MIELKE DIARY
Mielke's
Diary
-----------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
About
a month ago our 10-year-old daughter got a black eye because our 7-year-old son,
in a moment of anger, threw a shoe at her. That was enough to cause the school
to report us to the children's aid people. They just came by, without warning,
to check it out, declared our house unfit for the children to live in, and took
all of them who were 15 and under away. My wife is not doing well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:45:28 -0400 (EDT)
About
a month ago, one of our children (10 years old) had a black eye due to her
younger brother (7 years old), in a moment of anger, throwing a shoe at her.
That was enough to get the school (Severn Avenue Public) interested. They asked
her what happened, she told them the truth, and then they, without even
informing us, reported us to the children's aid.
The
children's aid came here today around noon without warning. My wife was home but
I was at work. She, therefore, having been severely abused by the B.C.
equivalent of Ontario's children's aid when she was a child, respectfully asked
them to wait outside until I could get home from work. They threattened to call
the police if she didn't let them into our home immediately. I got here just a
couple of minutes before the police (two of them) did. I asked the children's
aid people (again, two of them) why the police were here, and they told me that
the police were called because they felt that their physical safety was at risk.
They, in other words, gave my wife one reason, and gave me another. At least one
of these explanations (and possibly both of them), therefore, was a lie (the
first of a series).
Lie
number two was when our six-year-old asked them why they were here. One of the
workers answered him by saying, "because we heard such wonderful things
about you that we just had to come and meet you".
Lie
number three was in how they coerced our older children to go with them. They
asked them to accompany the little children in order to help keep them calmed
down. They did this in a manner designed to make them believe that they'd be
returning after the trip.
My
first problem, therefore, given the fore-going, is that I have been forced to
entrust my children to people who have openly lied right in front of me, i.e.
people who are unabashedly morrally unsound. After their supervisor arrived to
reinforce them, I confronted her with this issue. At first she tried to avoid the issue, but, when pressed,
justified their deceitful conduct.
The
reason that they took our children (the nine of them who are fifteen and under)
away is that they felt that our house was unfit to live in. I don't know what
their threshold for such things is, but I do agree with them that a lot of work
indeed does need to be done around here. I still don't understand, however, why
our children had to be removed, and why I now have to face a seemingly endless
series of court hearings in order to have them returned.
The
option of leaving them here while we dealt with the various problems did not
seem to be an option. The fact that all of our children pleaded with them to let
them stay bore no weight. The fact that our children are obviously, to anyone
who meets them, a very happy and well-raised set of people was not even
considered. The fact that I gave them an open invitation to check with our
doctor, as well as with all of the various hospitals, in order to verify that,
given the number of children whom we have raised (or are still raising)
(thirteen), we have had, proportionally speaking, very few health or physical
problems was ignored.
The
fact that they're unlikely going to find foster parents who'll be able to look
after all nine of the children whom they've apprehended means that I have yet
another problem, i.e. they're going to be arbitrarily split up.
I'm not claiming to be innocent in all of this, i.e. we surely could have done a much better job of taking care of the physical state of our home. I think, however, that the less than admirable way in which they conduct themselves, i.e. the cold-hearted adherence to procedure methodology which both they and the police used, as well as the blatent lies which they're obviously willing to tell in order to get their way, needs to be made known to the public.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:01:22 -0400 (EDT)
Our
12-year-old daughter got up at 6am and gave us a call. I know now that our
children have been divided up as follows:
14- and
12-year-old daughters 10-
and 8-year-old daughters 7-
and 6-year-old sons 5-
and 4-year-old daughters 2-year-old
son by himself
Aparently
our 10-year-old daughter told the social worker in charge of this case, Heather
Clark (747-7800 + 2778), "Thou shalt not steal, and you're stealing us
children from our family".
They
were taken to the CAS offices, and given something to eat while they were being
placed. They were not badgered with probing questions while they were there.
Whether or not that is yet to happen is, of course, unknown.
The
people with whom our 14- and 12-year-old daughetrs are seemed to be open to the
idea of bringing them to church on Sunday. They are old enough to make that sort
of request clearly. Our younger children may not be.
I
have not yet heard from any of our other children, even though we were promised
that they'd call last night.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
The
nine children whom they took have been divided up into five homes:
14 and 12 year
old girls, 10 and
8 year old girls, 7
and 6 year old boys, 5
and 4 year old girls, 2
year old boy by himself.
Yesterday,
we were promised that our children would be giving us a phone call during the
evening. No phone calls were received. This means that all five foster parents
didn't call us. Did they all refuse to call, or did the CAS not keep its promise
to request them to do so?
I
just pressed the social worker's supervisor for phone calls from our children
again, and, while I'm writing this, a couple of calls have been received. The
first one was from a lady who has our 2 year old son. She was very rude. Even
though the CAS supervisor said that we'd be able to talk to our children, the
foster parent said, in very terse tones, that, since she didn't know us, she
would not put him on the phone. She just wanted us to trust her promises that he
was being adequately cared for.
