Here's today's story and below the column I wrote in response
Caged boys say abusers' penalty too light
KEVIN CONNOR, Special to The London Free Press and news services July 6/04
OSHAWA -- Two brothers at the heart of one of the worst child-abuse cases in Canadian history were visibly upset yesterday when their parents received nine-month jail sentences after torturing them for 13 years. "I don't feel (justice) has been served," said one boy, now 17, as he stood shoulder to shoulder with his 18-year-old brother. "I feel they should get more time."
The older boy agreed. "The justice system sucks," he said.
The Port Perry-area brothers, who were adopted at ages three and five in 1988 by their mother's sister and her husband, were forced to wear diapers into their teens, slept in dog cages, were beaten and locked in cribs.
They lived in such fear that they ate their own feces to hide evidence of accidents and, deprived of water, felt compelled to drink their own urine, court was told.
The teens -- who now live in different foster homes -- were happy to see each other and hugged in the Oshawa court before the sentencing.
It has been three years since the teens -- neither of whom can be identified -- were rescued from their home in a case that horrified police and child-care workers, who found them after a tip from a relative.
Both brothers still appear terrified of their abusers. Neither one was able to look at the couple who adopted them.
The boys' adoptive mother, 43, and father, 51, had pleaded guilty to charges of assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and failure to provide the necessaries of life.
Ontario Court Judge Donald Halikowski blasted the couple's "ill-informed system of discipline" as demeaning and damaging to the boys.
But Halikowski said their behaviour was "underscored by good intentions" and there was no evidence the parents were sadistic.
Rather, the judge said, they were out of their depth when it came to handling boys. The defence said the boys suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome and attention deficit disorder, diagnoses disputed by the Crown.
"There is no doubt they were difficult to raise," said Halikowski, though he added their treatment of the boys was beyond comprehension.
He sentenced the couple to nine months on each of the assault and confinement counts, and one month for the failure-to-provide charge. All the terms run concurrently. They will also be on probation for three years.
On bail since their arrest three years ago, the two didn't speak as they were handcuffed and taken into custody after sentencing.
The defence called the sentence fair and balanced and, despite the evidence, suggested the abuse was not as frequent as child-welfare officials alleged.
"To suggest, as was the theory, that this abusive conduct took place every day for 12 or 13 years was a far-fetched fantasy. That was not the reality," said lawyer Alex Sosna.
"These children were tethered, these children were abused periodically, but not systematically on a daily basis."
Disappointed Crown attorney Soula Olver, who had called for penitentiary terms of as long as eight years, refused to comment but said an appeal is being considered.
Even close relatives of the couple denounced the sentence as too light, given the judge's description of the boys' treatment as "near torture."
"What is (the judge) saying to the boys?" said their maternal grandfather. "This really bothers me. It really does."
"The punishment doesn't fit the crime," he added.
"She is my daughter and I'm having a terrible hard time accepting the sentence. I don't understand this judge"
Olver had earlier contrasted the couple's treatment of the boys with the kind and loving care they gave their biological son, their grandchildren and even neighbourhood kids.
Child-welfare workers rejected Halikowski's suggestion the discovery of the boys may have caused them more emotional damage than the abuse from their parents.
"We are disappointed," said Wanda Secord of the Durham Children's Aid Society.
"We had hoped for a stronger sentence."
Court heard earlier the couple went to Saskatchewan in the late 1980s to adopt her sister's children because she was dying of substance abuse and couldn't care for them.
The younger brother has denounced his adoptive mother and said he didn't have a childhood "because of her stupidness."
The older boy has said the "unbearable" crib incidents continue to haunt him.
_________
By Donald D'Haene
The more things change the more they stay the same (Caged boys say abusers penalty too light, July 6).
While Judge Donald Halikowski blasted the abusing couple's "ill-informed system of discipline" as demeaning and damaging to the boys, he also said their behaviour was "underscored by good intentions" and there was no evidence the parents were sadistic.
This sounds way too familiar. Even though we see disclosures of abuse on everything from CNN to the Jerry Springer Show, not enough has changed in how we perceive child abuse.
Yet, despite the pitiful sentence, I hope the boys? disclosure in court will lessen their feelings of shame. They certainly are not alone. Small comfort when the unfortunate reality is that they can now expect the blame game to begin. Everyone under the sun will have an opinion. Unkind comments will be hurled their way: ?It must have been easier for you to fight back since you were a boy.? ?You think you?re special, don?t you.? Or even the classic, ?I can?t say a bad thing about your foster parents. At least they provided bread on the table and clothes on your back.?
Much has been said about the co-conspiracy of silence. I suggest, people who treat victims shamefully ? in this case, an Ontario Court Judge ? are equally culpable. What these critics don?t seem to comprehend is that the patriarchal structure of the family home provided a safe haven for these abusers to maintain their position as master of their domain for a longer period of time without fear of disclosure. No doubt, these boys felt their abuse was normal while they themselves were not. Personal issues of shame and lack of esteem contributed to their silence. Their abusers counted on it.
Even so, in many ways, for these young men, the charging of their abusers is one small step toward control of their destiny, of truly exorcising their demons. Even though justice wasn?t delivered, the experience may work out to be a very empowering experience. They?ve learned first hand what many survivors discover to be a right of passage: the benefits of asserting oneself don't necessarily depend on happy outcomes, legal or otherwise.
Of course, the ideal situation would involve extensive therapy before even considering charging an abuser. For unless the victim has a strong and loving peer support system in place, the process can be another experience with abuse. I can only pray that these boys, if not earlier, will seek some form of counseling.
They need someone who will positively reinforce their self-worth, who will never discount their experience, and will allow them to be imperfect, angry, forgiving - whatever and whoever they are. Maybe The Court didn?t value their experience; it doesn?t mean we, their peers, won?t. Regardless, it's vital that they know where they?ve come from to appreciate where they are and where they want to be.
I only hope this case won?t silence other victims. Our collective stories and experience empower us, weaken predators, and help prevent future victims.
Silence only perpetuates abuse.
Donald D'Haene is the author of Father's Touch. A play based on his story will be produced in London, Canada, this fall.