LAURA CZEKAJ, Stratford Beacon-Herald

STRATFORD, Ont. (CP) - A stunned father trembled with disbelief Friday as a jury acquitted his ex-wife of fleeing Canada with their triplets in a bid to dodge a looming custody battle.

Carline Vandenelsen, charged with abducting the eight-year-old triplets last October, had pleaded not guilty by reason of necessity, saying she was acting in the best interests of her kids.

Delighted supporters and family members erupted in cheers and applause when they heard the verdict, then took turns embracing a relieved Vandenelsen as she wept with joy.

"I'm just elated that justice was served," she said of a verdict that had phones ringing madly at call-in radio and television shows across Ontario.

Vandenelsen said the jury vindicated her fears of the damage caused to children at the centre of custody disputes which often result in "mud-slinging" in family court.

"Power and politics and personal agendas don't belong there because children suffer," she said.

"We need to address real issues in a family court of law, and not necessarily the mud-slinging and who's the rightful parent - it's the rights of the children to be nurtured by both parents."

Craig Merkley, the children's father and for six years their primary custodian, was visibly shaken by the ruling, which came after nearly 12 hours of deliberation by the eight-man, four-woman jury.

"I think they just declared open season (for) anyone who wants to abduct their children," he said outside court.

Vandenelsen's international odyssey with Peter, Gray and Olivia Merkley began in October 2000, when the three kids were whisked away during a supervised day visit with their mother.

In evidence read to the jury, Peter Merkley described how he and his brother and sister were smuggled across borders in the trunk of a car.

More than three months later, police following Vandenelsen's trail caught up with her in Acapulco, Mexico. The children were reunited with their father in January.

On Thursday, Justice James Donnelly instructed the jurors to decide whether Vandenelsen took the children from their home because she honestly believed they were in emotional danger.

"The court must be satisfied that the taking of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of imminent harm," Donnelly said.

The necessity defence is rarely allowed because it must meet specific conditions, said Hamish Stewart, a criminal law professor at the University of Toronto.

"The Supreme Court has indicated that this is a pretty narrow defence and so it's unusual to see it raised and it's more unusual to see it succeed."

To acquit by reason of necessity, a reasonable person must conclude there was an emergency situation requiring immediate action from which there was no legal escape, Stewart said.

The benefits of the action must also outweigh the harm, he added.

"In a hypothetical example, the court says if you have to rush someone to the hospital and you break the speeding laws, that would be excused by necessity."

Call-in shows across southwestern Ontario came alive Friday with talk of the mid-morning verdict; informal polls suggested that a majority of callers disagreed with the jury's findings.

"I think it's an atrocity that she got off," said one male caller, appalled by the "absolutely disgusting" fact the children were smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border in the trunk.

"The effect it would have on the children would probably be long-lasting."

Other callers were sympathetic to Vandenelsen's plight. "I think she's done well," said a man in London, Ont. "She did what she had to do."

Hamish said the verdict likely won't spawn a rash of abductions by parents, simply because it's a difficult defence to mount. The Supreme Court disallowed the same tactic in the case of Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer, who was convicted of murder in the death of his severely disabled daughter, he noted.

As she took the stand in her own defence during an emotional trial, Vandenelsen tearfully described her mounting frustration and fear during a bitter custody dispute last year.

She was only able to see the children every other Saturday, and a court motion filed by Merkley, who was growing worried about what Vandenelsen was planning, would have cut off her access completely.

Police said Vandenelsen spent months preparing for the trip, renting her house, putting belongings in storage, disconnecting her phone and cashing in $60,000 worth of investments.

Defence lawyer Clay Powell told jurors they had to determine if Vandenelsen was acting in what she thought was the best interest of the kids.

"Desperate people do desperate things, and maybe the most desperate of all when your children are on the line."

Vandenelsen said she plans to keep pushing for greater access to the children at a hearing scheduled for December.