CANADA Canada - Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am, Gairloch Rd, Landsdowne Station, Pictou County, NS, 2 May 2025 #5

[Unalienable Rights]

Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Nova Scotia

Pictou County District RCMP is asking for the public's assistance in locating six-year-old Lilly Sullivan and four-year-old Jack Sullivan. They were last seen this morning, May 2, on Gairloch Rd. in...

www.facebook.com

Pictou County District RCMP is asking for the public's assistance in locating six-year-old Lily Sullivan and four-year-old Jack Sullivan. They were last seen this morning, May 2, on Gairloch Rd. in #LansdownStation, #Pictou County.

Lily Sullivan has shoulder-length light brown hair with bangs. She might be wearing a pink sweater, pink pants, and pink boots.

Jack Sullivan has short blondish hair. He’s wearing blue dinosaur boots. No other clothing description is available.

We ask that people spread the word through social media respectfully.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Lily Sullivan and Jack Sullivan is asked to contact Pictou County District RCMP at 902-485-4333. To remain anonymous, call Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, toll-free, at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), submit a secure web tip at www.crimestoppers.ns.ca, or use the P3 Tips app.

File #: 2025-580096


Update, 1:10 p.m. Search efforts continue for Lily and Jack Sullivan in #PictouCounty. A vulnerable missing person alert was issued for Pictou County this morning to help find the two who were last seen at about 10 a.m. today, May 2, at a home on Gairloch Rd. before they wandered.

Missing children: Help the RCMP find Lilly Sullivan and Jack Sullivan | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

May 2, 2025
Landsdowne Station, Nova Scotia

UPDATE: The search for missing children Lily and Jack Sullivan is ongoing in Pictou County.

Since just after 10 a.m. this morning, May 2, a search has been underway for two children who are believed to have wandered from a home on Gairloch Rd. in Lansdowne Station, Pictou County.

There is a multi-agency response currently on the ground in Pictou County. It includes resources from ground search and rescue teams from around the province who are collaborating to ensure resources and teams are available on an ongoing basis. Other resources and teams include the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA), Department of Natural Resources Air Services, and several RCMP units, including RCMP Police Dog Services, RCMP Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) operators, and others. Additionally, the RCMP issued a vulnerable missing person alert for Pictou County.

Police and others involved in the search appreciate the ongoing community support across the province related to this missing person investigation. We ask, however, that the public avoid the search area to allow trained searchers to do their work. The child's family has been kept updated on the search efforts.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Lily and Jack Sullivan is asked to contact Pictou County District RCMP at 902-485-4333. To remain anonymous, call Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, toll-free, at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), submit a secure web tip at www.crimestoppers.ns.ca, or use the P3 Tips app.

--

Pictou County District RCMP is asking for the public's assistance in locating six-year-old Lily Sullivan and four-year-old Jack Sullivan. They were last seen this morning, May 2, on Gairloch Rd. in Lansdown Station, Pictou County.

Lily Sullivan has shoulder-length light brown hair with bangs. She might be wearing a pink sweater, pink pants, and pink boots.

Jack Sullivan has short blondish hair. He's wearing blue dinosaur boots. No other clothing description is available.

We ask that people spread the word through social media respectfully.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Lily Sullivan and Jack Sullivan is asked to contact Pictou County District RCMP at 902-485-4333. To remain anonymous, call Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, toll-free, at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), submit a secure web tip at www.crimestoppers.ns.ca, or use the P3 Tips app.

Contact information

Strategic Communications and Media Relations
Nova Scotia RCMP
[email protected]

File number: 2025-580096


MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINES THREAD *NO DISCUSSION*

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,
This thread is very active. Please remember, we do not post or discuss rumors. Rumors become facts within seconds, and then the whole case discussion gets messed up.
If you have any questions, you can send SillyBilly, MadMcGoo, or me (Tricia) a "direct message," formally called a private message. You can locate your direct messages by clicking the icon next to your user name in the upper right-hand corner.
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[Knitty]

Please continue here.