While
talking to the CAS supervisor this afternoon, I found out something which they
didn't tell us about yesterday while they were here, i.e. that they're going to
attempt to portray me as a person with a trend of child abuse (close enough to
her own words). My deduction, based on what she said, regarding how they have
come to this conclusion is as follows. They simply count the total number of
known injuries per family, and do not take into account that each child should
be expected to have a certain number of injuries originating from normal play.
Since we have thirteen children, the family total is way above what they would
consider normal (for one child).
Having said the fore-going, I must also say that there was one incident, way back during the spring of 1991, for which I, personally, was indeed guilty. The combination of an extremely stressing (for me) incident one evening, plus extreme stubbornness on the part of our then 3 year old, stimulated me to throw her onto her bed. My aim was wrotten, and her cheek hit the bedpost and was punctured. Immediately thereafter, I, personally, took her to the nearest hospital and openly acknowledged my guilt. They plan to use this incident, which I made absolutely no attempt to hide, and one for which I openly repented, as their lead-in, and then point to all of the other "normal" injuries to "prove" the trend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
>HOWEVER...
CAS's are extremely pressed to find enough foster homes.
They >would not take a large family of kids into care without weighing
the >decision seriously. It
would *never* happen that CAS would arrive at the >door for the first visit
and apprehend the kids unless they found their >well-being
significantly jeopardized.
As
you'll see from what I've added to the details today, there was an element that
I did not know about yesterday ... their suspiceon that I have a trend of child
abuse. I won't redocument it here, since I'm sure that you've already read it
there.
This
was not our first visit from them. Other examples of visits include:
We
had a young child (perhaps five) who was very accident prone one year. Once she
wanted the baseball bat which her brother was swinging, snuck up behind him to
grab it, and got clobbered on her head. Once she found a very sharp-ended stick
outside, started to chew on it (sharp end inside), and punctured the roof of her
mouth. I don't remember them all off-hand, although I'm sure they'll all come
out in Tuesday's hearing, but there was really nothing which could have been
done to prevent them. The problem, however, was that the hospital had an injury
counter which clocked over too many times in too short a time. They, therefore,
called the CAS, who reluctantly had to close the case because they were unable
to prove that the truth was false.
We
once had a serious problem with cockroaches. I called an esterminator to deal
with it. They, of course, do their thing while you're out of the house. When we
got home it was evident that he hadn't done anything at all, yet he had
collected his fee from me (in advance). I reported him to his boss, and then he
reported us to the CAS for having a house full of cockroaches.
Once
I had a service person in the house on valentines day. Two of our school-aged
children were at home, that day, during regular school hours. I can't remember,
off-hand, why one of them was at home, but the other didn't want to attend his
school's valentines day dance. The service person turned us in for having
children at home who should have been in school.
There
have been more just like these, but these are probably enough to make the point.
The only legitimate previous visit was the one in 1991 which You already know
about. The only other one which raised perhaps legitimate suspiceons was when
another one of our children had a black eye. The problem with that one is that,
to this day, she herself insists that she doesn't remember how she got it (even
when I myself ask her privately). A doctor, in the presence of the CAS worker,
looked at it and felt that it might have been due to her having been
inadvertently kneed while rough-housing with her sibblings. The CAS worker
pressed the doctor to get him to admit that there was even a remote possibility
of abuse, but he insisted that he did not feel that that was a possibility.
>Children
would not be apprehended >because the house is messy.
Messy
does not been scattery. There was food lying around in various places. I am not
questioning their insistence that the problem be resolved, but I am questioning
their decision to remove very healthy children from a home which they merely
felt (perhaps very strongly) was unhealthy, and I am also questioning the manner
in which they conducted themselves.
>Were
they sleeping 5 to a room, both genders together?
The
5 oldest girls in one room. The three oldest boys in another room. The 5
youngest children (both genders, 7 and under) in the third.
>Was
there a history of kids coming to school with unexplained >bruises?
No.
Just the other, never explained, black eye.
>Had
the parents previously refused recommended treatment for >managing their
children's health, behaviour, safety or well-being?
No
such recommendations have ever previously been given. I have, however, dealt
forcefully with them in the passed with respect to the manner in which they try
to manipulate young children into saying what they want them to say. I have also
never let them interview our children further away from myself than I could
over-hear what was being said by both.
>Children
can only be apprehended when they are deemed to be "in need of
>protection", and the caseworker has to defend this decision in court
within >(?) 48 hours. It's not
done frivolously.
That would have been the unspoken suspiceon of a trend of child abuse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
We
just had a visit with the CAS social worker in charge of our case, as well as
with her supervisor.
I
asked why they weighted the evidence in their favour by reporting half truths,
e.g. by declaring that our children were hungry and in need of diaper changes
while not explaining that they had arrived just before lunch, spent three hours
here, and wouldn't let us back into the house. Their answer was "that's why
you have a lawyer to refute our claims".
I
asked about the lies which they told to our children (even right in front of
me). They tried to get out of the issue by replying regarding the reason that
they felt the need for police presence. When I pushed harder, their next
evassive tactic was to say that we'd have to agree to disagree regarding the
correctness, or lack thereof, of their methods. When I pushed even harder, their
final explanation was that it was okay because our children didn't interpret it
as a lie at the time.
