|
about Carline and the abduction of her children
Leona, now deceased, was a friend of Carline's who was tireless in her pursuit of
justice for Carline and her children. In her career as school teacher she taught english lit. like no one else. From her remembrances
of those times I believe her to have been brilliant at bringing the page alive. Along with Carline, literature, especially
Shakesperean plays were her passion. I think the story reads like a play.
-----------
Dear Friend,
I
would like to draw your attention to an event that shows many signs of tragedy and is likely to result in more tragic consequences
for the children involved.
The civil rights of these children have been severely compromised. They have not been allowed
a lawyer in spite of Justice Abbey's instructions early in the case. Their wish to live with their mother is well known but
Justice Campbell attributes it to their mother's brain washing. There is evidence of bad psychology being practiced, dangerous
drugs being prescribed, and movements being severely restricted. Complaints are attributed to the mother's paranoia. They
have not been allowed to contact grandparents, aunts, uncles, or other members of their biological family. Friends who have
tried to speak to them have been contacted by the police. All this is due to animosity caused by a failed marriage and an
ugly divorce. The courts have served only to aggravate the situation.
Please do these children the kindness to consider
their plight and to lend your support if at all possible. Your efforts would be greatly appreciated.
I believe that,
at this moment, it is most important that they have a lawyer and be allowed to make their own wishes known.
The media
have, from the beginning, presented a biased view. Though our local paper has rarely refused my letters to the editor, they
have not published any to do with the VandenElsen case.
The apprehension order against Mona-Clare VendenElsen Finck
adds another horror to the list of crimes against Carline VandenElsen Finck. Apparently, it was applied for by the Stratford
Children's Aid with no question about the care given to the child herself. Perhaps it will require further investigation.
Not too many years have passed since Pierre Elliot Trudeau promised us all a just society.
We seem to be straying
ever farther from that ideal.
We are constantly being made aware of people who have been erroneously convicted and
who have spent the most productive years of their lives in jail. That David Milgard, Stephen Truscott, James Driskill, and
others have reentered society apparently still sane is a tribute to the strength of the human spirit but, while one such case
can be considered a warning, the numbers we are confronted with, indicate that there are serious faults in our judicial system.
Just this week, the police chief of Saskatoon has apologized to the Klassen family for the pain they have suffered
as a result of having been wrongfully accused of child abuse. One would think the courts would exercise more care in the light
of all the errors that have been made, but more questionable cases keep showing up.
Eleven years ago, three children
were born to the same mother at the New Year, the first children of the year in Perth County. It was a cause for joy, celebration,
and hope for the future. For the next couple of years, one could witness a radiant mother pushing a triple carriage down Centre
Street. People would stop to comment at how happy and well cared for the children looked. Now all that is over. The mother
has been deprived of access to her children and her former husband keeps them virtual prisoners in the house which belongs
to the woman who was the next door neighbour when the couple first moved in. That woman later became his mistress, and is
now his wife.
There has been constant litigation which has set the pockets of Family Court lawyers jingling. There
has been much visiting of doctors, psychologists, the Children's Aid and counselors, and everyone looks pale, unhealthy and
unhappy. The mother has been accused of being unfit. The former husband was awarded custody of the children, and his stated
aim from the beginning has been to deprive her of any access to the children whatsoever. The knowledge that he and the courts
were unlikely to prove lenient drove her to run off to Mexico with the children, but she was brought back to Stratford to
face criminal charges. A jury trial found her not guilty by reason of necessity but an appeal by the Crown has again put her
in danger of imprisonment.
The children have just had their eleventh birthday. Though they have not been allowed a
lawyer or a chance to speak in court, they have made it clearly known that they wish to be with their mother. The judge, aware
of the children's wishes, has said they are the result of brain washing. Normally, they would be allowed to make their own
choice when they are twelve. However, if their mother loses her freedom, that could become irrelevant. The legal system is
pursuing her in a fashion that indicates that it has already made up its mind and is in no mood to let her go free.
What
will happen to three beautiful, unhappy children who refuse to believe their mother is unfit in spite of all the custodial
parent can do to convince them? The custodial parent's motive (he is not the biological parent) seems uncertain. The mother
has been willing to accept joint custody but his wish to keep her from seeing them at all costs takes precedence.
I
believe the jury verdict in the mother's criminal trial to have been the correct one, The jury was no doubt composed of ordinary
Perth County citizens with the same prejudices and the same humanity as the rest of us. They heard the evidence and arrived
at their verdict without problems. They knew a wrong had been committed . Their verdict was not the same as that of the hostile
media that reported it or of an equally hostile public influenced by ugly rumours that seemed to show up everywhere.
The
overturning ! of their decision by a Crown appeal is an affront to our right to be judged by our peers. I keep hearing that
the mother is the author of her own problems. The suggestion is that, if only she were nicer and more ladylike things would
work our for her. Must we then, if our children and all our possessions are taken from us, behave placidly, as if nothing
had happened? Must we be deemed crazy if we show our emotions? Does that rational behaviour open us to the accusation of insanity?
Having attended several sessions of the court in this case, I have come to feel that the law cannot be trusted, that
although I may be entitled to a jury of my peers, I may not be entitled to their decisions, that the idea of a free press
is an illusion, that the selling of books is merely a business transaction, that the family is far from safe as a social unit,
and that the democratic system that so many have given their lives to create and protect is in real danger. My feelings about
this country that I was born in and have always loved are receiving a shock treatment.
