to consider questions and form her answers. "I have concentrated on forgiveness, healing and peace," she told board member Pat O’Brien. During a day parole hearing at Nova Institution in February, Ms. VandenElsen appeared in jeans, boots and a black sweater. The sweater was covered by a white singlet bearing an offensive epithet on the front and her name on the back. On Wednesday, Ms. VandenElsen referred to her previous appearance before the board as a "passive-aggressive way of showing my feelings." She said she felt dehumanized by the prison system and had felt less of a person. Known for being outspoken and confrontational in the past, the 44-year-old woman has been imprisoned at Truro’s Nova Institution since last June after being convicted of a number of charges after a three-day standoff with Halifax police in 2004. Ms. VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, held police at bay after officers attempted to carry out a child apprehension order. The widely publicized standoff ended on a bizarre note when the couple left the house carrying a shotgun, a baby and the body of Mr. Finck’s mother. After a sometimes raucous nine-week trial, Ms. VandenElsen was sentenced to almost three years in the federal prison. Mr. Finck was sent to Springhill Institution for 4½ years. She was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police. The couple was also found guilty of abducting the baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace. Prior to the 2004 standoff, Ms. VandenElsen’s triplets had been taken away from her and Mr. Finck had lost custody of a daughter from a previous relationship. "I didn’t bring babies into the world to have somebody else raise them," she told the board Wednesday, appearing close to tears. Although she said she can now follow rules, even if she doesn’t believe they are reasonable, there was a time when things were different. "In my role as a desperate mother, I did not abide by the rules. . . . I chose to do whatever I could to keep my baby," she said. Ms. VandenElsen had planned to live with a family in the Falmouth area of the province if she was released on parole and said she planned to reunite with her husband when they are both out of prison. Board member Carole O’Reilly suggested Ms. VandenElsen seems to have gained some insight into her criminal behavior but suggested it has been a recently acquired insight. "All that’s very positive, however, it’s very recent. . . . You have been denied full parole and we wish you luck." Ms. VandenElsen can apply for parole again before her statutory release date next year. ( mmacintyre@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Herald The Halifax Chronicle Herald December 13, 2006 
Larry Finck was found unfit for either day or full
parole. (File)
Finck denied parole for second time in ’06 By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter Larry Finck has been denied parole again. The National Parole Board held a hearing Monday at Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., for Mr. Finck, the father at the centre of a 2004 police standoff in Halifax over his infant daughter. The parole board found Mr. Finck unfit to release on either day or full parole, but the reasons for the decision weren’t available Monday. A written report is expected to be released today. Monday’s hearing was scheduled after Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Charles Haliburton ordered that it be held in response to a court application by Mr. Finck. The National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada applied on Dec. 5 for a stay of proceedings to postpone the judge-ordered parole hearing until their appeal could be heard. Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the application at a Dec. 7 hearing at the Halifax Law Courts. He said the applicants didn’t file notice in time and arrangements weren’t made to bring Mr. Finck from northern New Brunswick for the hearing. Also, Justice Cromwell wrote, even if "the judge may have erred in making the order he did," the applicants would suffer no irreparable harm if the hearing went ahead as scheduled. This is the second time this year that Mr. Finck, serving a 4½-year sentence for his role in a 67-hour standoff and another four months for assaulting a fellow patient at a Dartmouth hospital, was denied parole. In March, The Chronicle Herald reported that he was refused because he didn’t "acknowledge his crimes, did not have an acceptable release plan, did not take psychiatric counselling and refused to take courses that would improve his conflict resolution skills." The May 2004 standoff began when police came to his mother’s Shirley Street house with a court order to remove his baby daughter from the house. The longest standoff in Halifax history ended when Mr. Finck and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, with their daughter strapped to her chest, walked out of the house carrying his dead mother on a stretcher. Mona Finck had died of natural causes. The baby was immediately seized by authorities. Ms. VandenElsen, who is serving a 3½-year sentence at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, was also denied parole earlier this year. (pbrooks@herald.ca) Source: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA | Tuesday December 26, 