BIRD ON FATHERS

November 3, 2001

Mom tried to hire a hitman; daughter still lives with her

By HEATHER BIRD -- Toronto Sun

Okay, here's a quick test. If a woman is convicted of hiring someone to maim her ex-husband, does that necessarily mean she's a bad mother? And just because she has to do some pesky jail time, should that affect her custody and access?

Answer: Apparently not in Ontario.

Of the scads of frustrated fathers who have e-mailed or phoned in their custody horror stories in the wake of Thursday's column about the Carline Vandenelsen judicial kiss, there is one tale which stands alone.

While most divorces have their fair share of "he said, she said," it's not often the dispute ends up in the criminal courts. Jack Laughtenschlager's case is the exception.

Though she richly deserves it, we won't name his ex-wife here, as their daughter shares her name. There's no reason for the sins of the mother to be visited upon their teenage daughter.

The 51-year-old Kitchener man lived "off and on" with his child's mother until the girl was about two years old. In 1990, after they permanently split, access was always a problem, even though his support payments were up to date. (He admits to an outstanding dispute over a sum with the provincial authorities. He says he's paid in full. They say he still owes 20 bucks.)

At any rate, when the child was about three, the mother became obsessed with the notion that the girl had been sexually abused during an access weekend. She took her to hospital, where an on-call doctor did a physical examination and concluded nothing was amiss. Nonetheless, the case was sent to the local Children's Aid, where a social worker arrived at the same determination. The case ultimately landed in family court, where a London psychologist, Dr. Jack Albin, was appointed to do a custody assessment. The shrink decided (after a one-day investigation involving interviews with only the child and both parents) that daddy did, in fact, do it. As a result, Laughtenschlager was cut back to two hours of supervised access per month. He was never charged criminally and he subsequently challenged Albin's report with a complaint to the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

In the meantime, still not satisfied that her daughter was secure, the mom and a friend set out to hire someone to murder Laughtenschlager. Fortunately for him (and unfortunately for them), they gave a local conman $1,500 to do the dirty deed. He promptly went to the police with the information, hoping to solve some of his own legal problems in exchange for the tip.

The police, in turn, sent in an undercover cop to pose as the hitman and came away with a clean recording of the request. In 1994, both the mother and her friend were sentenced to 15 months in jail after pleading guilty to conspiracy to cause bodily harm. Thinking this was his chance, Laughtenschlager petitioned for custody and was told by the judge that the little girl should stay put with her maternal grandmother because, after all, she was upset since her mom was going to jail.

After many years and much legal wrangling, the College of Psychologists have come to a conclusion in the case of Dr. Albin. According to the agreed statement of facts, Albin admitted to filing a report without conducting a proper investigation. In addition, he didn't interview the other professionals involved in the case, didn't take reasonable measures to check out the facts and didn't even send his conclusion to Laughtenschlager or his lawyer.

The discipline panel issued a reprimand and ordered that a limitation be placed on Dr. Albin's certificate. It says he is "ordered not to conduct custody and access assessments of any nature, and is ordered not to conduct child welfare assessment or treatment work that involves sexual abuse allegations."

It is somewhat of a hollow victory for Laughtenschlager, whose relationship with his daughter has been permanently damaged by the turmoil over the past 10 years. She lives with her mother and still comes to see her dad and his new wife for one weekend a month. But things were never the same.

"All you need is an allegation and they take away your access and you end up visiting in a church basement," he says, although he agrees all abuse allegations have to be investigated.

The cost has been enormous, both emotionally and financially. And he's given up hoping that one day things may turn in his favour.

"What goes around, comes around, doesn't always apply."

===================

November 1, 2001

Fathers face uphill battle in our courts

By HEATHER BIRD -- Toronto Sun

There may have been many who were shocked by the acquittal of Carline Vandenelsen, the Stratford woman who kidnapped her triplets, but I am not one of them. The justice system is so mother-biased, nothing surprises me any more.

However, I had hoped, somewhat foolishly it seems, that a jury of ordinary men and women might be able to see what the learned experts apparently cannot. I was wrong. So Ms. Vandenelsen, the woman who ignored a court order to flee with her children to Mexico, has escaped scot-free. For now.

It is absurd enough to be laughable if custody and access weren't such painful topics for many Canadians, most of them men. In the years that I've been writing this column, I've only ever encountered one woman who was denied access to her child in a decision where it was apparent that the (female) judge had agonized before ruling. And, after spending some time with the crazed mom, it was patently obvious that she wasn't fit to mother a cat, much less a child.

I wish I could say the same about the men. I routinely hear from fathers who are frustrated or thwarted by the system when it comes to seeing their sons and daughters. One case in particular stands out, a circumstance where the man first begged me not to reveal his identity and then later backed out of having his story told altogether. He was afraid that he would lose what precious time he had with his little girl.

So what, you might say. That's the price of divorce. When you decide you don't want to be married to the other parent any longer, you automatically forfeit the right to see your children every day. And that's true. Except in his case, when his ex-wife died, he -- the biological dad -- was refused custody of his child in favour of the dead woman's sister.

How the little girl originally came into her aunt's care is understandable. The mother was murdered by a stranger while the toddler was at daycare and, when no one appeared to claim her by 6 p.m., the centre called the sister, who was listed as a contact in the event of an emergency.

Whenever there is a killing, the police first look to the victim's circle of intimates for a suspect. Thus, the natural father found himself under scrutiny for some time. He wasn't concerned because he knew he would be cleared and, instead of fighting, he used the time to get his affairs in order for the day his daughter arrived.

His parents sold their home and moved into a house with an apartment in the basement. The plan was for the retired couple to provide daycare while dad was at work. Eventually, and as expected, the police arrested the man who committed the murder, which freed up the father to arrange for his little girl to move back home. To his shock, when he told the aunt of his intentions, he was informed he had a custody fight on his hands.

What followed was a probing series of assessments by social workers who examined all aspects of the extended family dynamics. They found he was a fit father but, by the time the case finally made it to court, the little girl was almost five and there was a body of thought that she had bonded so strongly with the aunt, it would be wrong to remove her. Now things may have changed (and I hope for his sake they have) but the last time I checked, he was paying support to his dead ex-wife's sister and seeing his child on weekends. His parents wanted to continue the fight but he was afraid that if he did, he would lose what little he had.

A psychiatrist with a specialty in family law once explained to me that there is an inherent bias in the system because of the place the concept of "mother" holds in our culture. Everybody has one, he says, and when the subject of mothering or ability to mother is raised, people automatically inject their feelings about their own into the mix. Rejecting someone else's right to mother feels uncomfortably close to rejecting one's own mother, even on a subconscious level.

NEEDS OF CHILDREN

This bias overlooks the emotional and psychological needs of children. They need both mother and father, preferably in equitable doses, but if, and only if each parent is found suitable for the job.

We'll never know what the jury was thinking in the Carline Vandenelsen trial when they bought her defence of necessity. (That's the one where she says she believed her children needed her so it was all right to steal them.)

And who knows what the Court of Appeal judges are going to think of this one when it lands upstairs. Justice might prevail. But only if the case is heard by a panel of orphans.