THE MOTHER
Youth fades,
love droops, the leaves of friendship fall,
A Mother's secret hope outlives them all.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Carline
VandenElsen is a strong, energetic woman who entered her marriage holding a good job as a secondary school teacher and assets
including a summer cottage that amounted to approximately $50,000. She had a strong desire for children. Her domestic skills
included good cooking, sewing, household repairs, and painting. She did the repairs on the cottage she was living in and,
when she and Merkley sold it to buy their house in Stratford, she power washed the outside woodwork of the new house and did
the painting. A tribute to her skills is that the paint still looks fresh and shows no signs of peeling. Her feelings about
family life remain traditional and conservative. When the children she desired failed to appear , she took measures to remedy
the situation . Eventually, she was approved for in vitro fertilization, meeting the requirements for bodily and psychological
health. She was impregnated with the sperm of an anonymous donor. Her pregnancy with triplets was difficult and ended with
an extended period in hospital. Such a pregnancy might foreshadow hormonal imbalance and post partum depression. However,
she was never clinically depressed. She took care of her children and those who met her pushing their carriage in the street
saw a happy, smiling woman and well cared for infants.
Some people had volunteered to help the new family. Though
Carline was thankful for their kindness, she often found they were in the way and needed direction. One neighbour seemed to
turn up only when Merkley was in the house.
When the children were two years old, the Children's Aid received a report
from a neighbour complaining that they were not being treated properly. A visit to the Merkley house revealed no difficulties.
Subsequent complaints, and these were numerous, found nothing worthy of note. The complaining neighbour was Jan Searle who
eventually became the mistress, and then the wife of Craig Merkley, Carline's husband.
Preoccupied with the children,
trusting Merkley, and still somewhat in love with him, she allowed him to go ahead with plans for separation, even visiting
his lawyer with him, but being lied to about his intentions. He told her he was not quite su! re of what was happening , that
he would cancel what was being done, and that he would ask the lawyer for a refund of his deposit. The lawyer's part in this
flim flam is highly questionable.
I must admit that given the circumstances, I would have done as Carline did and
run off with the children to another country but I would have tried to apply for asylum and for refugee status as is usually
done when women escape third world countries when their children are threatened.
Since that time and for over eight
years, while the children's relationship with their mother has been compromised, Merkley's lawyers and the judges alike have
berated VandenElsen for defending herself, hardly seeming to notice that none of the lawyers who have spoken in her defense
have not had much success . Merkley's lawyers have also made much of her persistence in trying to gain access to her children,
going so far as to say that she was "fixated" on them. (Is that not normal for a mother?) Moreover, they have accused her
of brainwashing them to want to stay with her rather than with Merkley (hard as the Merkley's have tried to prevent the children
from saying anything, a tape was made of an interview by the Children's Aid in which they clearly state their preferences).
I suppose all of us are brainwashed by our mothers. It seems to me that this nonsense clearly shows that sexism is still alive
and well in our judiciary.
The judges' decisions indicate that they believe that Carline suffers from serious psychological
problems despite expert opinion to the contrary. She was deemed psychologically sound enough for the in vitro fertilization,
and tests by experts found no problems aside from the difficulties caused by the procedures she suffered as a result of the
multiple birth. She has been accused of manic depression, although how she would find the energy to do all that she has done--defended
herself in court, moved her household four times and each time made a comfortable home for her children, and written a creditable
book on her experiences, staggers the imagination.
She has been accused of excessive zeal in her struggle for the
lives of her children, though this hardly exceeds the lengths Merkley has gone to in his relentless attempts to deny her a
relationship with them.
It is his persistence that has kept the case in the courts all these years at great expense
to the public purse. Though she has always been willing to accept joint custody, he will not relent. Along with a recent order
denying her all contact with him, there is a long standing injunction preventing her from saying anything of a derogatory
nature against him.
In the meantime, both through legal procedures and public statements, he harasses her by spreading
obviously false stories of her peccadillos. His case depends on proving that she is an unfit mother and of unsound mind and
much effort has been made, regardless of hard evidence, to do so.
When she was trying to save a tree in the front
yard of her home, the police arrived before an order stopping the destruction of the trees on Hibernia Street could be delivered
(did they know the order was coming?). A constable held her arm twisted behind her back nearly dislocating her shoulder while
the media got a picture of Carline in torture. Such a dramatic picture, of course, received prominent coverage and was repeated
at the New Year in a recap of the year's news. It was later waved about in the courtroom by Merkley's lawyer who shouted "See
that! That's what she's like!" Of course, tortured women look very much like crazy women.
This type of sadism is typical
of the kind of treatment Carline has been exposed to in her understandable efforts to protect and care for her children.
On
December 23rd, Carline gave birth to a baby daughter, Mona-Clare. Both mother and child are healthy and one hopes the little
girl will give joy to her parents who have both suffered from the loss of children through the courts. However, with Merkley's
assistance, the Children's Aid Society is moving to apprehend the baby.
The book that Carline wrote is a serious effort
to document the problems that she has faced in her efforts to acquire access to her children. Like her children, it has faced
problems associated with Merkley, etc. When it was published,Merkley's lawyer attempted to ban it with the unsupportable motive
that it denigrated Merkley. Before there was any ruling, book stores and chains were sent letters telling them that they faced
possible legal action if they stocked it. The judges ruling was that it broke no rules and that Carline had a right to tell
her story. Subsequently, some of the book stores that continued to stock it were visited by people who said something like,
"Ugh, how can you stock a book like that?" One such person was identified as a daughter of the step mother, Jan Searle.
