File Carline VandenElsen and her then-husband Craig Merkley first made the news when their triplets were born on New Year's Day 1993.

Long road to lost children

VandenElsen: from mother to crusader

By Patricia Brooks Arenburg - Staff Reporter

When Carline VandenElsen gave birth in 1993 to Canada's first New Year's triplets, she likely had no idea she'd be on the front page almost eight years later accused of kidnapping them.

Or that she'd later emerge from Halifax's longest police standoff with a baby strapped to her chest, carrying a stretcher bearing her mother-in-law's body.

"It was like watching someone you didn't know," says her sister, Maureen Davidson.

Ms. Davidson recalls her terrified family watching events unfold on television in their native Ontario.

"It just broke my heart," she says.

Ms. VandenElsen's road from celebrated mother to anti-establishment icon was long. And an all-out war over custody and access to the triplets - Peter, Gray and Olivia - paved the way, her supporters say.

Ms. VandenElsen is a bright woman whom her second ex-husband, Craig Merkley, and the court system have labelled as an unstable, bad mother, Ms. Davidson says.

A decade ago, Ms. VandenElsen was a high school drafting teacher in Stratford, Ont., with a love for music, and she also volunteered with the Stratford Multiple Birth Association. Her sister and friends interviewed in Stratford describe her as caring and warm - a supermom.

"She was an average, loving, hard-working, supportive person, and this is what the family court system dwindled her down to," Ms. Davidson says.

Sgt. John Wilson, the Stratford police officer who tracked Ms. VandenElsen when she allegedly fled first to Nova Scotia and then to Mexico with her triplets in October 2000, described her as "a bit of an eccentric" and an environmentalist who rode her bike everywhere in the small theatre city.

Stratford, on the banks of the Avon River, is known for its graceful swans and summer theatre festival.

The city, surrounded by farms but only a 90-minute drive west of Toronto, pairs trendy restaurants and artsy shops with small-town charm.

On this June day, cheers emanate from a midday rugby match and flower baskets hang at the entrance to the brick Stratford jail.

In the favoured city for Hogtown retirees, Ms. VandenElsen wasn't all that different.

"Nothing really too much of an extreme until the tree-hugging thing and she just went overboard on that one," Sgt. Wilson says.

She was arrested June 13, 2000, for breaching the peace after she climbed a tree in front of her Hibernia Street house to prevent city crews from cutting it and others on the street.

Aside from that, Sgt. Wilson says, he didn't know much about her until she was accused of abducting her children on Oct. 14, 2000. Since then, he has been the go-to guy in his hometown for all calls related to her and the Merkleys.

"When I look over the last five years or so, I think if we could've seen where she is now back then, we would've pushed every panic button we could on that Saturday prior (to the abduction)," he says.

Years of legal wrangling began just before Christmas 1995 when Mr. Merkley, Ms. VandenElsen's husband at the time, alleged that she was unstable, unfaithful, had abandoned the family and had bought marijuana from a student.

Ms. VandenElsen, who cannot be interviewed while on a hunger strike at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth, has denied these claims in court documents.

Mr. Merkley declined to be interviewed for this series and directed questions to his lawyer.

Three boxes of unsealed documents, videotapes and pictures at Ontario Superior Court in Stratford - one sealed box remains, contents unknown - offer a glimpse into their lives before and during the acrimonious court battle.

Ms. VandenElsen, the sixth of eight children born to Dutch immigrants, grew up on a tobacco farm in Scotland, Ont., and attended Catholic school. She went to university, worked for the Highways Department and later opened a maternity clothes shop in London, Ont., with her sister Frances. They closed the store in 1986 when Frances started a family.

It was 1987 when Ms. VandenElsen, already a divorcee, met Mr. Merkley.

She was working in a grocery store when a contract came up at the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Mr. Merkley was one of the interviewers. She got the job, and eventually, the man.

The pair were polar opposites, says a May 1998 assessment by Waterloo psychologist Dr. Robert Doering: he's quiet and reserved and she's loud, demanding and aggressive.

"She was attracted to him because he was quiet and reserved," the report states. Mr. Merkley felt "that he was seduced in a manipulative manner by her, stating 'I was bowled over by her.' "

They began living together in November 1987 and were married in London in October 1988. She was 26 and he was 32.

But according to Mr. Merkley, the marriage "went wrong from the beginning."

He claims Ms. VandenElsen was "enraged at him" after a minor tiff, he told the psychologist.