2006 Vigil supports couple By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter A candlelight vigil was held in Halifax on the weekend for a little girl whose parents are in prison. Several people gathered outside the IWK Health Centre on a rainy Saturday night to keep hope alive that the family might one day be reunited. The youngster is the daughter of Larry Finck and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, who are both serving prison terms for their role in a 67-hour police standoff that ensued when child-welfare authorities and police tried to seize the child. Mr. Finck’s mother died of natural causes inside her Shirley Street house during the standoff. The May 2004 standoff, during which a shot was fired from the house, made headlines and prompted Halifax Regional Police to conduct an internal review of the standoff. That review has never been made public. Mr. Finck was recently denied parole for the second time in a year. Ms. VandenElsen was also denied parole earlier this year. Their daughter was an infant at the time of the tense standoff, which ended when Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen emerged from the modest house with their baby and carrying the body of Mr. Finck’s mother on a makeshift stretcher. The baby was immediately seized. Supporters of Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen have called for a public inquiry into the standoff but the provincial government has said more than once that no such review is in the cards. Source: Halifax Chronicle Herald Wednesday, December 27, 2006 
Carline VandenElsen
VandenElsen going free? Standoff woman may be out of prison tomorrow By Stéphane Massinon HALIFAX - The woman involved in an infamous Halifax standoff could be out of prison as soon as tomorrow, according to a friend of hers. Marilyn Dey says she received a phone call from the jailed Carline VandenElsen on Dec. 24, who informed Dey she could be released from Truro's Nova Institution as early as Dec. 28, or else in early January, for a 60-day leave before a February parole hearing. VandenElsen is due for statutory release after serving two-thirds of her sentence in June 2007. "I think she's feeling really, really pleased about getting out, but she's pretty subdued about it. She said, "I have to try to get back on track and get doing research,'" Dey said yesterday. If released, Dey said VandenElsen will spent her time in a Halifax halfway house. Standoff VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, were sentenced to prison time last year for their roles in a Shirley Street standoff that lasted for 67 hours. It started when police officers tried to enforce a child-custody order, but the couple barricaded themselves inside Finck's mother's house. VandenElsen would eventually fire a shot at police that hit nobody. The standoff ended when the couple walked out carrying their baby and the dead body of Finck's mother, Mona, who died of natural causes during the incident. In their telephone conversation, Dey said the prisoner sounded beaten down. "She said, 'That's about it, I can't do any more of this,'" recalled Dey. "To me she sounded really, really subdued, not her natural self - except when she called, she went, 'Ho Ho Ho.'" At a May parole hearing, VandenElsen told authorities she took personal responsibility for the standoff. The board rejected her appeal anyway. smassinon@hfxnews.ca Source: Halifax Daily News 
Carline VandenElsen leaves a court room in 2005. (File)
January 13, 2007 Standoff woman’s parole denial OK judge By SHERRI BORDEN COLLEY Staff Reporter Carline VandenElsen’s early release from prison has not been unlawfully denied, a judge has ruled. Ms. VandenElsen has been imprisoned at Truro’s Nova Institution for Women since June 2005 after being convicted of a number of charges stemming from a three-day standoff with Halifax police in 2004. Ms. VandenElsen and her husband Larry Finck held police at bay after officers tried to carry out a child apprehension order. The widely publicized standoff ended bizzarely when the couple left the house carrying a shotgun, a baby and the body of Mr. Finck’s mother. In a decision released Friday, Justice Charles Haliburton said Ms. VandenElsen had not proved that the National Parole Board, in denying her parole last May, had access to or relied on information not shared with her. Those documents included information on her life history and a police incident report on the standoff. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge dismissed her application, which was heard Dec. 18 in Truro. Ms. VandenElsen represented herself at the hearing. After a nine-week trial, Ms. VandenElsen was sentenced to 3½ years in penitentiary and Mr. Finck to 4½ years. She was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police. The couple was also found guilty of abducting the baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace. (sborden@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Chronicle Herald HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA | Wednesday January 31, 2007
Larry Finck is escorted into court in 2004. (Tim Krochak/Staff)