I
asked about the fact that the foster mother who has our 2-year-old son refused
to put him on the phone because, as she rudely and tersely put it, "I don't
know you from anyone". Their answer was that the foster parent felt that
our talking with our young child would cause problems. I asked if it was really
the foster parent who had the final say in the matter, and was told
"yes". I asked if we could expect to finally speak with him because
the judge, yesterday, gave a court order granting open phone access for all
children, and was told that the foster parent still had the final say.
They
tried to force an elder of our congregation (who accompanied us) to tell them
that members of our congregation were aware of problems but didn't report them.
Since it is illegal nowadays for anyone to fail to report even a suspiceon that
anything at all might be amiss, it looked like they were trying to pin such
guilt upon other members of our congregation.
This
whole incident started because our 10-year-old daughter had had a black eye a
month ago. Her teacher asked her how she got it, and she told them that her
7-year-old brother had thrown a shoe at her the night before (which he openly
admitted to when we asked him about it). The school principal then asked him,
i.e. our 7-year-old son, he denied it, and they immediately suspected us. They,
in other words, refused to accept our daughter's firsthand testimony regarding
what had happened to her. Contrast this with the fact that, after apprehention,
they somehow coerced that same daughter into telling them that I swat our
4-year-old daughter every time she wets her pants. In both cases they ignored
firsthand testimony while accepting secondhand testimony. Perhaps the more
likely explanation is that they only accept whichever testimony seems to make
the parents look more guilty.
They
claimed that it would take several months of carefully arranged and supervised
(by them) visits between ourselves and our children in order to rebuild our
family.
They told us that, being as young children are involved, they would, in all likelihood, be monitoring us for several years. Monitoring means unannounced, randomly scheduled visits to, and inspections of, our home.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
The
court hearing went very well. The court papers, which we were given late the
previous evening (around 8pm), indicated that they were really going to go after
their abuse allegations. In the courtroom, however, the only remark bearing on
this topic was when our lawyer said "Your Honour, the situation is really
not as bad as this might make it appear to be". I can only assume that this
was an outcome of the fact that he had held a private discussion with the CAS
lawyer for about a half an hour before the hearing in which he must have
convinced them of something to the effect of "this whole couthouse can be
filled with people who'll refute this stuff so you'd look fairly foolish if you
give it a try".
The
CAS attitude now seems to be that, rather than fighting this issue in the
courtroom, they'd rather see it proven in real life. They, therefore, now want a
lot of supervised visits during which they can observe how we interact with our
children. They have told us that they'll probably be involved for several years
to come.
The
judge ordered open phone access, which means that any of our children has the
right to call us at any time and without foster parent monitoring. While this
has been ordered, our lawyer warned us that we shouldn't assume that it will be
honoured. N.B.: We still haven't heard anything from our 10- and 8-year-old
daughters, and the lady who has our 2-year-old son has still not called since
her one call on Friday during which she said that she wouldn't put him on the
phone because, as she put it, "I don't know you from anyone".
We
have found out that they've somehow coerced our 10-year-old daughter into saying
something which they've interpreted as "I swat our 4-year-old daughter
every time she wets her pants". They've also claimed that our 4-year-old
daughter had suspicious looking bruises on her buttocks when she was taken into
custody. We were, and still are, unaware of any such bruises or of any incident
which might have caused them, and, therefore, have no explanation to give them.
This, in turn, is making them suspect that we're hiding something. I can only
hope that my openness to discuss any and every issue will eventually convince
them that we really don't know.
The
judge ordered that the four older children (14, 12, 10, 8) be assigned a
children's lawyer. It was decided that it would be of little benefit for the
younger children to have one. Our lawyer explained to us that a children's
lawyer is in no way a mouthpiece for the CAS. The government has a department of
the child's lawyer, and it conscripts a number of privately practicing lawyers
to serve on its roster for a period of time (I think it was two years). Then,
whenever a child's lawyer is needed, they rotationally call upon the members of
the current roster. Each such lawyer is given a special set of courses before
his tour of duty so that he knows how to interact with children. These lawyers,
therefore, are totally independent from the CAS, would advise the children of
whatever their real rights are, and would unbiasedly speak on their behalf. Our
lawyer told us that, for example, he himself was called upon to be a child's
lawyer a number of years ago.
We
have been granted a whole day visit at our church each Sunday starting before
morning worship and ending after evening worship. Whether or not a CAS CYC
(child and youth counsellour) will be present is still unknown. If yes, then
he/she will have to listen to a couple of Pastor Ganz's messages each time
(which might do him/her some good). If no, then members of our congregation will
be trusted to do the supervision. Whether or not the first such visit will be
this Lord's Day depends on whether or not the necessary arrangements for things
like transportation can be made in time.
We
have been granted three visits per week at the CAS offices. Each visit will be
with a few of our children: one with our 14- and 12-year-old daughters, one with
our 10- and 8-year-old daughters and 7- and 6-year-old sons, and one with our 5-
and 4-year-old daughters and 2-year-old son. These visits occur in a room which
is about 20x10 feet (Aubrey might be able to give a more accurate estimate), and
are supervised by a CAS CYC.
The
next court hearing is on August 17 at 11am. The purpose of this hearing, at
least at present, is to authorize the move of our children from their current
foster homes into the homes of willing members of our, and perhaps other,
congregations. These people, and their homes, will have to be approved by the
CAS. I hope that this won't initiate any problems for them.