Among
those who bought the book were people who faced similar problems and who got in touch with Carline to thank her and to tell
her their stories. She made several friendships in this way including one with Larry Finck. Larry has a daughter by a native
woman who died. The child was given to an uncle who, Larry believes, was abusing her. He abducted the child. He, too, had
a jury trial, but the jury was not allowed to consider all the evidence and he spent two years in jail.
Last Christmas,
when he returned to his home, it was burned to the ground under mysterious circumstances which have not been properly explained.
In the fire, he lost all the papers relating to his case and the tools which he needed for his trade as a master plumber.
The sympathy between him and Carline has resulted in what seems to be a good marriage. He is a kind man who has stood up for
Carline, speaking for her in court when she was not able. He has also formed a good relationship with the children, providing
them with bikes and skates and supporting their interest in activities. He has accepted the responsibility of the small family
but he too is hounded by the legal system in spite of having served his full term in jail and being legally correct.
That
the courts seem to have made up their minds before a trial takes place is evidenced by the fact that in her attempt to obtain
legal aid, it has been refused, apparently on the basis that she does not have much chance of winning.
THE CUSTODIAL
PARENT
It's a wise father that knows his own child.
William Shakespeare
Merchant of Venice II ii
Sin
has many tools,but a lie is the handle that fits them all.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
The Autocrat at the Breakfast Table
Like many other drugs, lying is highly addictive. The more one's lies succeed, the more satisfying and easier lying
becomes. Eventually the border between truth and lies becomes blurred, and one can no longer distinguish between the two.
The truth seems to evade Craig Merkley. His inaccuracies are often quite obvious and too numerous to detail. He has,
however, been treated very kindly in this case and has rarely been called upon to testify. When he does speak in court, he
is awkward and stumbling and lacks coherence.
VandenElsen was not told that he intended to gain power and control
of the children but found out accidentally when she discovered court documents in the car. Confronted, Merkley said they didn't
mean anything. This was the beginning of a chain of deception which resulted for VandenElsen in the loss of her children,
her property, her money and many of her valued personal belongings. At the beginning, while he still was aiming to assert
his control,Merkley tried to be reassuring. Before long, his motives became too obvious and he reverted to his real character.
While the children were still infants, a next door neighbour came in occasionally to help, almost always when Merkley
was at home. When their relationship became a romantic one is not clear, though Merkley had been spending a lot of time away
from home before the children were born, did not visit VandenElsen on a regular basis during the two months she spent in the
hospital, did not take paternity leave nor any of his five week holiday time to help her when the children came home and was
showing many signs of disinterest.
When the children were two, an anonymous neighbour made complaints to the Children's
Aid about Carline's treatment of the children. Eventually, it became evident who the neighbour was and that Merkley had known
her identity. The pattern of complaints to the Children's Aid and to the police has continued throughout the time of this
controversy often with considerable distortion of truth.
A sworn statement by Merkley read, "The fact is that the
triplets were conceived by in vitro fertilization notwithstanding the recommendation of counselors that she not undergo this
procedure due to emotional instability". The response from Dr. Newton of the fertility clinic was, "In our program all candidates
for IVF treatment are routinely asked to complete a series of psychological tests and to meet with the psychologist....There
was no specific recommendation that she (and Mr. Merkley) not proceed with IVF..... The term "emotional instability" in reference
to Ms. Merkley does not appear in my clinical notes, nor would I have used such an imprecise term..."
In a sworn statement
by Merkley used to obtain custody of the children, he stated, "The fact is that the Defendant has been suffering for some
years from a bipolar mood disorder and may be 'manic-depressive'". Dr. McHugh states,"Mrs. Merkley was clearly showing no
manic or hypomanic symptoms."
Had there, in fact, been indications of changed behaviour in VandenElsen, there were
some obvious questions that should have been asked. For instance in such a birth, there is a considerable chance of hormonal
imbalance and the possibility of post partum depression. Should that not have been investigated by the man who had sworn to
love and care for her in sickness and in health? Should there not have been an attempt to provide her with needed care before
aspersions of mental disability were tossed about in family court and through public rumour.
There were many efforts
to show that VandenElsen was not sane. One of the more ludicrous rumours that were spread around Stratford was that she had
twice appeared in court on charges of indecent exposure for doing her gardening in her front yard with no clothes on. That
would certainly have created a sensation on Centre Street. Needless to say, it did not happen.
Perhaps the cruelest
subterfuges Merkley has perpetrated relate to VandenElsen's access to her children. After the court had made its rulings and
schedules had been arranged and agreed to, he would often, at the last minute take them off on an outing or go on a holiday
with them. There has been much controversy over the children's biological family. When there was a family wedding VandenElsen
tried to make arrangements well in advance, but Merkley took them elsewhere and they could not attend. Does he get some sadistic
pleasure out of these tactics?
He has made the courts think of him as the victim. In fact, there seems to be a great
deal of transference of his problems to the fault of VandenElsen. Certainly, he is the one who seems to be incapacitated by
depression. His face is often white with anger and his mood is invariably dour. Early in the proceedings, an assessment by
the Huron Perth Centre cites, "Inconsistent and inappropriate parenting strategies by father."
Counseling, though,
lasted for a very short time as he did not feel he needed it. He did not follow through on any of the options suggested to
him to attempt to achieve reconciliation of marital tension in the hope of providing a better atmosphere for the children's
development and he continued to frustrate VandenElsen with last minute changes in plans regarding schooling, visitation, and
access, often contrary to court orders.
