Dad an unfit parent: judge

A bid by a white supremacist to get custody of his young son and older stepdaughter fell apart Thursday after a judge ruled the man has a long way to go to be a responsible parent.

The decision ends a case that saw the girl used as a "personal billboard" for white supremacist slogans, and a claim the children's apprehension by child welfare authorities violated their parents' right to freedom of expression.

The kids will continue to live with their foster parents as permanent wards of Child and Family Services, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Marianne Rivoalen said.

The judge said the case has nothing to do with racism or free speech, but is about protecting two innocent kids from bad parents.

"What is clear from all of the evidence is that these two children have been exposed to a whole constellation of parental inadequacies," Rivoalen wrote in a 34-page decision.

The home environment included violence, drug use, unchanged diapers, missed meals, criminal acts and shooting squirrels and birds in front of the children to feed to the family dog.

"Now add to this milieu neo-Nazi flags hanging in the windows and neo-Nazi regalia on display elsewhere inside the home," Rivoalen said. "This was not a wholesome or nourishing environment in which to raise young children with developing minds and characters."

The mother of both children said she wants to be their mom again.

"I'm not surprised by the decision, nor am I fully disappointed," said the woman in her late 20s. "If I need a year to prove myself to them and go back to court, then I have that year.

"Hopefully in that time I can regain some contact with the kids and maybe I can even regain some contact with (the foster mom)."

She said she has recently moved back to Winnipeg from Montreal and started working at a local restaurant.

She said Child and Family Services has agreed to pay for a private therapist so she can put her past behind her and learn how to be a responsible mother. She hasn't seen her children since March 2008. "Previous acquaintances that I've had, I've dropped all contact with," she said. "I won't be seeing any of them to have any of them bring me down."

It was her own actions two years ago that resulted in her children being taken away and launched a case that generated headlines across the country.

CFS apprehended both children after the girl went to school with drawings of swastikas on her and racist slogans written on her in permanent marker.

The girl told a social worker called in by the school that the symbols were put on by her mother and explained what each meant. She then pulled up her pant leg, showing more supremacist writing.

The child told the worker, "What people don't understand is that black people should die." Without pausing, the girl then described how to kill a black person.

Police were called in and similar markings were found on the girl's stepbrother. Both children were soon removed from the home.

The mother has said she did it to get the school's attention because she was concerned about a lack of homework given the girl and about the school not returning phone calls.

Rivoalen said the "cultish slogans" written on the children were akin to an assault.

"Teaching one's child that 'black people just need to die' is not just reprehensible parenting," she said. "Advocating genocide and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group are crimes in this country. These children have a right to be protected from these things."

Rivoalen also said the man was unfit to look after the children.

Lawyer Catherine Dunn said her client was "emotionally devastated" by the decision.

"Obviously, this has been a hard road for him to go down," she said. "He's instructed me to appeal.

"From his perspective, the children are still quite bonded with him," Dunn said.

The girl's biological father said he supports having the child live with her foster mother, but only temporarily. He and the girl's mother split up when the girl was two.

"If CFS got behind (the mother) and if they structured a program for her and showed how it's possible to be a single parent with two kids, that's what she needs. She doesn't need criticism -- she's needs help. She needs some structure."

Rivoalen also dismissed the constitutional question of freedom of expression.

The biological mother and the stepfather said they followed the Norse Odinist religion and that the swastika was a religious symbol.

Rivoalen said she didn't believe that for a second.

"It is apparent that (the mother) used her child's body as a personal billboard to espouse racist views. (She) sought celebrity, sacrificed her children's dignity on the alter of sensationalism and achieved some notoriety. That was a pathetic cry for attention."

-- With files from Gabrielle Giroday

bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca

What the judge said: 

On the parents' claim a swastika and others markings on their daughter were symbols of the Norse Odinist religion:

"An infamous racist was reported once to have said, 'If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for shedding German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breed like vermin.'

"He and his party adopted the swastika as their official emblem and predominant symbol. It is now associated variously with racism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, oppression, intimidation, menacing, bigotry, hatred and evil.

"I do not accept for one moment that either (parent) holds Odinist religious beliefs. (They) were well aware of what is associated with the swastika. I do not accept that they taught the children that this iconic symbol meant something positive, favourable or affirmative.

"At the time of the children's apprehensions, (the parents) were both neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot whitewash that. They have deceived no one."

On the father:

"He is woefully unable to meet his family's basic needs or provide them with the necessities of life. He himself relies on the charity of others to survive, and with that he has furnished his family with anything but a normal household environment."

What the judge said:

On the mother:

"(Her) narcissistic quest for media attention demonstrated a puerile disregard for whether her actions conflicted with her children's best interests."

On them together:

"Like their conduct, the living conditions afforded by (them) could fairly be described as ranging from inappropriate for young children to deplorable. They lived in squalour and filth."

On the foster parents:

"I would characterize her selfless actions and those of her spouse as magnanimous and altruistic. The children love them and are bonded to them. The children have thrived in their care. The foster parents have saved these children."

On the media:

"There has been a certain sensationalism surrounding these proceedings. They have been the subject of an article in Maclean's magazine, in which (the mother) was quoted extensively, and local media were fervent, if not overzealous."

CASE TIMELINE

Part One: Seizure

Child and Family Services removed two young children from a Winnipeg home because of concerns about their safety in March 2008. That action came after the girl showed up to school with markings on her body, including a swastika and other white supremacist tags. CFS submitted an application for guardianship to Court of Queen's Bench on the basis that both the mother and the father, an alleged neo-Nazi, were deemed by CFS unfit to parent. The application also mentioned concerns about drugs and alcohol.

Part Two: The explanation

Days after the initial report, CFS was discussing a deal to drop the ap­plication for guardianship and return the children to the mother, after she separated from her husband. More details from the CFS application spilled out, including the fact the girl missed 39 days of school during the 2007-08 session. Distancing herself from her husband's more extreme views, the mother explained how she was a "white nationalist" who sub­scribed to the religious faith of Odin­ism. The mother challenged the idea her beliefs were controversial, and said those beliefs were not grounds to take her children away.

Part Three: Questions arise

Can CFS remove children from homes where no physical abuse has taken place? Where does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms kick in? Do parental be­liefs that enlist violent symbols fall under the CFS protection umbrella? Groups both right and left of centre stated their case. Law experts watched the drama. The bottom line, according to CFS, remained clear: Investigate any situation where there is concern for the safety and well-being of a child.

Part Four: The fight

May 2009. Court proceedings started. The father filed a constitu­tional challenge, claiming his rights to freedom of expression had been vio­lated.

Documents in the trial revealed the girl's views on race to be disturb­ing and hateful. The father suggested CFS doctored his daughter's state­ments. Grandparents were at a loss.

Accusations surfaced that the mother threatened to disown the daughter if she made friends with a child who wasn't white. A psychiatrist said de­spite the challenges the parents had, they could be good parents down the road. A report surfaces RCMP were alerted to a kidnapping plan designed to take the children out of their foster home. Winnipeg police picked up the mother, living outside of Manitoba, for credit card fraud. She told the court she was not able to raise the kids full-time. The father continued to battle for the children.

Part Five: Decision day

Thursday, Court of Queen's Bench Judge Marianne Rivoalen ruled the two children will remain with foster parents as permanent wards of CFS. The father's request for guardian­ship was dismissed. The mother, who is back in Winnipeg, said she will ask for a review of the decision in a year.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition February 12, 2010 A4