He told Dr. Doering that his wife felt that "all her problems would be solved if she became pregnant."

She, on the other hand, described Mr. Merkley as "aloof and rather indifferent to the subject of children."

After 18 months of unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant, they turned to the fertility clinic in London and both had surgery. She had an operation to clear her Fallopian tubes and he had a procedure to deal with low sperm motility.

Ultimately, they tried in vitro fertilization with donor sperm.

Dr. Chris Newton, a psychologist at University Hospital in London, first met the couple in April 1991. Ms. VandenElsen was angry, frustrated and sad, he wrote, while Mr. Merkley felt guilty and inadequate.

She later saw a therapist, court records show, for stress related to infertility and her work. She had earned her teacher's certificate and was teaching drafting, a traditionally male-taught subject.

Dr. Newton recommended that the first in vitro fertilization attempt be postponed until Ms. VandenElsen completed her teaching year. Mr. Merkley wanted to wait but his wife wanted to push on.

The couple settled down in Stratford, halfway between her job in Waterloo and his in London. They moved into a modest, two-storey red brick house with a sweeping yard on tree-lined Centre Street.

Ms. VandenElsen's physical health was continually an issue, and she was torn between the joys of pregnancy and fears of miscarriage.

She was on bedrest in a London hospital when the triplets arrived, prematurely, minutes into New Year's Day 1993.

The smiling couple and their miracle babies were on the front of the local papers and on television as Canada's first New Year's triplets.

They were later transferred to hospital in Stratford, and eventually mom and the two boys were able to go home. Little Olivia had to stay longer.

People were in and out of the family home with food and to help change and feed the babies.

Mr. Merkley returned to work, and he has said the couple agreed he'd save his vacation time for an extended summer break.

After one of the children caught a cold, Ms. VandenElsen would only allow one person in fof frequent visits - babysitter Alice Schofield. A religious, grandmotherly woman with long, greying hair, Ms. Schofield remains one of Ms. VandenElsen's staunchest supporters and is among those who regularly meet in Stratford to discuss her case.

When two of Ms. VandenElsen's sisters, Maureen and Theresa, visited on weekends, "I remember thinking, 'She's doing this all alone,' " Ms. Davidson says. "I don't know how she did it."

During 1993, Ms. VandenElsen's family doctor referred her to a psychiatrist, who wrote that she showed signs of postpartum depression. She needed more help with the children, he said, and he put her on antidepressants and expected to have more sessions with her.

Mr. Merkley told a jury in 2001 that he was having concerns about his wife in 1994 and 1995. She was having mood swings, he said, and was frequently angry and sad. He came home one day to find a hole punched in the wall and she told him the kids did it.

There were anonymous calls to the Children's Aid agency in Stratford complaining that Ms. VandenElsen yelled at the children, let them wander and allowed them to play in a car alone. At least one of the calls later turned out to be from Jan Searle, the next-door neighbour.

After a visit to British Columbia in 1994, Ms. VandenElsen thought about moving there to teach but decided against it.

She needed time alone and rented an apartment in London. As far as she was concerned, she later told a court, she was still married. Mr. Merkley said she'd left.

Ms. Schofield says Ms. VandenElsen often worried she wasn't seeing the children enough, even when she was with them almost every day.

"She loves those children," Ms. Schofield says.

Ms. VandenElsen wasn't expecting a judge's order granting interim custody of her children to her husband.

After Ms. VandenElsen got her own lawyer in the summer of 1996 to help finalize things, her custody was cut, she has testified.

She took the matter to court and was granted access on alternate weekdays and one weekend a month.

The roller-coaster continued. She moved to Toronto with her new boyfriend in August 1997 and toyed with moving to Costa Rica. The pair eventually moved into a house on Hibernia Street, and she began working as a bar manager and part-time supply teacher.

Ms. Searle eventually became the children's daytime caregiver. By the winter of 1997, she and Mr. Merkley had become an item.

Mr. Merkley and Ms. VandenElsen eventually divorced in January 1998 and he married Ms. Searle on Aug. 27, 2001.

Ms. VandenElsen still believes Ms. Searle was the driving force in Mr. Merkley's corner.

Mr. Merkley and Ms. Searle claimed that Ms. VandenElsen's erratic and manipulative behaviour caused the children extreme stress. One wet the bed, one became more aggressive and the other was withdrawn, they alleged.

They said Ms. VandenElsen's sometimes erratic behaviour, her discussions of court proceedings and her disparaging of Mr. Merkley, Ms. Searle and Ms. Searle's children exacerbated the triplets' problems.