In the criminal trial Merkley tried to make it appear that he was the biological
father. If the word, fixation can be applied to VandenElsen, who is the only known biological parent of the children, what
can be said of his continued efforts to prevent her access to her children. She was always ready for joint custody, but he
would not hear of it. In fact, when a National magazine published an article extolling the merits of joint custody in divorce
cases, all the copies mysteriously disappeared from the shelves of a local magazine store. Had joint custody been acceptable
to Merkley, VandenElsen would not have fled with her children to Mexico and this whole sorry matter would not have occurred.
Merkley's treatment of VandenElsen is echoed in his treatment of the children. They have been told that their mother
does not love them, that she has deserted them, that she is a bad woman. Despite all his efforts to put these thoughts into
their minds, in effect to brainwash them, they persist in their love for her and their desire to be with her. When they were
returned from Mexico, Merkley informed the media that Olivia was afraid of her mother and clung to him. On the contrary, a
young woman who lived across the street was, at about the same time confronted by little Olivia running after her and crying
heart brokenly, "Mummy! Mummy!" Apparently, something about the woman reminded her of her mother.
Both Merkley and
Searle have made much of the psychological problems the children seem to have when they come back from being with their mother.
This is a normal manifestation of the grief they feel at being parted from a loved one and is generally termed separation
anxiety. Psychiarist, Dr. Yaroshevsky, met met with Merkley and his wife , but insisted he would have to meet with the children
to do a proper assessment. No further meetings were scheduled.
Last summer the children told Merkley they wanted to
live with their mother. Like VandenElsen, they had too much trust in him. He told them they would be able to stay with her
when school started. No such thing happened . This led to the incident when they ran away from school to their mother's house,
and to the hearing where she was unilaterally deprived of all access to them. This was, by the way, not the first time the
children had run away to their mother's. It was, however, the last time they saw her within just days of expressing their
wishes and views to the Children's Aid.
What is the motivation behind all this duplicity? I did think when I started
looking into this case that Merkley would have married for love, but my feelings have changed. Merkley, along with custody
of the children, received exclusive possession of the family home and cottage and monthly child support. He eventually forced
VandenElsen to sell the house she was living in to pay his legal bills, and he refused to let her have her furniture, the
journal she had kept of the children's infancy, and personal things including underwear.
VandenElsen had brought into
the marriage considerable assets for such a young woman to have acquired. Could that have been the attraction? Merkley had
had two fairly long term relationships with women before he met VandenElsen. Neither of them produced offspring, so he may
have had some suspicion of his infertility. He did not discuss t! his with VandenElsen who had a very strong desire for children.
Would it not have been normal for him to do so under the circumstances? Why did he marry VandenElsen?
As a Christmas
gift to VandenElsen this year, Merkley has presented her with another legal document for costs amounting to approximately
$13,000. The lack of shame in his continued demands raises questions as to his mental health.
These questions only
become more significant when one reads legal documents dated December 20, 1995 and October 7,1996 that present Carline as
a noisy, thoughtless, careless person with no feeling for her children and little concern for their safety. Considering in
what ugly terms this document describes their relationship with her, it must be considered little short of miraculous that,
in spite of all the Merkley's have done to explain to the children what a bad mother she is, they still love her and want
to be with her.
One of his claims is that she punched in the drywall over the light switch in a fit of anger while
he was out of the house. Strangely, he was the one who visited the doctor with a hand injury.
These documents echo
the one sworn to by Searle, also on October 7, 1996. It is likely that they were prepared together. In his statements, Merkley
continually brings up the subject of Carline's supposed boyfriends. What is one to make of that? Is this another case of transference
of his guilt to Carline?
Merkley portrays himself as victim in his affidavit of October 7, 1996. "I have been the
victim of severe emotional, mental and in some cases, physical abuse, from my wife for many years." He describes her as "putting
me in physical danger through her inability to control her anger." This seems to be another case of transference. Although,
Carline has controlled her emotions in the many cases where verdicts went against her, Merkley presented a very disturbed
and angry face on the one occasion when the jury found her not guilty. Merkley was never, as he pretends, involved around
the clock with feedings and care. There was always someone else, generally Alice Schofield, who took care of them when she
was away. On the one occasion when Carline left him alone with Peter for a few minutes, the child fell off a table, injured
his head, and had to be taken to the hospital. A social worker tried to a! rrange a meeting to discuss the problem with Carline
and Merkley before Peter's discharge but Merkley did not appear.
Merkley also refused to attend courses in anger management.
Even when one has stopped loving, there usually remains some warmth in the memory that can be stirred by a piece of music,
a particular view, or a favourite food. This phenomenon has always been evident in VandenElsen, but Merkley is relentless.
He has not had a kind word for his ex wife in all the years they have been parted. His pursuit of the power to deny her access
to her children and to achieve control of her worldly assets has been a terrible vendetta that can end only in disaster for
all involved, and most particularly for the children. If he had any love for them, as he claims, he could not treat their
mother so shabbily.
He has, again and again, made promises about access if Carline would only give in to demands concerning
money or property. Would he be prepared to give her total access for a sufficient sum?