Appeal court rejects standoff couple’s By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen won’t be getting lawyers, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has ruled. The couple was at the Halifax Law Courts on Monday to appeal their convictions for their roles in a three-day standoff with Halifax Regional Police in May 2004. The couple was protesting a court order to seize their baby girl. Mr. Finck, was sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison, asked the panel of judges to issue an order to appoint legal counsel for him and his wife and for an order to produce their case-related documents. He told the court that he and the documents were first sent to Springhill Institution, but when he was transferred to Atlantic Institution, a maximum-security prison in Renous, N.B., he said he didn’t get to view the documents. He claimed he was unable to fully participate in the appeal process because of this inability to access those documents and said he and his wife need a lawyer in order to properly appeal the case. At first, he claimed the boxes of documents were damaged and then destroyed by prison staff, but later said they were in storage somewhere. Mr. Finck asked the panel judges to issue an order to send sheriffs’ deputies to Renous to find the documents and bring them to Halifax so a lawyer could view them. The court heard that Ms. VandenElsen, who was sentenced to 3 ½ years, had received her own copies of the Crown’s documents in response to their appeal, but she did not wish to address the court. After a short recess, the panel, consisting of justices Nancy Bateman and Thomas Cromwell and Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, denied the couple’s requests. They ruled it was "not in the interest of justice," Chief Justice Mac-Donald said. Mr. Finck, unhappy with the ruling, replied: "Well, don’t even bring me back for that. Just dump it." The self-represented appellants had been in jail since June 2006, but Ms. VandenElsen, who had been denied parole, is now living in Halifax since her Jan. 17 release from Nova Institution for Women for a 60-day unescorted temporary pass from the prison for personal development. (pbrooks@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Chronicle Herald The Halifax Herald, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, Friday February 16, 2007 Standoff pair seek new trial By KELLY SHIERS and JOHN GILLIS Staff Reporters Almost three years after Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen held police at bay during a three-day standoff, they were together again in a Halifax courtroom Thursday, asking three judges to grant them a new trial. Neither seemed to hold out much hope for success but indicated they would take their quest all the way to the country’s highest court. "I imagine we know how this is going to turn out — to the Supreme Court of Canada," Ms. VandenElsen told Justice Nancy Bateman, Justice Thomas Cromwell and Chief Justice Michael MacDonald of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck complained that many of the documents needed to argue their case had been given to Mr. Finck less than a week earlier, and others were missing. Mr. Finck argued that he and his wife were the victims of a miscarriage of justice at trial, in part because Justice Robert Wright of Nova Scotia Supreme Court denied their requests to subpoena up to 15 witnesses — in effect keeping them from making a full defence — and, when Ms. VandenElsen tried to make her final submission to the jury, he "closed her down." The couple argued 15 grounds for appeal in a day-long hearing. One main argument was that the judge had unfairly prevented the defendants from using recordings in court that the Crown was permitted to use. Police had made the recordings inside the Shirley Street house in Halifax during the May 2004 standoff. The trial judge had not heard the recordings, the Appeal Court panel has. Crown attorney Peter Rosinski argued that the recordings wouldn’t have added to the defence’s case and Justice Wright’s ruling would have been the same even if he had heard them. Mr. Finck also told the court that he and his wife were represented at trial by lawyers who failed to follow their instructions. Each was defended by a different attorney, and both eventually fired those lawyers at different points in their nine-week trial that ended in May 2005. Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen were found guilty of obstruction, abduction in contravention of a child custody order, possession of a shotgun dangerous to the public peace and possessing a shotgun without a licence. Ms. VandenElsen was also convicted of three other weapons offences, including using a shotgun to commit an indictable offence. The charges stemmed from an armed siege that began shortly after midnight on May 19, 2004. Police officers trying to enforce a child apprehension order were trying to break down the front door of Mr. Finck’s mother’s home when a shot was fired from inside. The couple maintain they were being persecuted by uncaring authorities who unjustly wanted to seize their infant daughter, and that Mr. Finck’s mother, who died of natural causes on the last day of the standoff, fired the shot. Outbursts from both Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen marked their trial, sometimes resulting in one or both being escorted from the courtroom. There were no such outbursts Thursday, although Justice MacDonald admonished