Ms. VandenElsen attributed her children's difficulties to the lack of their mother's attention and the involvement of others such as Ms. Searle.

The triplets' psychiatrist, who interviewed both Ms. Searle and Mr. Merkley, recommended the mother not be allowed to see them. The psychiatrist later withdrew from their care due to Ms. VandenElsen's alleged harassment.

Ms. VandenElsen's access dropped to alternate weekends in November 1997, bounced back up to alternate weekdays and one weekend a month in December, and changed again later.

After a court-ordered psychological assessment of the parents, the triplets and Ms. Searle, Dr. Doering concluded that Ms. VandenElsen should have substantial access to the children.

The custody battle eventually became her full-time job, her friends say. She was frustrated by the system and by what she saw as inadequate legal representation. She filed at least one complaint against one of her lawyers, which was later dismissed, and lost her Hibernia Street home at a public auction to pay court costs.

Ms. Davidson, who attended some of the family court hearings, says no one ever looked at how Mr. Merkley got interim custody in the first place.

"It just seemed like the truth was never brought out, or it was past this or we won't reverse that," Ms. Davidson says.

The judges were more interested in keeping the status quo, she says.

As Ms. VandenElsen's frustration grew, so did her anger.

Both inside and outside the courtroom, Ms. VandenElsen can be pushy and downright rude - shouting, smirking or making a popping sound with her finger in her mouth at a Stratford judge.

Even her family and closest friends have had to shake their heads at some of her actions. They say she was driven to it, but Alfred Mamo, Mr. Merkley's lawyer, doesn't see it that way.

"It is completely erroneous to think that somehow this is a case of a - though quite unique - completely normal person who somehow has been made abnormal or has been sacrificed by society or by the justice system," he says. "Nothing could be further from the truth.

"The justice system has given Ms. VandenElsen every opportunity to be child-focused and to do the right thing, and every time she's chosen not to do that."

As for Sgt. Wilson, the woman he sees on the TV news is the woman he knows.

"I think you're getting a 100 per cent clear picture of what she's all about," he says.

"You just take a look at her courtroom antics. She uses the hundred-dollar words, which gives us a pretty good indication that she's educated, but she just flips at the drop of a hat - her unpredictability and what's she going to come up with next - I think you guys have a very good indication of what she's all about as far as her mental makeup goes."

Mr. Mamo appreciates that her supporters may not see it that way.

"People do have different personalities. And yes, there are times when I am sure when they were with their friends at a barbecue and having a jolly good time, they look very normal and they are normal," he said.

"But when it comes to being in a situation with child welfare authorities, with police, with the legal system, they act in a very different way."

At the 1999 trial over custody of the triplets, Mr. Merkley tried to show a different side of Ms. VandenElsen using transcripts of recorded snippets from 11 of her phone calls with the triplets from March 1998 to September 1999. In those, Ms. VandenElsen demeans Mr. Merkley, Ms. Searle and Ms. Searle's young daughter and complains about the custody arrangements.

Ms. VandenElsen told the judge that she was provoked, then felt bad and apologized to the children.

Ms. Schofield and her neighbour, Ann Kelly, both testified they'd never seen anything that caused them concern over Ms. VandenElsen's parenting skills.

(Ms. Kelly, a mother of twins who were friends of the triplets, recently followed a liquid diet for 21 days in support of Ms. VandenElsen's continuing hunger strike.)

Dr. Doering listened to four of the calls and called them emotional abuse of the triplets, who were five and six at the time.

Dr. Doering - reluctantly, the judge said - recommended the mother see the children only on special occasions.

The judge, like Dr. Doering, was concerned "as to whether the defendant really recognized the children's paramount need to be removed and sheltered from the hostile environment existing between herself and the plaintiff."

The judge ruled in March 2000 that it was in the best interests of the children for them to remain with Mr. Merkley and Ms. Searle.

But, the judge said in 2000, Ms. VandenElsen "has been and continues to be a highly stimulating parent."

"She has the potential of contributing positively and significantly to the lives of the children. She has an energy about her which, if channelled properly, can be an important contributor to the enrichment of the children's lives."

Ms. VandenElsen was granted access, the full extent of which was to be determined that fall.

But by October 2000, she had put that energy into something else - liquidating about $60,000 in RRSPs, renting her house and formulating a plan to secretly leave the country with the triplets.