It goes on and on--the number
of times the police have been called for trivial purposes-- to come to VandenElsen's house, because a school mate was visiting
there with the children; to come to the school because Carline had access to the children and would be going there to pick
them up; to speak to me because I had dared to speak to the children; to speak to me because I had stepped onto their lawn;
to speak to Ann Kelly because she had spoken to the children; and so on and so on. Then, of course, there have been a score
of calls to the Children's Aid. None of the responses have discovered problems that needed attention. The Merkley's have so
many fears, in spite of having achieved everything they have asked for from the law, one must ask what it is they have to
hide. With so much deception involved, it is small wonder that the average lawyer seems to get confused and the average judge
cannot be bothe! red to look at all the material.
There is little question that many holes can be found in Merkley's
sworn statements to obtain custody of the children and family assets. All of this is heartbreakingly cruel for the mother
and for the children.
THE STEP MOTHER
"To spread suspicion, to invent calumnies, to propagate scandal, requires
neither labour nor courage. It is easy for the author of a lie, however malignant, to escape detection, and infamy needs very
little industry to assist its circulation." Samuel Johnson, The Rambler, No 83
In her affidavit of October 20, 1997,
Jan Searle describes emotional patterns attributed to the children of Carline VandenElsen in the spring of 1996:
Peter
was very regressive; he was very babyish and lost control immediately; he was very distant; he hurt himself a lot; he would
throw himself from anywhere, including from a chair and from the piano bench, face first upon the floor; he bashed his head;
he pulled his hair; he rarely made eye contact and closed his eyes when he didn't want to hear something; he would bite and
scratch himself; he would urinate all over; he would exhibit inappropriate body behaviour; he would hurt himself simultaneous
to whatever he was reacting to and would not look at you while doing it; he poked Gray's eye with a pencil.
Gray also
exhibited disturbing behaviour patterns: He was aggressive; he was violent; he was defiant; he would hurt himself; he would
scratch, bite and hit others; he would look you right in the eye and defy or threaten you; he would threaten to break things;
he would use very violent language, including threatening to cut, stab and kill others; he threatened to throw sand into someone's
eyes until they would cry; and he crammed a granola bar down his throat until he choked, when he was upset about something.
Olivia's behaviour, as described, was no less ominous: She would hurt herself quite viciously if she was not getting
enough attention, was reprimanded or at times, for no apparent reason; she would scratch and bite herself and then come and
show me; she would look you right in the eye and hurt herself and smile; she would stifle crying; she would play with the
doll house and would play the mother of the family,who would kick, hit, scream, fight and pick up furniture and throw it.
When asked to stop, Olivia stated "It's not me, it's the Mommy".
The affidavit continues for eighteen pages, most
of which find further faults with the behaviour of the children and then the alleged irrational behaviour of the mother as
described to her by the children. It ends with a profession of Searle's love for them. What is most noticeable about the above
harangue and about Jan Searle's statements, in general about the children, is that she cannot find any redeeming qualities
about them at all. This is in keeping with the children's statements that she hated them in the videotape interview given
by the Children's Aid in September, 2003. Their stated desire at that time was to be with their mother, a desire which the
judge attributed to their mother's brainwashing, as he awarded exclusive custody to Merkley and no access to VandenElsen in
the hearing of October 23, 24, 2003.
It was in January, 1996 that Merkley was given custody of the three children,
just after the purchase of the country cottage which Merkley had demanded be deeded in his name only and while he was still
telling VandenElsen that his lawyer must have misunderstood his instructions. She was still taking care of her children and
they had just been wrested from her at the time Searle tells us the above actions occurred. Searle attributes all this negative
behaviour to the bad influence of their mother, but the fact that it happened when they had just left her care would more
likely indicate their strong sense of loss, going from someone who loves them to someone who finds fault with everything they
do.
My dogs suffer similarly when I board them to go on holiday. They will not eat for as much as two days, they will
suffer from indigestion, they will lose continence, and they will behave uncharacteristically. The vet calls it separation,
anxiety.
The children often visited me when they were staying with their mother. They walked my dog, played in the
garden, and came in for cake and cookies. They have always been polite, helpful, and cooperative. I am always happy to see
them and cannot imagine them acting as Searle describes.
Searle first started complaining to the Children's Aid when
the children were only two years old. Since then, there have been numerous complaints all of which would have had no response
had they been against other mothers in Stratford. There have also been numerous complaints to the police. From the triviality
of the greatest number of the complaints, it seems that the most likely motive is personal animosity.
That the children's
psychological health became a problem only when Carline's access was reduced is well attested by neighbours and previous care
givers.
AS I WRITE THIS A CANADA WIDE ALERT HAS BEEN PUT OUT BY THE CHILDREN'S AID OF STRATFORD, NOT FOR THE MOTHER,
CARLINE VANDENELSEN FINCK, NOR FOR THE FATHER, LARRY FINCK, BUT FOR TWO WEEK OLD MONA CLAIRE VANDENELSEN FINCK.
After
Craig acquired custody of the children, Searle became their full time baby sitter. Craig reported paying $950. per month in
baby sitting expenses. Though Searle attested that she spent more time with the children than either of their parents, the
responsibility for their emotional problems was attributed entirely to VandenElsen. Although Olivia had been continent for
some time when Searle took over her care, she began to wet her pants and developped a diaper rash. The Children's Aid was
called and correctly diagnosed the situation, though Jan insisted it was a mark of VandenElsen's abuse.
Searle is
on her third marriage and has had a daughter by each of her two previous husbands. Indeed, she was still living with her common
law husband when Merkley and VandenElsen moved in next door. There seems to have been very little break between the two relationships.
Her second husband and his daughter hardly ev! er see each other. Though I am not sure what his arrangements for access are,
I believe there are court documents which may show a similarity to what was provided for VandenElsen.