As you may know, we have committed to buying a much larger house which is better designed for a family as large a ours, as well as to some sort of maid service three times per week. Even though this will cost us most, if not all, of our savings, the CAS is giving no guarantee that our children will ever be returned. If they don't, then, after all of this strife, we'll have lost everything except each other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
We
have been repeatedly warned against discussing the case with our children. We're
only supposed to say things like "don't worry, you'll eventually come
home", "everything is being done to get you home", etc.
Our
children have informed us, however, that they were given copies of all of the
court papers which contain all of the CAS lies. The CAS staff have also been
expending lots of effort to tell the children about why it made so much sense
for them to be taken away from us, and about how helpful the CAS is to children.
The
CAS, in other words, can tell our children anything they want, and we can't tell
them anything substantive at all.
They've
also all been taken to stores and been given the open invitation to "buy
anything you want". It would appear that they're attempting to placate our
children's emotional loss with material gain.
I
noticed a significant lack of discipline among our youyger children during our
morning worship service, e.g. talking amongst each other, walking around, etc. I
mentioned this to one of our elders afterwards, and he confirmed that he had
made the same observation. Our 4-year-old daughter was also crying a lot for no
apparent reason at first. This all settled down about two hours after they had
arrived.
Who
says that 2-year-olds don't know what's going on? When they came to take him
away after evening worship, he tried to hold onto me tight enough to stay. They
forced him to let go, and, as he was carried to the car, he began to cry louder
and louder, "home, home, home". As he was being seat belted, he began
to scream as loud as he could, "home, home, home". They just closed
the door and drove off.
There is a bit of good news. The two CAS spies (visitation supervision people) who were there, one to follow me around and one to follow my wife around, had to sit through both worship services. They, therefore, were obligated to be under the hearing of the Gospel two times today. They made it quite clear, though, that their primary duty was spying. When our baby started to cry and my wife left the sanctuary with him, one of them immediately got up to follow her out. All day long, too, whenever we were in different places, one spy was near me and one was near her. Both spies were women ... at least they had the dignity to refrain from following me into the washroom even when I was accompanied by a child.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
As
you know, all nine children visited us at church last Sunday from 10:00 to
19:00. While talking to the CAS in-take social worker with respect to another
issue (she wanted our 6-year-old son's walker delivered to his foster parents),
she mentioned that the report she received regarding that visit was good. Her
only objection was that the two visit supervisors overheard our children refer
to them as "spies".
On
Monday we had an hour and a half visit with our three youngest children (2, 4,
5) at the CAS main offices. We were first brought to a toy room where each child
could select a toy or two. We were then brought to a visiting room where the
visit supervisor just sat there, quietly observing, while we did our thing. Our
children played with the toys they'd selected for about 20 minutes or so, got
bored with them, and came over to play with us, without the toys, for the entire
rest of the visit. They wanted to be picked up and held, often two at a time.
The only time the visit supervisor spoke up, other than at the end, was when all
three wanted to be picked up simultaneously. She didn't wait to see if I'd have
the common sense not to do it, and cautioned that, in the interests of safety,
it should not be done. The visit supervisor, during this visit, portrayed
herself as a grim-faced, completely unemotional person.
On
Wednesday we had an hour and a half visit with our next four older children (6,
7, 8, 10). The location, the visit supervisor, and the protocol were all the
same. In the toy room they selected a ball and a couple of books. The visit
supervisor hinted to them that, since an hour and a half is a very long time,
they might want to get more books to help pass the time. They started reading
the books, but, after only about ten minutes, they put the books aside, and the
rest of the visit was spent having lots of fun passing the ball around very
cooperatively and in various ways. Occasionally it was tossed to the visit
supervisor, and this got her to smile and to become much more friendly. On one
occasion our 7-year-old son, whose natural roughness didn't fit in very well
with that small room and the absence of his older brothers, hurt our 6-year-old
son. This incident gave the visit supervisor an opportunity to see how we handle
such things.
On
Friday we had an hour and a half visit with the two oldest of the nine (12, 14).
This time the visit took place much closer to home, i.e. just behind Lincoln
Heights, where they occupy some space within the Pinecrest Queensway Health and
Community Services Centre. The visit supervisor, this time, was a very kind and
friendly lady. She brought us coffee and tea, and, for the most part, left us
unattended (although, of course, she might have been listening outside the door,
via hidden microphones, etc.). No toys, this time, although, knowing that those
two children like doing word puzzles, I did bring that day's newspaper. Most of
the time, however, was spent in lively conversation.
I
have learned a couple of things about visit supervisors during these visits.
First, it's important to involve them in the visit so that they can clearly see
that we are not trying to turn our children against the CAS. Second, they are
not told anything whatsoever about the case so, not even knowing what they're
looking for, their reports should be quite unbiased.
Tomorrow,
i.e. Sunday, we're supposed to have all nine children at church all day again.
The foster parents of the two older children, however, have decided that they're
going somewhere near Lake Ontario for a week (starting early tomorrow morning).