Mr. Finck to stay on track and warned him not to use insults, derogatory remarks or foul language. Justice MacDonald also turned down Mr. Finck’s request that he remove himself from the case, and he rejected Mr. Finck’s suggestion that the three judges give up their eyewear "to make it even." Mr. Finck claims he doesn’t have the prescription glasses he needs and can’t read for more than an hour without his eyes watering profusely. Mr. Finck, who was sentenced in 2005 to 4½ years in prison, was denied parole in 2006. Ms. VandenElsen, who was sentenced to 3½ years, has been released from the Nova Institution for Women in Truro on a 60-day unescorted pass for personal development. The couple have lost permanent custody of their daughter. The court reserved judgment on the appeal. Four Halifax Regional Police officers were waiting for Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen outside the courtroom and asked to speak to each of them in another room in the court building. Mr. Finck, who was handcuffed before leaving the courtroom, and Ms. Van-denElsen asked the officers to get them lawyers before they would agree to speak. Police spokeswoman Theresa Brien said later that officers needed to discuss a private matter with the couple. "We needed to speak to them to obtain information, and we took the opportunity when they were in court to do so," she said. "If they wish to discuss what it was about, they can certainly do so, but we can’t discuss our dealings with people unless they’re charged criminally. "This does not pertain to criminal charges." ( kshiers@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Chronicle Herald The Halifax Herald, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, Wednesday February 28, 2007 Board denies VandenElsen parole again Woman convicted in standoff improving but still deemed a risk By MARY ELLEN MacINTYRE Truro Bureau TRURO — Carline VandenElsen has done so well in prison she’s on early release at a Halifax halfway house but she hasn’t done well enough to get full parole. "The risk is not manageable — application denied," Pat O’Brien of the National Parole Board said during a hearing at Nova Institution for Women on Tuesday. Ms. VandenElsen has been a prisoner at the institution since her conviction in June 2005 on charges from a highly publicized three-day standoff with Halifax police in 2004. The standoff began when police officers attempted to carry out a child apprehension order for her five-month-old daughter. Ms. VandenElsen’s husband, Larry Finck, was also sentenced to prison for his part in what has been called a bizarre and tragic situation. After holding police at bay for three days, the couple left the home carrying Mr. Finck’s dead mother on an improvised stretcher, a shotgun and the baby. Ms. VandenElsen was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police. They were both convicted of abducting the baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace. Mr. Finck is being held at the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., and is scheduled for release in March. Ms. VandenElsen struggled to hold back tears when she heard the news Tuesday morning. Corrections staff had recommended the 43-year-old gain full parole. "She never picked up one charge here and never gave us any indication she was a risk," said her caseworker, Rod MacDonald. "But she does have a difficult time trusting authority figures." The caseworker said Ms. VandenElsen seemed to have a lot of sympathetic supporters and she planned to eventually live in the Annapolis Valley with a couple who have taken up her cause. For the past month, she has been on what’s called a 60-day unescorted temporary absence, living at a halfway house in Halifax and volunteering at local churches. When she walked into the institution Tuesday morning, inmates hollered out to her, offering her good luck on her application. Ms. VandenElsen was composed, well-spoken and agreeable during the hearing. However, when a member of the board asked what she would do differently if she could go back to the time of the standoff, Ms. VandenElsen was unable to single out any one thing. "It was the most harrowing, horrifying and traumatic experience in my life," she said of the event. "Had I known this would transpire, I wouldn’t have had a baby," she said. Mr. O’Brien told Ms. VandenElsen she is one of a kind. "I’ve never seen a standoff with such drama — you’re unique," he said. "I know what happens to children in foster care — I didn’t want a child of mine in foster care," she responded. "I had a baby. I wanted to keep it and it was just a miserable, tragic situation all around," she said. Asked what she wanted to do in the future, Ms. VandenElsen said she wanted to get on with her life. "Just collect all these little bits and pieces of my life — I would like to reunite with my family — it’s a very primal feeling." In delivering the board’s decision, Mr. O’Brien said members were not convinced Ms. VandenElsen understands what she did wrong. "We never got the sense that at a fundamental level you think you ever did anything wrong." ( mmacintyre@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Chronicle Herald Friday March 2, 2007 
Denied parole: Carline VandenElsen is shown in one of
her many court appearances over her 2004 standoff.
