Lawyer warns “We have to guard against abuse of power by all state actors” ST. THOMAS, Ontario, June 11, 2002 (LSN.ca) – One of the most striking things about the trial involving seven Aylmer children seized by Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas-Elgin, now being heard before Madam Justice Eleanor Schnall of the Ontario Court, is how quickly media have sided with the parents. The children were seized by FCS agents and police on July 4, 2001 from the Aylmer home, 35 km southeast of London, after an over-excited 27-year-old rookie social worker alleged that the parents “struck them with objects” and determined they were in need of “protection.” The traditional Mennonite parents are described by media, for lack of a better term, as “fundamentalist Christians” who use textbooks and methods of discipline and child-rearing that, while they seem archaic to most reporters, are generally admitted to be harmless and possibly even effective. As the trial opened on May 27, Judge Schnall ruled virtually all of the evidence in “voir dire,” on grounds most of it is contested and, if published by the media, “would do little to advance” the public’s knowledge but would cause “emotional harm” to the children. Five additional days will be required beyond this week and may not be scheduled until late summer, according to a June 5 Canadian Press report. But having been present at the trial so far, Christie Blatchford of the National Post was particularly struck by videotaped evidence from one of the seized children. The boy “appeared shy, polite and unusually devout for a 12-year-old, but several times also broke into an endearing grin,” she wrote, noting that the tape “merely added to a picture that has been steadily developing here of the children as bright, healthy youngsters who, if arguably indoctrinated in the dogma of their parents’ Church … are also assured enough of their beliefs to have remained true to them even after being taken from their home and put in foster care for three weeks.” The family’s lawyers have argued that the children were never at any risk, that the agency had “no warrant” and not even “reasonable and probable grounds” to suspect harm. They argue the authorities “ran roughshod over the family’s Charter rights – to security of the person and against unreasonable search and seizure” – and that the social worker’s “evidence” is thus invalid. The social workers are adhering to their position that “steps taken by the agency were ordinary and commonplace,” and that they have a responsibility to protect the “most vulnerable citizens.” Valerie Wise, one of the family’s lawyers, said that if snatching children from their home was even remotely considered “ordinary conduct” for a children’s aid agency, then Canadians “all have great need for concern.” She added: “We have to guard against abuse of power by all state actors.” To read London Free Press coverage from June 8 see: https://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/01n1.html To read National Post coverage by Christie Blatchford at the trial see: (June 5) https://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20020601/416576.htm
For the Canadian Press report (link usually valid only for one day) see: https://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSMediaNews0206/05_ban-sun.html