Her friends and sister say she did it out of love and, in part, desperation.

When the children didn't come home from a weekend visit with their mother, Mr. Merkley called police, who didn't start actively investigating until two days later.

The mother and the three seven-year-olds stayed at a cottage in Queensland, outside Halifax, drove through the United States and ended up in Mexico, where they were found in January 2001. Ms. VandenElsen chronicled their journey in a book, America's Most Wanted Mother.

Mr. Merkley's lawyer points to her tales as proof of her attempts to manipulate the children, thereby causing them psychological harm.

"All you have to do is read her book to give you an instruction on the kind of life that she put the children through and her attitude when she was indoctrinating her children about being anti-authority and anti their father," Mr. Mamo says.

Ms. VandenElsen steadfastly maintains that she took her children because she feared they would be psychologically harmed by not having her in their lives.

An allegation that she had inappropriately disciplined the children in Mexico was investigated and no further action was taken.

She was granted two access visits all summer in 2001. She was upset at how little time she had with the children, and Mr. Merkley feared they would be taken from him again.

After a jury acquitted Ms. VandenElsen of abducting the triplets, her sister believes she was close to getting more access and possibly joint custody.

"I think she was doing very well until she met this person, who, unfortunately, had some problems of his own."

That person was Larry Finck, a former Halifax man who'd served time for abducting his daughter in 1999.

Ms. VandenElsen married Mr. Finck in April 2003 and they lived in a red brick bungalow in Stratford a short walk from the triplets' home.

"As soon as Larry came on the scene and he had a record, that was enough for Craig to go back to court and say the kids were in danger," Ms. Davidson says. "He's not an animal, he's not a thief, he's not a rapist.

There's no doubt in Mr. Mamo's mind that Mr. Finck's involvement turned up the heat.

"Ms. VandenElsen is quite capable of causing quite a few ripples in everybody's life on her own," Mr. Mamo says. "But certainly their meeting and the combination of the two of them causes more concern and causes more conflict."

Ms. VandenElsen had become known as the woman who took her children, and although she had her supporters, she had a hard time finding work. But she was overjoyed at being pregnant again and happy to share the news with the triplets, who were also excited.

By the time Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck left Stratford for Nova Scotia in late 2003, she faced a new trial and had lost access to her kids.

It's unlikely Ms. VandenElsen, now 43, will have another child.

Ms. Davidson doesn't believe in what her sister and Mr. Finck have done - their standoff with police - but does believe they are fighting for the right reasons.

"I just feel for them to have this awful chain of events happen."

In a recent letter to The Chronicle Herald, Ms. VandenElsen writes: "These days I wear leg shackles, I'm strip-searched and am transported in a cage, taken to a dark and dank cell in the basement of the courthouse because I can no longer endure the sight of the Children's Aid worker, the Children's Aid lawyer and the judge."

She talks about "whore lawyers," how the system "manoeuvres" to take her child and that she and her husband were targeted because they are activists.

"But if I were a dog, the public might be moved," she wrote. "For shame Canada, for shame the media hounds for not informing the public. God bless us all."

What was she thinking?

By Patricia Brooks Arenburg - Staff Reporter

After a jury acquitted Carline VandenElsen of abducting her triplets in 2001, the media and local residents had a field day.

A news director appeared on an Ontario television commentary program set in a boxing ring and practically spat out what many were thinking: "She's nuts!"

And that's why she lost her kids, he said.

"Is she crazy?" asks her sister, Maureen Davidson in a recent interview.

"I think there's quite a difference between crazy and desperate."

Ms. VandenElsen was a devoted mother who naively believed that her husband had agreed to a separate living arrangement with shared access to their triplets, her sister said.

But when he applied for custody in 1995, her then-husband Craig Merkley claimed that Ms. VandenElsen was bipolar. And he alleged that her illness contributed to her inability to parent.

"It shocked me that the courts would give full custody without saying, 'Give me proof,' " Ms. Davidson said.

She denies, as Ms. VandenElsen has in court documents, that her sister suffers from mental illness.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, bipolar disorder is a manic-depressive illness characterized by mood swings between opposite extremes. Mood shifts have been linked to changing levels of the chemical dopamine in parts of the brain, the association says.

Bipolar disorder "responds well to treatment once the illness has been diagnosed," a Canadian Mental Health Association website says.

In three boxes of court information reviewed in Stratford, Ont., by The Chronicle Herald, there is no evidence to support Mr. Merkley's original claim. However, there are also sealed files, described only as a box of filings and exhibits, related to the case.

