CHRISTIAN LAFORCE / Staff A Halifax Regional Police officer carries a baby girl after a tense armed standoff in Halifax last year.

Did their baby really need to be protected?

Some say an inquiry is the only way to know if child welfare workers acted appropriately

By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE - Staff Reporter

Examining the actions of child welfare authorities during last year's armed standoff on Shirley Street would conceivably be the purpose of a public inquiry into the incident.

But is an inquiry absolutely necessary?

Supporters of the parents at the centre of the controversy say an investigation is not only warranted, it's needed to probe what they consider to be a dysfunctional system harming families.

Others say they're not convinced public hearings, sure to cost taxpayers plenty, will solve anything.

Justice Michael Baker has said he won't authorize an inquiry unless new information comes to light.

Critics who say they've been ill-served by the child welfare system, and have had their children taken from their care, are not happy with the government's position.

"The children in Nova Scotia are being abused by this (child-protection) system," Marilyn Dey, a Halifax supporter of standoff couple Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen, said in a recent interview.

The couple had their infant daughter removed from their household at the end of the May 2004 siege. In a court ruling Thursday, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen lost custody of her permanently, though the decision can be appealed.

Ms. Dey acknowledged that backers of the pair, who face a sentencing hearing that begins today for their role in the 67-hour standoff, want a public probe to stretch beyond the Shirley Street event.

"This is the way Larry and Carline feel, too, that the whole child protection business, or industry, needs to be inquired into," Ms. Dey said.

Ms. VandenElsen has been on a jailhouse hunger strike to back demands for a wide-reaching inquiry; Mr. Finck has also been behind bars awaiting sentencing.

They were convicted May 12 of several charges after a jury trial in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

Halifax police are doing an internal review of how the department handled the standoff, but that report is not expected to be made public.

The provincial Public Inquiries Act says one commissioner or more would be appointed by the government to look into a public matter. Witnesses would testify under oath and relevant documents filed with the commission during open hearings.

Once an inquiry's report is released, the government of the day usually provides an official response.

Recent inquiries called by the province have been linked to the separate deaths of three people: James Guy Bailey, Donald LeBlanc and Theresa McEvoy.

Nova Scotia has had other probes that weren't held under the Public Inquiries Act, including one, called a "review," that examined the province's youth detention compensation program.

The high-profile review was headed by a retired Quebec judge hired by the Nova Scotia government. In 2002, he released a 632-page report with 105 recommendations.

The Halifax standoff case, which made headlines when it happened 13 months ago and later during the trial stage, has prompted letters to the editor and other public commentary.

"Children are not apprehended on a whim; they are apprehended based upon fact," a former child welfare worker said in a letter last month to The Chronicle Herald.

She said an inquiry is unnecessary, adding, a child's "right of privacy far exceeds . . . anyone else's 'need to know' " what happened in the Finck / VandenElsen case.

"Histrionic demands for information by people who don't know the facts accomplishes nothing except to stir up public sentiment with half-truths," the letter writer said.

The apprehension order regarding Mr. Finck's and Ms. VandenElsen's baby was issued after child welfare officials in Ontario alerted colleagues in Nova Scotia. Officials here wanted the couple to agree to home visits to check on their child and undergo mental health assessments, and they wanted the baby to remain in Halifax.

They wouldn't comply.

Ms. VandenElsen's sister, Maureen Davidson, is hoping the government will change its tune and launch a public probe.

"That would be, for me, a miracle," the Mannheim, Ont., woman said, of an independent inquiry.

"I would love for people to see how this really all transpired."

If anything, the Shirley Street standoff has drawn attention to child protection services and prompted those who work in the field to try to explain why the province's 20 child welfare agencies do what they do.

Earlier this month, the Hamm government, along with the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, published a pamphlet on child welfare.

It says in 2004, there were about 11,500 child welfare cases in Nova Scotia. Some 840 of those involved court proceedings; less than one per cent of all cases involved taking a child from home.

Graeme Fraser, the association's co-ordinator, said his group has not formally discussed the inquiry issue. Speaking in general terms as someone who knows as much about the case as the public, he said: "I'm not aware of any factors that would warrant a public inquiry."

Mr. Fraser said apprehension orders are executed as "a last resort" in child protection cases, and "only after very thoughtful consideration."

He conceded "no system is perfect." But, Mr. Fraser said, the child welfare system is better at ensuring trustworthiness than most.

"There are a lot of safeguards and checks and balances in this particular system," he said. "Part of the reason for that is because of the kind of authority that the children's services agencies have."

Mr. Fraser added that in his experience, it's "fairly common" for police to accompany social workers removing kids from their homes. "It's such a highly-charged situation," he said, of the reason officers attend.