 

[AddyFinch]

Might not be related, but could be of interest Child Luring Nova Scotia June 2025
and another Child approached March 2025
and another Attempted abduction December 2024
and another Attempted 2022
and another Attempted 2021
Please someone reassure me there isn't a predator out there?
I couldn't find anything further about each one, but if these are all true (reported by LE), then it surely might lead to a working child trafficking or pedophile ring.
Add Dylan Ehers to mix and the three boys from last week, and J&L, and there could be a pattern here
Hope RCMP are looking into Lilly & Jack a little closer to the abduction theory, and staying quiet because they are hot on a trail.

I copied this here from my last post so it doesn’t get buried. I think this important in L&J case.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Might not be related, but could be of interest Child Luring Nova Scotia June 2025
and another Child approached March 2025
and another Attempted abduction December 2024
and another Attempted 2022
and another Attempted 2021
Please someone reassure me there isn't a predator out there?
I couldn't find anything further about each one, but if these are all true (reported by LE), then it surely might lead to a working child trafficking or pedophile ring.
Add Dylan Ehers to mix and the three boys from last week, and J&L, and there could be a pattern here
Hope RCMP are looking into Lilly & Jack a little closer to the abduction theory, and staying quiet because they are hot on a trail.

I copied this here from my last post so it doesn’t get buried. I think this important in L&J case.

LE have not given any information to the public to lead us to believe there's any sort of potential child trafficking or pedophile ring being associated with this case.

I'm fairly confident that's not what happened with Lilly and Jack.

 

[Chimera]

I've wondered if they were taken (doubtful, imo) it was maybe someone known to them ?
Where are you, sweet little Lilly & Jack ?

 

[AddyFinch]

Without any inside info from LE, I’m open to all possibilities.

 

[su5ie]

LE have not given any information to the public to lead us to believe there's any sort of potential child trafficking or pedophile ring being associated with this case.

I'm fairly confident that's not what happened with Lilly and Jack.

I admire your confidence and I mean that in the most heartfelt way but alas unless I see concrete evidence or a verified statement from LE saying who is responsible. I'm open to all possibilities.

I will concede that usually when police forces are secretive on theories, they generally have a definitive suspect in their sights so prehaps this is where you are going with the declaration of there not being a pedophile or an incident of stranger abduction in the picture .

As I've seen with the Madeleine mcCann case just because the Portuguese investigation team initially ruled out a stranger abduction it later transpired that that particular jumping of the gun didn't hold water and possibly led to maddie not being found .

similar to here in this case it allows the finger of suspicion to point in the direction of the parents and a thousand different theories to spawn . Maddie was also theorised to have prehaps wandered off ,even though there was no evidence of that and we now see years later that multiple police forces believe she was abducted by a stranger.

Because information is not forthcoming from the RMPC and so far nothing has been found in the searches that provides proof that lilly and jack have wandered out of the yard . I honestly don't know what to think .

It's a very hard one to even begin to speculate as to what has happened imo


I would also like to hear a more definitive description by now of what the kids were wearing. It can't be that hard to deduce from their remaining clothing exactly what items are missing. I can never understand why parents can't see what clothes are missing surely the children couldn't have had that many outfits that it's impossible to narrow it down . A photograph of similar clothing then can be displayed beside their photos in news articles moo

 

[Dreamcherry]

Carrying this comment from su5ie over from the last thread


"Just thinking back to Daniels interview. When he stated the cps won't let him see his child .

OK I can understand mom not allowing if she was angry at him and was blaming him even if logically he had no control if both were in bed / bedroom

So if its cps , why would they not allow Daniel see his child unless they suspect he harmed lilly and jack .

Social Services can't just decide a person can't see their child without having valid reasons . Even if the other parent is throwing accusations towards them . Does it not have to be proven that the accusations are true

In highly emotional circumstances like these I'm sure parents blame each other all the time as a way of venting anger , frustration or pain I have never seen social services stop access to the other kids if a siblings goes missing.

I'm not from Canada, so if anyone can post reasons why cps would stop a father seeing his child"

I'm just going to come out swinging and say that if he actually said this, then I think he either misunderstood what he was told, it was misreported by the media, or he's straight up lying. There would have been a lengthy investigation before it got to the point where he couldn't see his child, and since family reunification is the mandate, it's rare that parents are cut-off completely from their children. Parents who have actual documented instances of real abuse toward their children get supervised visitation, so I don't believe for a second he lost that right in a couple of days because of any speculation. Didn't happen.