The daughters
evidently are helpful to Searle with the triplets. There was a great deal of difficulty involved for VandenElsen when it came
to reaching the children by phone. The times and the length of conversations allotted by court order, kept changing. Finally,
when VandenElsen did get through on the phone, the conversation would be continually interrupted, by one or the other of the
girls, sometimes Merkley or Searle would hang up. The whole thing became an ordeal in which VandenElsen found herself expressing
her frustration out loud. What she did not know was that her phone calls were being taped by the girls. The tapes, badly edited
by the older girl and with poor sound quality, were presented in court, accepted as evidence, and used to prove her unfitness.
In the summer of 2001, VandenElsen noted that Gray's face was colourless and that he seemed unusually lethargic, he
had circles under his eyes, and his speech was muted and blurred. When she finally managed to interview Dr. Marshall she found
that the doctor had administered Risperdone six months before. Dr. Marshall told her, that she had made her opinion based
on information received from Craig, Jan, and the media.
What VandenElsen found out about Risperdone after a little
research was that it is "an antipsychotic drug classified as a Benzisoxazole derivative. Used in the treatment of disorganized
or psychotic thinking...false perceptions, Tourette's syndrome, behavioural problems in persons with mental retardation. May
cause NEROLEPTIC, MALIGNANT SYNDROME ..a drug induced disorder, life threatening. If under 18 years of age, DO NOT USE!" It
seems that, after all, the children cannot flourish withou! t their mother. Searle's daughters told the triplets that their
mother had abandoned them to try to get them to stop thinking about her. They have also taken part in spreading nasty rumours
about VandenElsen throughout Stratford. Searle may not, after all, be in the best position to cast aspersions on how other
people bring up their children. If she indeed had " grave concerns about the emotional well being" of the triplets, she should
have left them with their mother.
A characteristic event occurred when VandenElsen was minding the Salvation Army
Kettle outside of Sobey's in accordance with a court order. The floutist and her older daughter flaunted themselves in front
of her, reappearing a number of times, making faces and rude gestures.
Surely, if someone were out to prove us crazy,
there are times when each and everyone of us would fail the test.
TWO ATTORNEYS CAN LIVE IN A TOWN WHERE ONE CANNOT.
V.S.
Lean, Collectanea
The slurs against lawyers start in the Bible and never let up. There is good evidence that divorce
cases which do not reach the hands of the lawyers are almost always more amicable.
There cannot in a real sense be
a complete divorce while there are children in the picture. Regardless of the courts, the parents remain related through the
children for all time. For this reason, joint custody has, more and more, been highly recommended as a method for protecting
the happiness and care of the children.
All that has happened between Merkley and VandenElsen is the result of a divorce
case gone terribly wrong and there is no question that Merkley's lawyers have some fault in the matter. In the first place,
matters relating to legal procedures were kept from her knowledge until they were all but complete this, in spite of the fact
that she had had a seemingly civilized visit with Craig and his lawyer while she was trying to find out what was happening.
Procedures had already been started, statements had been made, actions were going ahead and the defendant, sitting in the
lawyer's office was told that the lawyer could not act for both parties.
To a woman with three small children, worried
about what would happen to her and her children, this negligent attitude was cruel and inhumane. Merkley's excessive demands
were treated as normal and, in fact may even have been suggested to him by his lawyer. No effort was made to try to mitigate
them. All depended on proving VandenElsen was an unfit mother, and mentally unsound. Did the lawyers actually believe this
was true or did they convince themselves so they would win the case? VandenElsen was deprived of her family, her home, her
job, whatever assets she had and her reputation as a sober, intelligent woman. Was that not excessive considering that her
crime was probably that she outweighed Merkley as a worker, as an earner, and as a fertile human being. How much of Merkley's
persistence related to his poor image of himself as a man, unable to earn as much as his wife, unable to father children,
without the energy to take his proper place in the family as provider and caregiver.
I have watched two of Merkley's
lawyers, Mr. Lemon and Mr. Mamo in action in the Stratford Court House. Both have seemed fixated on VandenElsen's mental health,
describing a character I have never known though my acquaintances have been many and varied. It was Mr. Lemon who held up
the famous picture of VandenElsen being tortured and claimed that it was a true picture of her character. Their arguments
have been long, repetitive and not notably logical. They presented no credible hard evidence. They might have had difficulty
in distinguishing themselves in one of my grade ten English classes. It is possible that they were aware of the flimsiness
of their arguments as both spoke in low, barely audible voices that required me to strain my ears to hear them.
Both
drew attention to the fact that VandenElsen was not represented by a professional. They did not convince me that one of them
would have represented her better.
JUDGING THE JUDGES
JUDGE NOT THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED Matthew 7:1
One's
first attendance at a session of the court is disappointing in the same way as one's first visit to the House of Commons or
to the Legislature. One cannot help being disappointed at the level of discourse, in particular at the amount of time spent
on character assassination. One should remember, however, that because of the nature of the case, things would fall apart
if the lawyers could not prove that VandenElsen was an unfit mother and guilty of psychological problems. Pretty well all
the efforts of Merkley's lawyers went into trying to prove that she was unbalanced. Thus we heard that she was opinionated,
manipulative, obsessed with her children, looked crazy when her arm was twisted behind her back, conducted her own defence,
and married Larry Finck.
Strangely enough little evidence was given, no psychological reports by experts, no proof
that she had harmed her children, and no reason for thinking that she was a danger to anyone. Moreover, in the proceedings
that I have attended, no judge has ever seemed to want evidence.