(File photo)
Parole board's priorities puzzling VandenElsen sent back to prison; McDonald's restaurant killer gets passes Rick Howe, The Daily News As the National Parole Board prepares to let back into the community a man involved in one of Nova Scotia's most notorious crimes, it has slammed the door shut again on a petite woman whose only crime was to try to hang on to her young baby - and hopes to be a mother to her daughter again some day. Carline VandenElsen not only had her temporary pass from prison yanked this week, but the parole board threw her back into prison, saying she hasn't yet learned her lesson. Variety of charges VandenElsen had been sentenced to three years on a variety of charges including child abduction, assault with a weapon and obstructing police after a three-day standoff on Shirley Street in Halifax in May 2004. The confrontation with heavily armed police began with a midnight knock on her apartment door to serve a child-protection order. It ended some 67 hours later with VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, under arrest, Finck's mother dead from natural causes and the couple's infant daughter taken by the Children's Aid Society. VandenElsen had been released on a temporary pass about a month ago and was doing volunteer work at a Halifax church. She's kept herself out of trouble and kept her mouth shut - reining in a weakness that compounded some of her earlier problems with the legal system. But despite a positive recommendation for parole from Corrections Canada officials, the board said no this week and ordered her return to the Nova Scotia Institute for Women in Truro to serve out the remainder of her sentence - which expires later this year. Connie Brauer of Falmouth has long been a supporter of VandenElsen and her fight to keep her baby daughter. She was prepared to take VandenElsen into her home to live if she'd been granted parole. But apparently the arrangement was one of the board's issues. Brauer has also been a vocal critic of the justice system, and a board member says they were troubled with the mix. Pat O'Brien said in the board's oral decision: "It doesn't make sense. The risk is not manageable." Brauer is outraged and calls the parole board's decision "barbaric, medieval and cruel." Brauer says corrections officials visited her home three times, and there was never a problem. "The gave us a good report," she told me this week. Brauer says the parole board has it out for VandenElsen because she won't admit any guilt and wants her baby back. "She's being punished for two or three years for what? What's she supposed to say? 'I'm sorry you took my child?' She's an innocent person. They took her child for no reason. The fix was in. There was no way they were going to give her parole." It is truly difficult to imagine how VandenElsen could be considered any kind of a risk, to herself or to society. Is she odd? Yes. But since when did eccentricity become a crime? Out-spoken and angry at her run-ins with Children's Aid and the legal system? Without a doubt. Are we not, however, guaranteed freedom of opinion? But a risk? Certainly not. She has already served more than two years. This woman should not spend another minute in prison. The National Parole Board's stand is all the more puzzling, considering its decision to give Darren Muise 16 temporary passes from prison - where he's been serving a life sentence with no parole for 20 years for his second-degree murder conviction. Muise was one of three young men involved in the triple murders of late night employees at a McDonald's restaurant in Sydney in May 1992. Shocking crime Muise, 18 at the time, slit the throat of employee Neil Burroughs. It was a crime that shocked Nova Scotians, who naively believed such violence could never happen here. Under escort, Muise will be permitted to visit a girlfriend and attend some family functions. He has another six years to serve before he's eligible for full parole. Burroughs's sister Cathy says her family's very upset with the decision. "He has not shown any remorse," she told CTV News anchor Steve Murphy Wednesday night. She says Muise has duped the board into believing he's changed. "He's a good actor." A mother's efforts to one day be reunited with the child she bore keep her in jail, while a man who, in cold blood, ended the life of a young father earns some freedom. Is it just me, or is something not right here? rhowe@chumhalifax.com Rick Howe is the host of the radio talk show Hotline, weekdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on AM 920 CJCH, and on the Internet at cjch.ca. Source: Halifax Daily News Published: 2007-03-28 No bias in couple’s case, appeal judges decide By SHERRI BORDEN COLLEY Staff Reporter Larry Finck argued fervently that a judge who tried him and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, on multiple charges in connection with a three-day armed standoff with police gave them a raw deal. But on Tuesday, three Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judges found no evidence of that claim and dismissed the couple’s appeal of both their convictions and sentences. In a decision released Tuesday, the Appeal Court said that nothing in the transcript from the trial, nor in Justice Robert Wright’s jury charge, "remotely supports the appellants’ allegation of real or apprehended bias." During a hearing on Feb. 15, one of the couple’s main arguments was that the judge had unfairly prevented them