Halifax lawyer Burnley (Rocky) Jones, who has represented Ms. VandenElsen in the past, said her case opened his eyes "to such an extent, that I never want to see another (family law) case like this."

Asked about a public inquiry, he didn't hesitate before answering yes.

"There needs to be clarification of the role of Children's Aid, which we believe to be a private organization, which on the other hand works as a complete government agency," Mr. Jones said.

"They have it two ways."

File Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck lost custody of their baby girl after an armed standoff last year. File They will be in court today for a sentencing hearing on charges stemming from that dispute.

Sentencing hearing begins today for standoff couple

Case's 'different circumstances' make parents' fate difficult to determine, Crown attorney says

By DAVENE JEFFREY and PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG - Staff Reporters

A sentencing hearing begins today for Halifax's most notorious parents, who refused to hand their baby over to authorities and kept police at bay during a three-day standoff.

Larry Finck, 51, and Carline VandenElsen, 42, were convicted last month after a nine-week trial and two days of jury deliberations.

The charges stem from an armed siege on Shirley Street that began shortly after midnight on May 19, 2004.

Officers trying to enforce a child apprehension order attempted to break down the front door after the couple refused to answer the door or the telephone.

As one police officer began swinging a battering ram at the door, which Mr. Finck had reinforced from the inside, a shot whizzed within inches of the officer's head.

Ms. VandenElsen was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police.

Both she and her husband were found guilty of abducting their baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace.

Ms. VandenElsen has been held at the Dartmouth jail since her conviction.

Mr. Finck has been in custody since the standoff ended.

In a recent interview, Crown attorney Rick Woodburn would not reveal what sentences he will recommend Justice Robert Wright impose.

But he did say that coming to a decision has not been easy.

There are few cases involving similar crimes to rely on, he said.

"We consistently ran against the different circumstances that came in this case," said Mr. Woodburn.

For instance, sentences for an armed hostage situation can go up to 10 years.

"But (this) wasn't a classic hostage situation, so it doesn't necessarily fall into the 10-year range," he said.

Little involving the couple's interaction with the law appears to be classic.

Since May 21, the anniversary of the day the standoff ended, Ms. VandenElsen has refused to eat and is on a liquid diet, which reportedly includes a high-calorie meal replacement drink called Ensure.

Ms. VandenElsen has named her protest Starving for the Children.

Last week, the couple, who have not seen their baby girl for more than a year, lost permanent custody of her.

Mr. Finck has been convicted of abducting another daughter from Ontario and Ms. Vanden-Elsen was convicted of abducting her triplets in 2000. That conviction has been overturned and she will be retried next month in Ontario.

Sentences in abduction cases range from about six months to two years, Mr. Woodburn said.

"Finck got two years for his last abduction," he said.

"That (crime) didn't have elements of any weapons. Didn't have any elements of a standoff. Didn't have any elements of a long protracted taking of a child of such tender years.

"So you had to take that and combine it with the elements of the hostage-taking with the elements of the weapons offences that we had and then the assault with a weapon against a police officer. So, you had to combine all those and find out what the appropriate sentencing range was given all those factors."

Sentences must also take into consideration deterrents, denunciation of the crime and rehabilitation, he said.

"Most of the case law that I have reviewed in regards to these offences, the primary sentencing principles are deterrents and denunciation of the crime."

Mr. Finck and Ms. Vanden-Elsen will receive separate sentences, and Mr. Woodburn anticipates he'll take about two hours to present his position.

How long the hearing will last is hard to determine.

Both Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck are representing themselves, after each started the trial with a lawyer. Mr. Finck fired his counsel early on in the hearing and Ms. Vanden-

Elsen let hers go at the tail end.

The trial was marked by outbursts from both accused, sometimes resulting in one or both being taken forcibly from the courtroom.

Despite repeated and apparent patient direction from Justice Wright, both Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen repeatedly tried to argue points that had been overruled by the judge.

As well, they tried to argue aspects of law that Justice Wright frequently explained they both misunderstood.

Often they became sidetracked railing against the judiciary, police, government and media. Mr. Finck would launch into tirades, particularly on days when the courtroom was full. During those outbursts, he would frequently look over his shoulder, apparently gauging reaction to his comments.

The courtroom for the sentencing has been reserved for three days.

The couple have filed documents that they want to appeal their convictions on the grounds they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Jury selection for Ms. Van-denElsen's three-week Ontario Superior Court trial begins July 18.

But Stratford police officer Sgt. John Wilson, who tracked Ms. VandenElsen for four months while she was on the run with her children, is unsure the trial will go ahead.

The jury selection itself will likely "be a long, drawn-out process," he said.

"I think there'd be a huge pocket of people that just say 'In my mind, she's guilty.'