This will prevent those children from at least two, and perhaps three,
court-ordered visits (this Sunday, next Friday, and, perhaps, next Sunday).
We
found out about last Monday's visit only at almost the very last minute, i.e.
last Sunday evening when the visit supervisors at our church, just before
leaving, happened to mention it (just in case we didn'tyet know). It almost
ended up, therefore, with our three youngest children being brought to the CAS
offices to meet us, and ourselves not even knowing about it.
Five
very helpful people with whom I work (at Nortel Networks) have spent a few
evenings here this week helping us get our current house back into reasonable
shape. Two more, who have just found out what's going on, have offered to add
their efforts to this endeavour this week. The mother of one (of the first
five), who will be out of town this week, has offered to add her help starting
next week.
We have made an offer on a new house this evening. There already is another conditional offer on it, so we won't know for sure whether we'll get it or not until perhaps Tuesday. It's a house which has about twice as much space as this one, is much better designed for a large family, is in a much nicer neighbourhood, and has an empty basement which, money permitting, leaves us free to add several more rooms. It's also in a wonderful location for us, i.e. just south of Carling and east of Woodroffe. It's quite expensive, though, so we'll end up with no savings should we get it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:28:36 -0400 (EDT)
Either
the CAS bureaucracy messed up, or there was what I would interpret as a very
good sign. The strange event was that no visit supervisors showed up at our
church. We figured that they'd at least make a surprise visit at some random
time during the afternoon, but even that didn't happen. It would appear that the
CAS dared to leave us entirely alone with our children for a whole nine hbours.
The
five older children, i.e. those seven and up, seem to be handling this ordeal
quite well. They have remain polite, are making honest and complete assessments
regarding what is going on, and, from what little I'm able to observe, seem to
know how to cooperate, in all things reasonable, with the CAS staff. For the
four younger ones, however, it's a different matter, the toll being greater as
the age decreases.
Our
6-year-old son (the one with cerebral palsy) keeps telling us that he wants to
go home. He also keeps hoping, even though we openly inform him to the contrary,
that each visit will end with us being allowed to take him home. He quietly
leaves with his foster parents, however, when they come to pick him up.
Our
5-year-old daughter just can't stop talking to us. She knows that these short
times are all that she has with us right now, and seems to want to make the most
of them in spite of what's going on around her. She, for example, had an
unending list of things to tell us, and questions to ask us, even during the
communion service and the time of congregational prayer. While, once in a while,
I would gently hint that these were times where quietness was more appropriate,
I didn't have the heart to ignore her, or, worse yet, insist that she shut up. I
know that God understands, and we also have a very understanding congregation.
Our
4-year-old daughter cries a lot, and wants to be tightly held almost all of the
time. She, too, knows that she'll eventually have to leave us, and these are her
ways of letting us know that she's not happy about it, and that she deeply
misses the closeness which we, as a family, are used to sharing.
Our
2-year-old son has taken to hitting people, to running around uncontrollably, to
bouts of plaintive whining, and to restlessness. Whenever we change his diaper
he really kicks up a fuss, and we think our best guess, so far, regarding this
is that he thinks that any activity regarding the changing of what he's wearing
is related to preparation for his departure. Since he's the only one whose
language skills are still very weak, he's the only one with whom we can't yet
hold a proper two-way discussion. We can tell him lots of things, but he's
unable to confirm his understanding of them, and he's also unable to ask us his
own questions. I think that a lot of his currently wilder behaviour is an
outward expression of the incredible frustration which he must be feeling
within.
I
mentioned in an earlier message that the foster parents of the two older
children (12, 14) planned to take them along on a trip to Lake Ontario, which
would deny us two Sunday visits, and one mid-week visit, with them. They gave in
a bit, in that they brought them for morning worship and lunch, picking them up
at 12:30 for the trip. This, to me, is still unacceptable as I see no other way
to interpret it than it being flagrant disobedience to a court order. By their
conduct, they are declaring that their needs superceed ours.
One
of our children has complained to us that the father of one of his foster
parents (I forget which one right now) drinks beer. This, of course, may, in
fact, not be a serious problem at all, but it does highlight the fact that our
young children's consciences are at great risk of being seared by the ways of
the world which are being intimately presented as being acceptable.
Our
children have reported to us that they are, on occasion, left in the care of
others when their foster parents have other things to do. While I suppose that
this situation must inevitably arise, it's really, in my opinion, not right.
Normally, it would be we, i.e. the real parents, who would select the
babysitter. Given that we can't, and (casting the best possible light on the
situation) assuming that the CAS staff are qualified to make such judgements, it
ought to be them who do it. The foster parents, however, should, in my opinion,
not be given the freedom to leave our children, even temporarily, in the care of
non-CAS-approved personnel.
My wife and I share another conscience-searing concern, i.e. that our efforts to teach our children to avoid strangers who attempt to entice them is being systematically undone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
As
I wrote in an earlier message, our 2-year-old son has been showing increasingly
worse behaviour during this ordeal. We had a visit with him and our other two
youngest children (4, 5) this morning during which his behaviour was even worse
than yesterday. He claimed ownership of all of the toys, and, when his
4-year-old sister took one of them (during a moment when he wasn't playing with
it), he began to uncontrollably fervently cry.