 

[AddyFinch]

Absolutely agree with ^^. I unpacked this with some experienced minds today,
… if they ventured out on their own (general consensus was children’s of this age do not do this during night hours, and if daylight hours when they eloped,then some form of evidence would be found primarily by dogs).

LE maintains children not abducted which must include known abductor which is still a crime. If sold, (trafficking), why wouldn’t information flyers, media etc be used. Imperative to get face etc out there.

And lastly murder. If not abducted (for murder), then murder by parents is reasonable conclusion statistically.
Murder (how, why, where, when). Body disposal (how, where, when).

 

[AddyFinch]

Carrying this comment from su5ie over from the last thread


"Just thinking back to Daniels interview. When he stated the cps won't let him see his child .

So if its cps , why would they not allow Daniel see his child unless they suspect he harmed lilly and jack .

Social Services can't just decide a person can't see their child without having valid reasons . Even if the other parent is throwing accusations towards them . Does it not have to be proven that the accusations are true.

I'm just going to come out swinging and say that if he actually said this, then I think he either misunderstood what he was told, it was misreported by the media, or he's straight up lying. There would have been a lengthy investigation before it got to the point where he couldn't see his child, and since family reunification is the mandate, it's rare that parents are cut-off completely from their children. Parents who have actual documented instances of real abuse toward their children get supervised visitation, so I don't believe for a second he lost that right in a couple of days because of any speculation. Didn't happen.

Only can speak from Ontario, and don’t take this as gospel, but childrens services can remove a child to protective custody. They will always try to do what’s best for child. An investigation would be done including interviews of both parents, family members etc. depending on case and interviews they can allow child to remain with a parent. They can remove temporary visitation rights and direct parent who isn’t allowed to visit, to fight it in court.
If he was offered this option to fight temporary removal,and he refused, then temp-removal would stay in place til CPS ended it. I’m sure they would be liasoning with LE all along. Don’t forget there are actually three children involved.

Accusations being hurled by a parent would be viewed in the light that this case is under investigation by LE, therefore it’s part of a bigger picture and quite possibly a dangerous one.
If CPS saw the situation that mother was incapable, two children neglected, no one capable to step forward for care, or plain endangerment,the they would put into secure protective custody.

 

[Bigditch]

It is hard not to go to dark places when there is so little evidence. How on earth could anyone ever hurt a child.

 

[TMich6811]

Carrying this comment from su5ie over from the last thread


"Just thinking back to Daniels interview. When he stated the cps won't let him see his child .

OK I can understand mom not allowing if she was angry at him and was blaming him even if logically he had no control if both were in bed / bedroom

So if its cps , why would they not allow Daniel see his child unless they suspect he harmed lilly and jack .

Social Services can't just decide a person can't see their child without having valid reasons . Even if the other parent is throwing accusations towards them . Does it not have to be proven that the accusations are true

In highly emotional circumstances like these I'm sure parents blame each other all the time as a way of venting anger , frustration or pain I have never seen social services stop access to the other kids if a siblings goes missing.

I'm not from Canada, so if anyone can post reasons why cps would stop a father seeing his child"

I'm just going to come out swinging and say that if he actually said this, then I think he either misunderstood what he was told, it was misreported by the media, or he's straight up lying. There would have been a lengthy investigation before it got to the point where he couldn't see his child, and since family reunification is the mandate, it's rare that parents are cut-off completely from their children. Parents who have actual documented instances of real abuse toward their children get supervised visitation, so I don't believe for a second he lost that right in a couple of days because of any speculation. Didn't happen.

Having 2 missing children with reported minimal supervision at the time is enough for CPS to open for neglect and require supervision. Edit: I do believe that he may have been told with supervision and there is more to this but that’s my opinion.

 

[AddyFinch]

It is hard not to go to dark places when there is so little evidence. How on earth could anyone ever hurt a child.

I know all the psychiatric reasons, and understand each theory, but I can’t fathom how they actually do it, other than they are / were out of their mind.

 

[AddyFinch]

I do believe that he may have been told with supervision and there is more to this but that’s my opinion.

