Judge saw the limits of the rights of parents

The children, whose mother sent the girl to school with Nazi markings inked on her body, will remain with a foster family under the care of CFS. Her ex-husband, father to the boy and stepfather to the girl, claimed he had the constitutional right to freedom of expression. The couple chose to exercise that right by inking 'heil Hitler' on their daughter's arm.

Rivoalen saw that for the bunk it was.

The father proved in court he didn't know how old his own kids were. He confessed to a lifetime of drug and alcohol abuse. He admitted he frequented a skinhead website.

He essentially admitted his life was made up of a series of dumb decisions stirred together with odious beliefs.

Family photos that were posted online backed up much of what he said. That was a big mistake.

There was a picture of the dad online that, to be kind, was less than flattering and certainly not the sort of thing you want emerging when you're trying to convince a judge you deserve to raise two kids, despite that crazy send-all-immigrants-packing stuff.

The photo, which was not shown in court, featured lots of flesh, some militaristic fashion statements and plenty of tattoos. I should mention he was smart enough to keep the tattoos carefully covered up during his court appearance.

Now, the photo was actually posted on his ex-wife's account, proof of the whole woman-scorned theory. She was none too kind in her comments, either.

There's more, of course, because there inevitably is. The couple's little boy, now three or four years old by the father's reckoning, is captured on film not fully dressed. The dad admitted in court he took the pictures. I suppose it was Mom who decided they should be available to any pervert who might want a gander.

To be fair, the father did not post any of these pictures. He took some and posed for others. His apparently vengeful ex took it upon herself to make them very public. Asked by the lawyer if he'd made any effort to have them removed, he said no.

Let's be clear: The CFS hearing was held to determine whether the children's parents are unfit to raise them, in part due to emotional abuse caused by their white supremacist beliefs.

Their mother, who last appeared in court in shackles because she's facing credit card-related charges, left the province after the hearing. She's back and now wants to work toward seeing her kids.

CFS built a careful and compelling case that the father shouldn't be allowed to guide these kids across the street, let alone through life.

We all have the right to our beliefs. We don't have the right to literally mark our children to shame them and shock others.

Being able to reproduce doesn't make you a parent. Thankfully, Justice Rivoalen understood that.

lindor.reynolds@freepress.mb.ca

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 A5