"This is the application of the Children's Aid Society of Cape Breton for a finding that the child Corbin McCarthy who was born April the 10th, 1998 is in need of protective services under the Children and Family Services Act Section 22(2)(b)...Evidence was given yesterday throughout the day and I listened very carefully to the evidence. I have spent the morning reviewing my notes. I have reviewed the previous findings of Judge Wilson, of Judge Mac Lellan, and of the Appeal Court. The evidence of the agency is basically on a two fold plane.
Firstly, the agency's position is that Section 22(b) serves as the only basis for the application and, therefore, relies upon the evidence previously given respecting the child Emma. I am urged by the agency that this evidence, and the findings with respect to that case, bear heavily with respect to the new child, Corbin...As I say, this is historical evidence which I have thoroughly reviewed and considered. I heard and listened carefully to the evidence of Mr. Paul MacDonald, who is the agency's Protection Worker and the worker in charge of the McCarthy's case...he has visited the McCarthy's four times over the past months unexpectedly, early in the morning. He sees nothing to concern him. He finds the McCarthy's very cooperative, very friendly, that their property and home is very neat and tidy, that it is a very family oriented home and that it is an appropriate place for the child. He said that there's nothing to suggest that the child is at immediate risk...Mr. MacDonald indicated and said; "I have not seen anything during my visits to see these issues as a concern." (Note: the issues are referring to whether or not this relationship is a stable one and issues of domestic violence and substance abuse). "What I saw is not consistent with what I heard." He indicated in his evidence that there is no question in his mind that the McCarthy's have been cooperating and that they have been very candid with him."
Photographs were exhibited in their evidence of the child, of the home, of the child's bedroom. Certainly the photographs have satisfied me that the evidence of Mr. MacDonald is well corroborated. The photographs indicate to me that the home is a very pleasant place, it is very clean, it is very well ordered. There is certainly pride in that home and care taken in it's decor. There has been no evidence provided during this hearing to refute their claim of sobriety on the part of Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy, nor to refute the fact that there has been stability in their relationship for the past year. I would find that the loss of Emma has had a most sobering effect on the McCarthy's and this has no doubt underscored their efforts to get their lives back on track. I would note as well that there has been no referrals to the Children's Aid Society over the past year with respect to these parties. I have no doubt that the McCarthy's are trying very hard to be mature and responsible adults. The loss of Emma can be compared to getting shock therapy which has no doubt caused them to take stalk and reassess where they are heading in their lives. From what I see from the evidence, the child is thriving, is doing very well, is a happy and beautiful little boy and is in a happy and safe home. I must recognize the efforts that have been taken by the parents in this case to reduce the risk, which was a reality. The agency is right to have concerns based on the past history. It is appropriate to be nervous, to be concerned about whether or not history will repeat itself. This was something I considered at length when I was reviewing this situation in my mind and in being very careful to weigh all the evidence in order to reach my decision here today. However, on the basis of the evidence, I am satisfied that the child is not in need of protective services at this time. Therefore, the application is dismissed."
In the above decision, and at their appeal hearing April 14, it is clear that CAS is on the ropes and that they have lied to the press about just about everything. The biggest lie, which they told the National Post, was that Emma had been adopted out before Christmas. Supporting that lie was the lie that Emma needed apprehension in the first place, based on the further lie that Bernard McCarthy was an abusive husband and father, that Lisa was, to use Nancy Radcliffe's word a terrible mother "irreparably flawed".
Misplacing files, admitting that the lie that Emma had been adopted was a ploy in their "investigation" -- almost certainly deployed with the reckless hope that perhaps Lisa would start drinking again, during the holiday season -- and every step that CAS has taken since the Internet and the National Post took up their story -- has shown them to be mailicious, cruel, wanton, incompetent and criminally culpable for a whole range of charges.
What they did to Lisa and Bernard is almost beyond belief. What they did to Emma, placing her in a home where a teenaged child molester, a retarded boy, was allowed to sexualize her and molest her is unconscionable. No wonder then that they sent this intimidating letter asking Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy to sign off for a dollar! This case will eventually cost them millions, if there is any justice at all! And you can be sure that Lisa, Bernard, their extended family and inJusticebusters will stay with this until justice is served!
In this story a mother who turned viciously on her husband received a very different treatment from Lisa and Bernard McCarthy. The parts of the mandate about protecting children and keeping families together? A cruel joke on children and families.
We want to point out that as horrible and extreme as the Emma McCarthy case is, it is not isolated case. What distinguishes this case from many other stories is the McCarthys tenacity in fighting a huge bureaucracy.