from using additional recordings in court. Police had made the recordings inside the Shirley Street house in Halifax during the May 2004 standoff. The trial judge had not heard the recordings, but the Appeal Court panel did. On appeal, Mr. Finck asserted that on the intercepts, his elderly mother, Mona Finck, admitted to firing a gun. The Appeal Court ruled that a review of the requested wiretaps did not support this claim. "Generally, Mona Finck is not speaking directly on the intercepts and can only be heard in the background," Chief Justice Michael MacDonald wrote for the Appeal Court, Justices Nancy Bateman and Thomas Cromwell concurring. "In many places on the transcript, her words are marked unintelligible. Her comments, where unintelligible, are not clarified on the audiotapes. "At certain points on the intercepts, one can hear both appellants assuring Mona Finck that she will not go to jail. She says nothing, however, about firing the gun, nor do they refer to her doing so. "Mrs. Finck’s concern, if expressed, about going to jail could not lead to the inference that she fired the weapon," the Appeal Court wrote. Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen were found guilty of obstruction, abduction in contravention of a child custody order, possession of a shotgun dangerous to the public peace and possessing a shotgun without a licence. Ms. VandenElsen was also convicted of three other weapons offences, including using a shotgun to commit an indictable offence. The charges stemmed from an armed siege that began shortly after midnight on May 19, 2004. Police officers trying to enforce a child apprehension order were trying to break down the front door of Mr. Finck’s mother’s home when a shot was fired from inside. The couple maintain they were being persecuted by uncaring authorities who unjustly wanted to seize their infant daughter, and that Mr. Finck’s mother, who died of natural causes on the last day of the standoff, fired the shot. Mr. Finck, who was sentenced in 2005 to 4½ years in prison, was denied parole in 2006. He is set to be released this month. Ms. VandenElsen, who was sentenced to 3½ years, has been released from the Nova Institution for Women in Truro on a 60-day unescorted pass for personal development. The couple have lost permanent custody of their daughter. Outbursts from both Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen marked their trial, sometimes resulting in one or both being escorted from the courtroom. Notwithstanding the "inappropriate, insulting, by times outrageous conduct of the appellants," the trial judge exhibited extraordinary patience, the Appeal Court wrote. "In the face of these most trying circumstances, he worked scrupulously to maintain the integrity of the process and to assure a fair trial and succeeded in doing so." (sborden@herald.ca) Source: Halifax Herald Last updated at 6:14 AM on 02/08/07 Officials could have been killed: report RICHARD DOOLEY An internal police investigation obtained through a Freedom of Information request says that officers sent to a Shirley Street home in 2004 to serve a child protection order believed police or Children's Aid workers could have been killed or seriously injured. That lead to Halifax's longest armed standoff with police. Larry Finck and Carline Vandenelsen received prison sentences of 4 1/2 years and 3 1/2 years respectively for their role in the 67 hour standoff that developed after a shot was fired at police trying to open the barricaded door of their home at 6161 Shirley St. in May 2004 to apprehend their infant daughter. The standoff ended when Finck and Vandenelsen walked out of the house carrying the baby, a loaded shotgun and the dead body of Mona Finck, Larry Finck's mother. Mona Finck died of natural causes during the standoff. Months before the standoff drama began, police contacted Larry Finck about the whereabouts of Vandenelsen and his daughter. The interview was a follow-up to a Children's Aid Society request to locate Vandenelsen and the baby. Vandenelsen and the child had disappeared, but were spotted in Sudbury, Ont. Finck told police that Vandenelsen had the right to bear arms to protect her daughter and would "fight to the death". Finck also said he was concerned about the safety of any police officer who encounters her. On May 18, 2004, acting on a tip, police put Finck's Shirley Street home under surveillance and spotted Vandenelsen, Finck and a baby around 10:25 p.m. It took another hour for the Children's Aid Society to confirm the apprehension order. Around 12:30 a.m. May 19, 2004, three uniformed Halifax Regional Police officers knocked on Finck's front door. When nobody answered, police called by phone and left a voice message asking Finck to open the door. The shot was fired at a team of Emergency Response Team officers attempting to open the door with a battering ram. In what the report calls an intercepted conversation, Larry Finck tells Vandenelsen: "No, they're not going to grab no gun outta my arms ... I'll have to put a hole in them." rdooley@hfxnews.ca Source: Halifax Daily News Published: 2008-06-11 From standoff to solitude Finck gives first interview since getting out of jail after high-profile Halifax standoff By JENNIFER STEWART Court Reporter
Larry Finck says it's hard not knowing where his and wife Carline
VandenElsen's four-year-old daughter is. The girl was taken from
the couple after a high-profile standoff in Halifax in May 2004.