The judge's reasons for issuing the Dec. 20, 1995, interim custody order are not in the public files.

The public documents do contain references to postpartum depression, depression, high stress levels following pregnancy and during the long custody battle.

The earliest reports date back to April 1991, when Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Merkley went to counselling to deal with the stress of fertility treatments.

Dr. Chris Newton, a psychologist at University Hospital in London, Ont., first met the couple in April 1991. He wrote that personality tests on Ms. VandenElsen "suggest the presence of a borderline depressive state with feelings of sadness, discouragement and failure."

She was feeling angry and frustrated by the whole process, while Mr. Merkley felt guilty, sad and inadequate.

Both, he felt, may lack "stamina to manage difficult circumstances."

The reports indicate that Ms. VandenElsen received counselling in the summer of 1991. She also was trained in relaxation techniques, but her anger and frustration continued.

Dr. Newton wrote in 1996 that Ms. VandenElsen had in 1991 displayed a "good deal of anger and resentment . . . and obvious tension in the marriage relationship, which had prompted my recommendation that the couple seek marital counselling before proceeding with treatment."

Ms. VandenElsen saw a therapist from November 1991 to January 1992, which ended "as Carline reported feeling significantly better."

But when the triplets were seven months old, her family doctor referred her to a Stratford psychiatrist.

Dr. Biju Mathew, in a letter to the family doctor, writes that Ms. VandenElsen "presents with features of a postpartum depression."

"The heavy physical needs of three babies is a lot more than she actually anticipated," he wrote.

"Initially there was a sense of shock, followed by gradual acceptance of the demands."

She had a helper two days a week, but no family support, the doctor said. She cried frequently since the birth, had little energy and "on many occasions she has felt that life is not worth living and wanted to end it all."

He described her as subjectively depressed and that she felt helpless and hopeless. Dr. Mathew started her on antidepressants and continued counselling.

Ms. VandenElsen reported later that she decided not to take the medication.

"I do feel that she needs a lot more support in bringing up three infants at this point," Dr. Mathew wrote. "I am not sure how she will handle this when she returned back to school in the fall. Certainly the children are not in any kind of danger at this point."

In 1998, the court ordered Ms. VandenElsen, Mr. Merkley, his current wife, Jan Searle, and the triplets to undergo psychological assessments.

A May 1998 report by psychologist Dr. Robert Doering states that Ms. VandenElsen "acknowledges that she is stressed and frustrated by the current dispute and her difficulties getting access to the children.

"She denies Mr. Merkley's allegations about psychological problems or anger control problems and also denies that she is currently depressed."

It noted that she saw psychologist Ann McHugh six times from January to April 1995, and was "suffering from a significant depression, as well as showing indications of underlying anger and personality problems."

Dr. McHugh recommended "that she not make any major life decisions at the time because the depression and anger were colouring her judgment."

She again refused medication.

When Dr. McHugh saw her again in April 1997 and January 1998, Ms. VandenElsen wasn't depressed, but was angry, disappointed and frustrated by the custody battle.

In the report by Dr. Doering, Ms. VandenElsen acknowledged that she is a "loud person," both in her job and in her day-to-day life, but states that she is also excitable in a positive way.

Tests showed that she wasn't bipolar or depressed or suffering from acute mental health problems at the time.

"They do suggest personality problems," he wrote.

He described her as angry, mistrustful, self-indulgent and easily angered.

"She is likely to demand attention and sympathy from others but resents even small demands others place on her," Dr. Doering writes.

He also wrote that she "had a disregard for authority figures, tends to deny responsibility and blames others for her problems."

"She may become angry or argumentative over seemingly insignificant events."

Alfred Mamo, lawyer for Mr. Merkley, says the issue of a diagnosed illness is no longer an issue.

"It's completely irrelevant from this point of view," he said. "The real issue here is the effect that her actions have on the children and the erratic, violent behaviour that she exhibits, whether it's generated from a personality disorder, a medical disorder or simply and emotional disorder.

"At this point a diagnosis is not important."

Mr. Mamo was not Mr. Merkley's lawyer at the time the original allegations were made, but says his client stands by claims that she is unstable.

Robin Wilhelm / Stratford Beacon Herald Craig Merkley poses with Olivia, Gray and Peter in Stratford, Ont., after they were reunited on Jan. 23, 2001.