The lawyers make numerous objections which are generally
accepted while what seem to be virtually the same objections from the defendants are generally overruled.
The lawyers
seem to be able to present documents while, when the same documents were applied for by the defendants, they did not seem
to exist, were lost, or were for other reasons unavailable. The judges are condescending to VandenElsen. She is, after all,
a woman and they must behave like gentlemen. However, their summations show their gentlemanly attitudes are somewhat hypocritical.
One of the judges let us know that he has been made wise by his many years of experience. My years of experience have
let me know that when one achieves that attitude, it is probably time to retire as one is no longer listening.
I am
well aware that under the Conservative government in Ontario, funds for the courts were in short supply and people were dismissed
to save money. Case loads built up and today our courts are loaded with more cases than they can handle, As a result, many
cases are dismissed . It also seems likely that short cuts are taken in the hearing of evidence. I get a strong feeling when
I enter a courtroom that, as one of the short cuts, the case has already been decided.
I am not allowed to speak in
court, but the words I try to swallow, escape in grunts, groans, coughs, and other audible manifestations. Will the judge
accuse me of contempt of court? I can only reply, "Guilty as charged, Your Worship." His title puts him in the place of a
deity. Can he really be that worthy? Solomon offered to split the child in half. That suggests joint custody. But that's where
the whole thing started. If Merkley had been willing to have joint custody, the lawyers would be a lot poorer. And then, of
course, it is unlikely that Merkley would have acquired the houses, most of the family assets and child care payments.
Early
in September, 2003, the children left school and, instead of going to the Merkley house, went to their mother's home. She
immediately called the Children's Aid, the police, the Merkley home (though they did not answer their phone) and any! one
else she thought should be advised. She did, however, allow them to stay overnight. In the morning, she received two court
orders, the first advising her to return the children to their school by eleven a.m. and the second advising her to appear
in court at two p.m. Larry Finck returned the children to their school in good time. However, at their lunch break, they left
the school yard and went to their mother's house again. When I heard of the problem, I went to the house immediately and was
there when Peter arrived, followed by a police officer, and then Larry, Gray and Olivia. The policeman left when he saw that
there was no need for his presence since all was quiet .
The evening before, a representative of the Children's Aid
had arrived and taken an impromptu tape of the children talking about their lives and their problems. I prepared an affidavit
and hoped that I would be able to speak in court. The children were very excited. They had never had a lawyer and had not
been given the opportunity to speak for themselves. They were hoping to have that opportunity.
VandenElsen and Finck
had also prepared affidavits. Judge Astin said he was not hearing evidence. After a short session, he told Merkley that he
could take the children. The children seemed reluctant to go with him. He pulled Olivia by the arm, she gave in, and the boys
followed . In his summation, he withdrew access from VandenElsen, setting a date for a trial. Mother and children have not
seen each other since.
When the trial date arrived, Merkley's lawyer immediately asked for a postponement which Judge
Leech granted and a new trial date was set for October 23rd, 24th. As this case has already been going for eight years, at
considerable public expense, I am mystified as to why this session was held at all. The preparation is torment for those involved.
If they are driven crazy, will that prove the plaintiff's case?
Judge Campbell's animosity to VandenElsen and Finck
is evident in every word of his summation. They can do no right as the Merkley's can do no wrong. I missed the first day of
the October 23, 24 trial. On the second day, it was clear to me that VandenElsen was feeling far from well. Considering, that
the due date for her expected child was only six weeks away, I took it upon myself to drive her home at the noon break. There
were many reasons for doing so, not the least being that it seemed possible that she would have her child on the courtroom
floor.
On my return, I apologized to the judge and explained what I had done. He seemed to take it in reasonable fashion.
However, VandenElsen was worried enough about the outcome of what she had done to find someone else to bring her back to the
court. The judge said very kindly that he was well aware of the state she was in and that I had already explained the situation
to him. His interpretation of the situation in his summation, however, is not so kind. He talks of "tactics and stratagems
of Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen, and says that, "throughout the two days, Ms. VandenElsen flitted in and out of the courtroom.....using
her advanced state of pregnancy (at one point) to explain why she had not returned to the court on the afternoon of the second
day." She had, of course, returned and not all that late either.
All interpretation is to some extent misinterpretation,
and one must show some humility when one's interpretations affect the lives and happiness of other people. Judge Campbell
might be seeing this case as being one of cowboys and Indians, with the Merkley's as cowboys and the Fincks as Indians. One
pair can do no wrong and the other no right. When one is fighting evil, one must destroy the enemy entirely. Thus, all access
is denied to the mother, Merkley' s application for costs is granted entirely, oral motions by Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen
are all dismissed, with no costs. Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen are prevented from any further public forum in this matter.
Somehow, I do not see central casting putting Mr. Campbell in the role of gentlemanly hero for his work in this case.
The intemperate language of his summation would work against him.
THE CHILDREN
"Tis an old saw. Children and
fools speak true."
John Lyly, Edimion
While the parents fight their own battles, the children suffer and are largely
omitted from the case. Theirs is, however, the more serious problem. When A. Alvarez wrote his book on SUICIDE, he attempted
to find a factor which was common in suicides. The nearest he could come was that most of the suicides he investigated had
lost a parent at an early age. What can we hope for the VandenElsen children who, with all the people fighting over them have
only one known biological parent whom they love and whom, in spite of their wishes, they are not allowed to see. Gray, who
is highly sensitive, has already shown unwholesome tendencies and, instead of being treated with the love he deserves, has
been prescribed dangerous drugs. Is it any wonder that his mother distrusts the psychologists and psychiatrists who have seen
him and who were loathe to provide her with necessary information.