Agree

 

[Vortexaire]

Carrying this comment from su5ie over from the last thread


"Just thinking back to Daniels interview. When he stated the cps won't let him see his child .

OK I can understand mom not allowing if she was angry at him and was blaming him even if logically he had no control if both were in bed / bedroom

So if its cps , why would they not allow Daniel see his child unless they suspect he harmed lilly and jack .

Social Services can't just decide a person can't see their child without having valid reasons . Even if the other parent is throwing accusations towards them . Does it not have to be proven that the accusations are true

In highly emotional circumstances like these I'm sure parents blame each other all the time as a way of venting anger , frustration or pain I have never seen social services stop access to the other kids if a siblings goes missing.

I'm not from Canada, so if anyone can post reasons why cps would stop a father seeing his child"

I'm just going to come out swinging and say that if he actually said this, then I think he either misunderstood what he was told, it was misreported by the media, or he's straight up lying. There would have been a lengthy investigation before it got to the point where he couldn't see his child, and since family reunification is the mandate, it's rare that parents are cut-off completely from their children. Parents who have actual documented instances of real abuse toward their children get supervised visitation, so I don't believe for a second he lost that right in a couple of days because of any speculation. Didn't happen.

Not a lawyer, but I remember a law textbook (back in 2009 mind you), I read from my social studies teacher that if one parent has a criminal record, that is grounds for Social Services to not let the parent visit their child. The reason is because that the government thinks that the ex-con parent can harm their child.

 

[AddyFinch]

I wonder if MBM told LE she suspects DM, and that she was incapacitated (drugs or whatever to render her unconscious) from Thursday until Friday am when they were missing. She states zero awareness/recall/memory, and DM is suspect but no evidence. Maybe LE are waiting and compiling? They obviously have no evidence on DM as no arrest.
Could this have been retribution for bad business? How does someone support 3 kids from this relationship and two from another, with only work one day per week?
I wonder if LE interviewed previous wife as to DM character, his behaviour with his kids, and hers with him? A photo published re all his kids together with him certainly revealed L&J knew their half siblings.

 

[Dreamcherry]

Only can speak from Ontario, and don’t take this as gospel, but childrens services can remove a child to protective custody. They will always try to do what’s best for child. An investigation would be done including interviews of both parents, family members etc. depending on case and interviews they can allow child to remain with a parent. They can remove temporary visitation rights and direct parent who isn’t allowed to visit, to fight it in court.
If he was offered this option to fight temporary removal,and he refused, then temp-removal would stay in place til CPS ended it. I’m sure they would be liasoning with LE all along. Don’t forget there are actually three children involved.

Accusations being hurled by a parent would be viewed in the light that this case is under investigation by LE, therefore it’s part of a bigger picture and quite possibly a dangerous one.
If CPS saw the situation that mother was incapable, two children neglected, no one capable to step forward for care, or plain endangerment,the they would put into secure protective custody.

Yes, hard agree with all of this, that's how it works here too (I'm speaking on behalf of NB here, not NS, mind you, but they operate pretty much the same way.) The question wasn't about removal, it was about access to the child. When a child is removed from their parents, the parents usually still have, at the very least, supervised visitation rights. In my jurisdiction they have a special room for those at our regional office. For him to have been denied access to his child means several home visits happened, multiple people were interviewed, massive brick-like documents were prepared by over-worked social workers (they are seriously insanely dense, it's wild,) everyone went to court, a judge made a decision...etc. At this point in time they would still be in the investigation stage, and he made this claim what, a handful of days in? Impossible.

 

[AddyFinch]

, massive brick-like documents were prepared by over-worked social workers (they are seriously insanely dense, it's wild,) everyone went to court, a judge made a decision...etc. At this point in time they would still be in the investigation stage, and he made this claim what, a handful of days in? Impossible.

Lol!!! I luv your work description!!
I also think he is “confused”

 

[Dreamcherry]

Not a lawyer, but I remember a law textbook (back in 2009 mind you), I read from my social studies teacher that if one parent has a criminal record, that is grounds for Social Services to not let the parent visit their child. The reason is because that the government thinks that the ex-con parent can harm their child.

It really depends on the jurisdiction when it comes to that. Where was this?