A Family Torn Apart

Craig Merkley won bitter battle for triplets

By Patricia Brooks Arenburg - Staff Reporter

A judge in Stratford, Ont., granted Craig Merkley interim custody of his toddler triplets just days before Christmas 1995.

The then-husband of Carline VandenElsen claimed she was bipolar or manic depressive, that she "abdicated her responsibilities" and was unable to be the custodial parent due to her illness.

Mr. Merkley was represented by a lawyer, and neither he nor Ms. Vand-enElsen was in court that day.

Ms. VandenElsen doesn't know what was said in court, she has said, and the judge's ruling was not in the unsealed portion of the case on file in Ontario Superior Court in Stratford.

In an affidavit filed before the Dec. 20, 1995, hearing, Mr. Merkley alleged that his then-wife "unilaterally decided to vacate" their home on Sept. 1, 1995, to rent an apartment in London, Ont.

She returned home to visit their children - Peter, Gray and Olivia - once a week, "although the frequency of the visiting varies," Mr. Merkley said in the affidavit. He also stated that he hadn't "interfered with or discouraged access between the defendant and our children."

Mr. Merkley accused his then-wife of "repeated instances of marital infidelity," using marijuana and buying it from a student, depleting their joint bank account for her living expenses and appearing at their home to stay for however long she wanted.

Although Ms. VandenElsen was a high school teacher, Mr. Merkley said she wanted to "be a singer and/or run a coffee house."

He stated that he was "the only parent physically and emotionally capable of providing appropriate child care."

"The fact is that the defendant has been suffering for years from a bipolar mood disorder and may be manic depressive."

The condition was "made worse by the demands presented by the birth of the parties' triplets."

The children were conceived through in vitro fertilization, using donor sperm, and were born on Jan. 1, 1993. But, Mr. Merkley wrote, counsellors recommended Ms. VandenElsen not go through the process "due to emotional instability."

The couple were beyond the point of reconciliation, Mr. Merkley wrote in 1995. He asked the judge for custody of the children, $300 a month in child support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, court costs and a restraining order against Ms. VandenElsen barring her from "molesting, annoying or harassing the applicant or the children in his custody."

Ms. VandenElsen was stunned to find these papers a couple of weeks before the December 1995 hearing, she told a jury in October 2001.

She said Mr. Merkley had told her in 1995 "his intention was to drop the proceeding, this wasn't the direction he wanted to take, but he felt confused at the time and that he would speak to his lawyer about dropping the proceedings."

She and Mr. Merkley were in the process of buying a cottage in December 1995 and she had no reason not to believe him, she testified.

Over Christmas 1995, the couple attended Mr. Merkley's work party, held a New Year's party for friends and celebrated the children's third birthday on Jan. 1, 1996.

Then Ms. VandenElsen found the court order, granting him custody. Mr. Merkley said he couldn't stop the proceedings, she told the court.

"I was ignorant of this court order's implications," Ms. VandenElsen testified. "Mr. Merkley said things would stay the same and they did.

"I wasn't challenged for any reason and I didn't want to go to a lawyer at that time. I suppose, in hindsight, yes, I should have, but I didn't because I truly believed that had I got another lawyer, that trouble would begin."

Mr. Merkley admitted to a jury in 2001 he hadn't told his wife in 1995 he'd met with a lawyer, and he said she found some legal papers - he didn't know what they were - in his car. He didn't recall saying anything about stopping the case.

Ms. VandenElsen didn't get a lawyer until the summer of 1996 when her access to the children was limited.

In a statement of defence filed in July 1996, she denied her husband's claims. She wasn't bipolar or manic depressive, she wrote, and although the couple were counselled about the consequences of undergoing the in vitro fertilization process, she was "not advised to not undergo the procedure."

She acknowledged seeing a psychiatrist "on one or two occasions when the children were three or four months old to receive support with being the primary caregiver for three newborn babies," she wrote.

"However, it in no way affected the defendant's ability to provide the proper care and nurturing for the children, and lasted a very short time."

The decision for her to move out "was a mutual one," she wrote in 1996, and she visited with the children three times a week for about 25 hours a week while Mr. Merkley was at work.

She later moved to a cottage near his work so the children could stay with her.

In February 1996, she said, she was working full time as a teacher and saw the children every day after school until Mr. Merkley came home. While on summer vacation, she had the children four days a week, twice overnight and on alternate weekends. She claims she spent more time with the triplets than he did.

That October, a judge ordered that Mr. Merkley retain interim custody and granted specific and frequent access to Ms. VandenElsen.