(TIM KROCHAK / Staff / File)
He shifted his weight impatiently from one foot to the other and set his heavy backpack down on the floor outside the courtroom. “Are we mad at anybody?” asked the man whose life has been turned upside down since police pounded on his Shirley Street door in Halifax four years ago. “We’re not angry — we’re disappointed.” With his straggly hair and beard and trademark green winter jacket and scuffed work boots, the 54-year-old is still recognizable. He’s missing a few front teeth, but otherwise Larry Finck is the same haggard, frustrated father fighting the same issues. It’s the first time Mr. Finck has spoken with the media since he got out of prison on statutory release on March 29, 2007, and he had a lot to say. He served two thirds of his 4½-year sentence on charges stemming from a tense standoff with police and Nova Scotia Children’s Aid officials in May 2004 that ended with his mother dead and his infant daughter in the care of the province. After an appearance at the Halifax Law Courts Wednesday morning, Mr. Finck angrily asked reporters why no one had contacted him in the past year to find out “what didn’t come out” at his 2005 trial. The Chronicle Herald did try to reach Mr. Finck and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, through friends last year but requests for an interview were denied. Mr. Finck admitted Wednesday that he’s not been easy to track down. He and his wife now live on a 70-hectare piece of property in Williamswood that Mr. Finck’s mother left him with instructions that it be used “for the protection of children.” The couple have no mailing address and no phone. They were living on welfare but Mr. Finck is now considering trapping animals to make a living. When asked about his life since his family was roughly thrust into the spotlight, Mr. Finck said they’re doing alright, all things considered. “We want to forget about this,” he said, adding that it’s not been easy. “If you lose a child to death, at least there’s closure,” Mr. Finck said. But, he added, to not know where their now four-year-old daughter is or how she’s doing has been incredibly hard. “She’s in God’s hands, that’s all I can say,” he said. Mr. Finck is convinced his family was “being hunted” by the government long before the Shirley Street ordeal. He said their problems in Nova Scotia arose from Ms. VandenElsen’s acquittal in Ontario on charges that she abducted her seven-year-old triplets in October 2000. The two boys and a girl are from another relationship. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the jury’s decision in August 2003 and ordered a new trial. Before the “chaos” in Halifax, Mr. Finck said, he, his mother and daughter, who cannot be named, had planned to move to Mexico where he had a $35-an-hour job lined up as a plumber. They planned to drop Ms. VandenElsen in Ontario for the new trial in hopes she would join them after “her second acquittal,” he said. But that never happened. In the early hours of May 19, 2004, Halifax Regional Police officers banged on the front door of 6161 Shirley St. to carry out an apprehension order on behalf of the Children’s Aid Society of Halifax. Mr. Finck barricaded the door and shots were fired from an upstairs window to scare off the police. Instead, officers evacuated a number of neighbouring residences and closed the street for the duration of the record-setting standoff. Sixty-seven hours later, the couple emerged from the house with their daughter and Mr. Finck’s elderly mother, who passed away while holed up in the two-storey house. A year after the incident, the couple were convicted of obstruction, abduction in violation of a child custody order and a number of weapons offences. Mr. Finck received 4½ years, while his wife was sentenced to 3½ years in prison. Many people, including Mr. Finck and his wife, were critical of how the situation was handled. Mr. Finck still believes those involved had other intentions. “If they were interested in a baby, they would have come in the daytime with a teddy bear and a blanket,” he said. Journalist Stephen Kimber and other supporters pushed for a public inquiry into the Shirley Street case, but to date that has not happened. “I think Mr. Kimber summed this up quite properly — what are they hiding?” Mr. Finck said. He said there’s only one thing to take away from the nightmare his family has endured: “Taking children away from their parents doesn’t work.” “They ruined (my daughter), destroyed her and nobody cares,” Mr. Finck said. “She’s not yours, but what happens if they come after your kids?” Mr. Finck said Ms. VandenElsen recently applied for a passport in hopes of eventually leaving Canada to start a new life. He said he’s waiting to see how his wife’s application is handled before he spends money on his own. “We’re looking at South America,” Mr. Finck said. “Family is everything there.” When asked if he and Ms. VandenElsen would ever consider having more children, Mr. Finck said it’s possible but not likely. “Who would want to bring a child into this corruption?” he said. (jstewart@herald.ca) Source: The Halifax Herald For more on this case:
|