When I first read the newspaper reports of this
case, they did not make sense to me, so I tried to find out more about it. I became friendly with Ms. VandenElsen and her
children and the more I found out, the more I felt they had been treated unfairly. In the autumn of 2002, I took them on an
outing to see My Fair Lady at the Festival Theatre.
VandenElsen, as is usual with her, paid for her own ticket. I
also brought some other friends with their twelve year old daughter. This was the first time the children had been to the
Festival Theatre. They were shy and awkward and seemed unaccustomed to such events. They could not come with us for treats
later as their mother had to return them to the Merkley's. They did, however, enjoy themselves and remembered the event with
pleasure. A year later, after seeing their mother regularly for only two days every two weeks , they seemed quite comfortable
with me! and came to visit me on their own when they were staying with her. I found them to be pleasant company, polite, helpful,
and easy to be with. I found in them none of the ugly manifestations described by their stepmother. They have always seemed
to me to be exceptionally bright and thoughtful children.
Contrary to what we have been given to believe through the
courts and the media, their mother has always encouraged them to have respect for their own minds and to use them.
She
was upset, when she saw a display of children's work at the school, to find that, though her children had won prizes, the
work they displayed had been done by someone else in the Merkley family. It is a difficult job to build respect for the truth
when that respect is not held by other family members.
Nevertheless, I have never heard her denigrate Merkley in front
of her children or indeed at any other time. Nor have I heard the children say anything against him. My own opinion of him
has not been a good one from the beginning and she has sometimes told me I was wrong when I have said what I thought.
The
children live an isolated life in the Merkley house. Toys received from their mother are disposed of, pictures they had of
her were taken from them and destroyed. They are not allowed to invite their friends to the house and, when they have invited
friends while they were staying with their mother, their stepmother has phoned the parents to tell them they were unwise to
allow their children such visits. Once, the police appeared at the door to bring an end to such a dangerous situation.
The
children have often been sent to the attic to be out of the way. It is cold in winter and hot in summer. Lately, perhaps due
to my own complaint to the Children's Aid just after Christmas, it seems they are now allowed to spend more time in their
rooms.
They are not allowed to speak to me, or to any other of VandenElsen's friends. The police have been called
on these suspicious occasions. With the permission of the owner of a property across the street, some friends and I put up
a sign announcing the birth of their sister. Within a few hours, it disappeared but was found again tossed into the backyard.
The children had been very excited by the possibility of a sibling and it was cruel to deny them that knowledge. It seems
that the only way to maintain some control of them at this point is not to let them know what is dearest to their hearts.
The baby was born on December 23. Snow fell on Christmas Eve. There was no sight of the children and no tracks of
their boots in the snow till it had all melted away four days later.
The video tape which was taken of the children
shows them sitting around the table in their mother's dining room. Their attitudes are relaxed and they answer the questions
easily and without hesitation. Occasionally, they consult with each other. What they say is that they wish to be with their
mother, that they are really excited about the expected arrival of the baby, that they get along with Merkley but that Jan
hates them.They point to the room the baby is expected to occupy, seeming to take pleasure in everything that goes on in the
house and the parts they hope to play in it. Their joy in being there is obvious.
From the problems of the children
described by Searle with their lurid stories of their mother's behaviour to the relaxed triplets sitting around her table
no doubt took a lot of brainwashing. If that is so, I must profess myself in favour of the brainwashing. Whatever this videotape
does not achieve, it must put to an end the idea that the children are anything like Searle's descriptions.
Though
everyone seems to want to tell us exactly what the children are like, I believe that they are quite capable of speaking for
themselves and that the most important thing that can be done for them is to give them that opportunity.
In this respect,
Justice Abbey's order, made so very long ago, that they be allowed their own lawyer is crucial.
I also believe it
is important, as soon as possible, to remove them from the care and influence of a woman they believe hates them as it seems
unlikely they will feel free to talk openly while that influence continues.
Today, January 14, 2004, the Children's
Aid Society of Stratford obtained in a Halifax court room an order for the apprehension of three week old Mona-Clare VandenElsen
Finck continuing on a course, that if it were public would receive horrified reactions from Canadians if it were occurring
in a third world country noted for its lack of humanity. The Children's Aid Society is indeed piling up a record which reminds
us of Dr. Barnardo. He attempted to do good by taking poor children of England from their parents and sending them to a reportedly
wonderful life with strangers in Canada. For so many of them who never saw their birth parents again and grew up with no knowledge
of their origins it proved to be a nightmare which is still remembered with grief and horror.
It seems that our institutions
retain the arrogance that tells them that education provides human understanding as well as specific knowledge and techniques.
True learning is always hard won and the expense involved is much more than money.
Ray Klassen, who was wrongfully
accused of child molestion appeared on Thecurrent on CBC radio yesterday. The accusation and subsequent events just about
wrecked his life. Like VandenElsen, he had difficulty finding suitable counsel and took over his own case despite having only
a grade school education. He neglected his health and suffered serious consequences, he had a nervous breakdown (but was mercifully
spared being called crazy for sticking to his case). This week he received an apology from the chief of police of Saskatoon
after winning a case of malicious prosecution. However, the courts in their arrogance are appealing the verdict.
"Plus
ça change…" Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Perhaps it will require another investigation.
|