"They're going to get a bunch of pig farmers from the townships down here that don't tolerate the kind of behaviour that she displays."

There's also the question of her physical fitness to travel after her hunger strike "or intention to kill herself," he said.

Unless a qualified doctor says she's OK to travel, the officer is adamant he's not going to get her.

"In no circumstance am I going to put myself at risk to be looking after someone in a fragile physical state," he said.

If she is eventually found guilty, the officer doesn't believe Ms. VandenElsen will see any jail time.

And that doesn't bother him a bit, he said. The fact that the appeal was granted was enough to show that "the law is still the law," he said.

"I think they just have to send a message to like-minded people that think this kind of thing is OK when it's not."

Crown seeks stiff sentences for standoff

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG - Staff Reporter

The Crown says Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck have no remorse about their actions in last year's Shirley Street standoff with police.

And prosecutor Rick Woodburn wants them to do hard time for their crimes.

Mr. Woodburn asked Supreme Court Justice Robert Wright at a sentencing hearing Tuesday to send Mr. Finck to prison for six years and Ms. VandenElsen for 3 1/2

They seem to have "little or no insight into the danger" that they could have caused to their baby, neighbours or police officers during the May 2004 standoff, Mr. Woodburn said.

A jury found the couple guilty this May 12 of abducting a baby in contravention of a custody order; obstructing a police officer; possessing an unregistered shotgun; and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace.

Mr. Woodburn recommended Mr. Finck serve five years on the abduction charge and one on the other counts.

"This would be a fairly high sentence," Mr. Woodburn said of the proposed abduction term. Although the maximum sentence is 10 years, "the next highest sentence for abduction that I was able to uncover was two years for Mr. Finck," Mr. Woodburn said.

Mr. Finck served two yearsfor the 1999 abduction from her guardian of another child, from an earlier relationship.

The jury also found Ms. VandenElsen guilty of using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence; threatening to use a shotgun in an assault on police; and careless use of a shotgun.

On Tuesday, the Crown stayed the charges of possession the shotgun and careless use of a firearm.

Mr. Woodburn recommended that Ms. VandenElsen serve 1 1/2 years on the abduction charge and two for the other offences. She has no previous convictions.

A jury acquitted Ms. VandenElsen in 2001 of abducting her triplets from their father in Stratford, Ont. She faces a retrial in that case next month.

As Mr. Woodburn described in court how Ms. VandenElsen narrowly missed shooting a Halifax Regional Police officer, she began laughing.

"I suggest to you, Ms. VandenElsen, that this is no laughing matter," Justice Wright said.

"It is," she replied.

"I'm sure you don't realize the kind of pickle you're in," he said.

"The kind you put me in," she said.

The day was peppered with similar exchanges between the couple and the judge.

At one point, Mr. Finck said he didn't have any remorse for his actions "because I didn't do anything wrong. I was protecting my child, I was protecting my family and my mother."

The couple barricaded themselves in the Halifax home of Mr. Finck's mother, Mona Finck, to prevent police from enforcing a court order to seize their baby. The standoff ended May 21, after the elderly woman had died of natural causes.

File VandenElsen: 'It's a crime to keep me in jail.' File Finck: Requested house arrest or time served. TIM KROCHAK / Staff A sheriff, standing beside documents from the Finck / VandenElsen trial, locks the door to Courtroom 3 at Supreme Court in Halifax Wednesday after the couple were sentenced.

Standoff duo get multi-year sentences

VandenElsen given 3 1/2 years, Finck 4 1/2 years in custody fight gone wrong

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG - Staff Reporter

Over a year after the armed standoff that cost them their infant daughter and their freedom, Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck still don't fully understand what they've done, a judge says.

"Like Ms. VandenElsen, Mr. Finck appears to have little appreciation for the seriousness of his unlawful conduct or the danger he put his child in," Supreme Court Justice Robert Wright said Wednesday in sentencing the couple to prison time.

"Like Ms. VandenElsen, he blames everyone but himself."

After two days of hearings, Justice Wright sentenced Mr. Finck to 4 1/2 years in prison and Ms. VandenElsen to 3 1/2 years for their roles in the May 2004 standoff on Halifax's Shirley Street.

In contrast to their frequent outbursts at earlier court appearances, the couple showed little reaction to the ruling: Ms. VandenElsen was busy writing, while Mr. Finck sat back in his chair.

"They made deliberate plans to carry out what they did, and this is where they ended up," Crown Rick Woodburn said outside court after the ruling.

The Crown had asked for a five-year term for Mr. Finck for child abduction contrary to a court order. Mr. Woodburn based that on the circumstances and the fact Mr. Finck committed the Halifax offence while still on probation after serving two years for abducting his daughter, from a previous relationship, from her legal guardian in Ontario.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Finck had asked the judge for house arrest or time served, saying, "Anything further is excessive."