My
wife made the right call (in my opinion) in deciding that they had both
exhibited unacceptable selfishness, and removed that particular toy from both of
them while I held him and waited for his crying to stop. During a moment when
his crying subsided for a moment, I asked him if he wanted the toy back. His
response was "no", which confirmed my suspisions that the incident was
the catalyst, but that his crying was really over his situation. Either way, my
course of action would have been the same, i.e. if it was selfishness then
ignoring him until he stopped was the correct thing to do, and if his crying was
an expression of his frustration at his current situation, i.e. everything
stable he'd ever known has been ruthlessly stolen from him, then patiently
waiting for him to stop, and providing him a shoulder to cry on, was the right
thing to do.
During
all of this, of course, the visit supervisor was making all kinds of careful
notes. Since I'm not sure regarding what they think would have been the right
thing to do, and since I'm not even sure whether or not they understood our
children well enough to really know what was going on, I'm not sure how this
morning's proceedings will reflect on us.
At
one point I told the visit supervisor that "this is an entirely new
phenomenon which only began during the last couple of weeks after what you guys
have done to them". She said, "I'm not even going to go there". I
said, "I just thought you should know". She repeated, more
emphatically, "I'm not going to go there".
He
finally did calm down, after probably more than a half an hour, and enjoyed a
bit of the visit. When, however, the expensive sandalls which were bought for
him (which he doesn't like to wear) were put back onto his feet, he, knowing
this meant that he'd be taken away again, began to kick and scream. The further
down the hall we walked, the louder he screamed. When the visit supervisor
started to take him, he clung to my wife for dear life. She finally aplied
enough force to get ahold of him, at which point his screams became more like
shreaks. She told him stuff like "it's okay", and hurriedly took him
behind a door where we could no longer hear either of them.
My
wife immediately broke into uncontrollable sobbing, saying things like
"they just don't understand", and I, in a moment of weakness, spoke
the phrase "children's destruction society" twice before we left their
building. It's almost unbearable for us to see our baby being destroyed, right
before our eyes, and knowing that there's nothing we can do to stop it. We've
protected our children from everything, and now all we can do is stand by
helplessly while others reek havoc.
Upon
arrival at home, we received a call from the in-take social worker (Heather
Clark). She told me that the foster parents were reporting that we (implying my
wife and I) were making big scenes when our children were being taken away from
us on Sunday evening, and that this means that she feels that the supervision of
our Sunday visits would have to be reinstated. I tried to impress upon her that
we were doing no such thing, that the eight older children were also doing no
such thing, and that the only scene being made was our 2-year-old's expression
of unhappiness when he was being taken, yet again, from the only stability he's
ever known. I also tried to impress upon her that there was a whole congregation
of people standing around who would be able to confirm that my version, and not
that of the foster parents, was correct.
The in-take social worker threatened to shorten the Sunday visits for our three youngest children (even though only the youngest is an issue), and claimed that she would undertake to "manage our children's feelings" (whatever that means ... drugs?). She also resented my reference to our children "being taken away again", and wanted me to remember that our children were, after all, only visiting us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:27:54 -0400 (EDT)
One
of the things the in-take social worker has said on more than one occasion is
that she would not consider returning our children until the CAS has performed
an investigation in order to uncover the deep dark secret(s) which contributed
to the serious deterioration of the condition of our house. I can understand
this, even though I know that they'll only find a bunch of little things rather
than even one big thing. What I don't understand, however, is why that
investigation hasn't even begun yet. Three weeks, therefore, have now been
entirely wasted.
A
very helpful lady with whom I work has taken the time (not more than a half an
hour) to discuss the issue with us, and believes that she fully understands. We
met for a couple of hours with a lady in the chrisis section of the Pinecrest
Queensway Health and Community Services offices (in order to see what community
help might be available and in order to tap into her wisdom regarding such
matters), and she believes that she understands. A long-time friend of ours
happened to drop by during our first meeting with our lawyer (which lasted about
two and a half hours), and, together we explained to him what the nature of the
problem was, and he feels that he understands. The CAS, however, doesn't appear
to have made even the slightest effort. While they wait, our children suffer and
deteriorate!
I
know that you have already tried to talk to the CAS about our situation, and all
they did was invoke silence. The lady from work, whom I referred to earlier,
also wants to give it a try. I wrote up the following waiver, and both my wife
and I signed it. Let's see if the CAS will honour it.
We, Dave and Ruby Mielke, hereby release the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa Carleton from any and all obligations to maintain confidentiality regarding any and all information, reports, assessments, opinions, etc. which it has pertaining to our family. If anyone at all asks any question at all to any member of the CAS-OC staff, it is our desire that the response to that question be open, honest, and complete.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:42:39 -0400 (EDT)
As
I've already mentioned, the foster parents of our 14- and 12-year-old daughters
decided to take them on a week-long trip to Lake Ontario. This has eliminated
two Sunday visits and one mid-week visit with them. To be exact, it must be
noted that they did come to church last Sunday for morning worship and lunch,
and were picked up at 12:30, even though the original plan was that they'd be
leaving very early in the morning.
We
had an hour and a half visit with the four middle children (6, 7, 8, 10) this
morning. Our 8- and 10-year-old daughters have been put into a day-camp, and
their visit with us this morning was cut short by a half an hour because
promptly returning to the day-camp was deemed to be more important than their
having a full-length visit with us.
Our
7- and 6-year-old sons have told us that they're being sent off to a 10-day camp
starting next Tuesday. This will mean that we'll miss two mid-week visits and
one Sunday visit with them.
Since
visits apparently don't take place on statutory holidays, and since next Monday
is a holiday in Ontario, we'll be missing next week's mid-week visit with our
three youngest children (2, 4, 5).
The
only problem we've been having at the end of our Sunday visits is that our
2-year-old son struggles not to leave. The CAS, however, has decided that this
is really evidence that he's too tired because the visit is too long. They have
decided, therefore, that he, along with his two older sisters (4, 5), will now
be picked up from our church at 3pm. It must be noted that the two girls (4, 5)
have not shown any problems at their normal 7pm departure time, so, in so far as
they are concerned, the CAS has created a problem out of a non-problem. In so
far as our 2-year-old son is concerned, they've mis-attributed the problem. It
must also be noted that we, as a family, have stayed over at our church all day
Sunday, every week, for the passed few years, and none of our children have ever
shown signs of it being too long an undertaking.
On
the way home from today's visit we ran into a member of our congregation. Among
other things, he told us that he had noted an unusual degree of upsetness in our
younger children during these passed few weeks which he had never seen before.
This morning's visit, by the way, went very well (other than the enforced early departure of two of our children). This time the visit supervisor observed us from behind a glass, so, although she could see everything, she was not physically present with us. Although a number of toys were selected, most were not used. Our 10-year-old daughter played scrabble with our 16-year-old son (who came with us), and the other three children sat with us, and talked while playing with some plastercene.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
Our
14- and 12-year-old daughtters were, as previously expected, not present. Their
foster parents have taken a lengthy trip to some place near Lake Ontario called,
I believe, Prince Edward County.
Our
2-year-old son was not present. We were informed, several minutes into our
morning worship service, and only after my wife explicitly asked one of the
visit supervisors about his absence, that he had contracted a very contageous
disease called "hand, foot and mouth disease". I've never heard of it,
so I guess I'll have to do a bit of web browsing to research it.
Our
children were theoretically removed from our home because our house was to
unhealthy of a place for them to be living in. While here, however, other than
for the normal colds and flus which passed through the community, our children
tended to be extremely healthy. During these passed few weeks, however, i.e.
ever since the time they were taken away from us, they seem to be getting sick
much more often: our 4-year-old daughter has has ring-worm and scabes, our
6-year-old son has had an unexplained feaver, and, now, our 2-year-old son has
"hand, foot and mouth disease". It seems to me, therefore, even from a
health perspective, that they were much better off here.
Our
4- and 5-year-old daughters left in the middle of the afternoon, i.e. at 3pm,
instead of being allowed to stay until after evening worship. We expected this
change, although there is no good reason for it. The CAS has arbitrarily decided
that the whole day visit was too long for them, and that they were finding it
too tiring, even though staying all Sunday at church has been a normal family
practice for all of us for the passed few years.
Two
visit supervisors arrived before morning worship, one of whom was the same as a
couple of Sundays ago. One of them (the new one) left a few minutes after our
younger children left in the middle of the afternoon. The other one, however,
stayed until the older children left. As near as we could determine, these two
visit supervisors had not met one another before today's job assignment. Our
children were able to determine that one of them (the one who stayed for the
whole day) was 33 years old.
There
was a change in the procedure which they used to remove our children at the end
of the visit. We used to walk with our children to just outside the door of the
church, and the foster parents would come to pick them up and take them to their
cars from there. Today, however, we were to wait in the sanctuary (the nursery
for the 3pm departure) while the visit supervisors escorted our children out of
the building.
Our
4-year-old daughter is still showing her newly founded, and very
uncharacteristic desire to monopolize her parents' attention. She has taken to
forced lengthy whining when she wants a toy that someone else has, falsely
claiming tiredness when another child is being held, etc. This seems to be the
method which she's decided to use to get as much of her parents' attention as
she can during as little time as she has with us, and to show her extreme
discontent at having been removed from her home.
A
teen-aged girl, who used to attend our church until her family moved out of the
area, came by and spent the afternoon with us. Her family has also been involved
with the CAS, and, right in the presence of the visit supervisors, she spent a
lot of time telling our older children that she knew what they were going
through, how unresponsive the CAS was to her needs, and how the CAS had
"messed up my sister". I can only but wonder how all that went over,
but did absolutely nothing to stop her.
Our
children have confirmed to us that none of them have been told that they have
been granted open phone access, i.e. that, without either monitoring or
permission, any of them can pick up the phone at any time and call us. Our 14-
and 12-year-old daughters have been exercising this privilege, but that's only
because we told them they could, and then they told their foster parents. It's
still unclear whether their foster parents just trusted them, or whether they
explicitly confirmed this fact with the CAS.