"Both are out of the question," replied the judge.

Justice Wright agreed Mr. Finck should serve more time than he did for the first abduction, but said the Crown's request was "a notch too far."

Mr. Finck received 3 1/2 years for abduction and a year for possessing a shotgun, to be served consecutively.

He also received six months for obstructing a police officer and two months for having an unregistered shotgun, to be served concurrently.

The judge accepted the Crown's proposal about Ms. VandenElsen and gave her 18 months for abduction and two years, to be served consecutively, for using a gun while committing a crime. She was sentenced to a year concurrent for threatening to assault a police officer with the shotgun, obstructing a police officer, having an unregistered shotgun and having a shotgun for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The judge gave the couple the customary double credit for the time they've already served. Mr. Finck, who's been in jail since his May 2004 arrest, will see 26 1/2 months shaved off his term, while 200 days will be cut from Ms. VandenElsen's. In the end, Mr. Finck will serve less time than his wife, who has been free most of the time while awaiting, and going to, trial.

He also issued mandatory firearms prohibition orders and a DNA order for Ms. VandenElsen.

The couple came to Nova Scotia from Stratford, Ont., in November 2003 when Ms. VandenElsen lost access to her triplets from a previous marriage after a lengthy custody battle.

She was already pregnant and feared child welfare workers would take the baby.

Ms. VandenElsen told the court they moved into the home of Mona Finck, Mr. Finck's mother, at 6161 Shirley St., to start their lives over. Mona Finck died of natural causes during the standoff.

"I have significant remorse for not terminating my pregnancy when my mother instincts told me that my unborn child would face grave peril," she said Wednesday.

The Children's Aid Society in Halifax applied to the court for supervision orders at the family home and psychological and parental assessments.

Given the reports about the couple and Mr. Finck's behaviour in family court, Justice Wright said, the court ordered the child placed in temporary care.

Ms. VandenElsen fled with the baby, and Mr. Finck continued to appear in court. He admitted during the criminal trial that he lied in family court - he did in fact know where his wife and baby were. They eventually came home, and the couple planned to leave the country.

When police found them at the Shirley Street home on May 19, 2004, the couple refused to let them in and barricaded the door. Pellets from a shotgun fired inside the home passed just inches from a police officer's head.

The emergency response team was called in and the longest standoff in Halifax history began.

Ms. VandenElsen repeated Wednesday that "Big Mona," her mother-in-law, fired the gun, but Justice Wright reminded her a jury convicted her of that offence.

The couple endangered their then-five-month-old baby, the judge said, when they carried her onto a porch overhang and displayed her to reporters and police. They used the standoff to further their "ridiculous theories" that various agencies - the courts, police and child protection agencies - are plotting to sell children to the childless.

Despite repeated warnings by police, "in an act of self-indulgence and outright recklessness," Mr. Finck was carrying a loaded shotgun when he came out of the house on the evening of May 21 with his wife and baby. The couple carried the body of his mother on a makeshift stretcher.

"It's indeed fortunate that no one got hurt," Justice Wright said.

As her sentencing submission, Ms. VandenElsen read from 10 pages of handwritten notes, which Justice Wright termed a "political statement."

She said police "unnecessarily created a massive public spectacle" through the standoff "to sensationalize and justify their earlier actions."

"It's a crime to keep me in jail," she read.

Facing a mandatory one-year sentence on the weapons charge, Ms. VandenElsen said the only remedy was to return all her children to her.

"I can't change who I am," she told the judge. "I understand I can't change the system."

Justice Wright said: "Ms. VandenElsen, it's never too late to turn your life around."

"I tried that and look where I am," she replied.

A handful of supporters attended the hearing Wednesday afternoon, including Mary MacDonald.

The Halifax woman, who knows Ms. VandenElsen "very casually," said the sentence was harsh.

"It will obviously cause her a great deal of grief," she said.

"I would have preferred that Ms. VandenElsen be reunited with her baby daughter rather than go to prison."

Another supporter, Halifax's Marilyn Dey, was displeased but not surprised by the sentence.

The woman, who's known Mr. Finck since his first court case in Ontario, wished the judge had spoken about the pair's emotions because the whole situation involved the apprehension of their child.

"The judge didn't even go there. There was no concern for what they were going through at the time."

Justice Wright noted the couple's "contemptuous conduct at trial," which he said "ranged from the belligerent to the bizarre."

Despite that behaviour, their lack of participation in preparation of a presentence report and their apparent disregard for assessments, he recommended they receive psychological counselling in prison.

"Their co-operation may appear to be a dim prospect at the moment," he said, "but it is still worth a try."