A week ago, or so, I mentioned that we'd made an offer on a house which already had a conditional offer. On Tuesday morning I was informed that the conditional offer was withdrawn, so the house will now become ours (the closing date being September 16). It has a much better design for a large family, and it's also in a very convenient location for people like ourselves who do not drive. Paying for it is the next challenge, and I'm hoping that I haven't made a financial commitment which is just a little over my head. We bearly break even now, so adding a mortgage and a commitment to help from an external cleaning service three times per week will be somewhat tricky to accommodate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
>Is
Michael Coren accurate when he writes the following statement? I don't
>remember you mentioning this: "The emergency department clocked up a
certain
>number of apparently play-related injuries in too short a time and was
>obliged to call the CAS. The parents say that with a total of 13 children in
>their family, it's not surprising that they spend a fair amount of time
>dealing with cuts and bruises."
That's
an accurate enough summary, which actually incorporates two different points
which I have made in the past.
First:
The CAS itself is looking at the total number of known injuries for our entire
family, and comparing it with what they'd expect for a normal family (which, of
course, would have far fewer children). Without even trying, therefore, we come
out way above their safety threshold, and, therefore, are suspect.
Second:
There was a time when one of our daughters, then about 6 years old, was very
accident prone. I can't remember all of the details any more, but I do recall
that she had five injuries in under a year. The hospital (Queensway Carleton)
doesn't appear to relate family members to one another, but it apparently does
do some form of statistical analyssis on each patient.
One
of those injuries which I do remember is that she wanted the baseball bat which
her older brother was using, so, without warning, she snuck up behind him to
grab it while he was swinging it. This, of course, resulted in her getting a
solid clonk on her head which required a number of stitches.
Another
of those injuries was when she found a very sharp-pointed stick on the ground
and began to chew on that end of it. We caught it fairly quickly, but not before
she had punctured the roof of her mouth very near a major clump of blood
vessels.
The
CAS court papers say that we didn't have a good explanation for all of those
injuries. The fact, however, is that we knew exactly what the cause for each of
them was at the time we took her to the hospital. What was probably true,
however, is that we couldn't remember all of the details when, way after the
fact, they (the CAS) asked us about them.
>You
told me in a personal message that you are totally blind, though it
>wasn't clear whether you said it only jokingly.
I
wouldn't joke about something like that. I indeed am totally blind, and have
been so since about the age of two.
>If
true, several questions follow from that:
>Is your wife blind, too?
No,
she is not.
>Did
you ever sense that this might have biased CAS to taking your kids,
It
may be in the back of their minds, but they haven't said anything which would
lend support for that possibility. The CAS supervisor, at one point, did observe
that I had obviously overcome some major obstacles (which I took as a bit of a
complement, especially being as it came from such a negative person).
The
CAS court papers mention a time (about 10 years ago) when I had called the
police to report one of our small children being missing. The included police
report does contain the officer's concern that I, a blind person, was the only
adult present with five of our children in our backyard.
She
wasn't missing after all, by the way. My wife had taken her along when she went
shopping. When either my wife or yself takes any of our children along, we are
usually very careful to let the other one know exactly who will not be at home.
This was one unfortunate instance, however, where something went wrong in the
communication. She came home while the police were still here, so the whole
incident came, at that point, to a quick and happy ending.
>especially
considering that they might think your house is dirty because you >really
have no way of properly taking care of it?
What
is true is that I did not have a very good way of assessing it. Were I able to
see, I might have (who can really go back in time to be sure) taken more serious
steps on my own.
>Is
that why you need a >cleaning service?
No.
I need to be able to do my job, which is our only source of income. My wife
needs to have enough time to do things with our preschool children. Our
school-aged children need a proper amount of time to do their homework. We need
enough time together as a family during the evening. The job of cleaning up
after this many people, as has been proven, is just too big if each of us is to
have a life outside of housekeeping. We'll all try to do better, but I think
it's the better part of prudence to hire someone whose job it is to help us
catch up whenever we fall behind.
>Any
problems recognizing which of your children is talking to you? You have,
>after all, 13 of them - my parents had a bad time with just three of us! :)
No.
Their voices are all quite distinct. They also each have quite unique
mannerisms, different interests, etc., which all help to separate one from the
other. Once in a while I do blow it, and this provides a good opportunity for
healthy humour.
>What
job do you have at NCR?
Not
NCR. I work for Nortel Networks (and have done so since 1978). I haven't got a
clue what my official job title is, but, if I had to make it up, I probably be
something like a Senior Software Designer in Configuration Management Systems. I
design and write new software, help others design and debug their software, and
get given the tricky production problems which others can't figure out.
Here's a note which I just received from a former teacher of our children. While many may be scared to risk their jobs by saying anything publicly, at least some know what the truth is. I've slightly edited what this teacher wrote (references to names, exact number of children taught, etc.) in order to insure untraceability.
>First, I would like to
express my sorrow and anger in reaction to both the
>original episode in July and much of what you have reported on since then.
>
>In my position as teacher of a number of your children, and with
the
>additional pleasure of keeping in contact with your oldest daughter and
>sometimes visiting AWANA meetings, it has been interesting, inspiring
and
>humbling to observe and sense the strong bond of love within your family.
>Interviews with you and Ruby always showed that you make very conscious
>decisions about how your children should live, treat others and be treated
>by others.