CANADA Canada - Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am, Gairloch Rd, Landsdowne Station, Pictou County, NS, 2 May 2025 #7

[su5ie]

I read that as talking about DM Suzie, although I could be wrong

Omg I see it now

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I've always hoped a sort of not-ideal-life-situation-rescue (ok, abduction) was made, for Lilly's and Jack's benefits, to go live elsewhere and to have a better homelife/upbringing, by someone who knew them and their situation, and that is why MBM and DM seemed stumped, and RCMP last said there was no evidence of a crime being committed.

However, unfortunately, I also don't think it was beyond the realm of possibility that they came to harm from someone close to them, even if a planned handoff was participated in by some close to them, and it may have been good intentions which went awry, or some are talented obfuscators/liars with no compunction regarding these two young kids and their parents/families hurting and wanting to know what happened to them.

IIRC, Lilly slept in her clothes from the day before (?) and also slept with her backpack near her that is missing along with her, Jack, and their boots.

So it makes me wonder did she know she and Jack were about to go somewhere with someone that morning, to a fun sounding full of promises for a better life destination, and they did disappear from home and wandered, but only to the end of the driveway or the side road trail, to be picked up at 9 am-ish that fateful morning.

What if they knew to play act all was per usual and to keep quiet about it that morning? Weren't they heard by their mom in the wee hours the night before/early that morning excitedly chatting and exuberant in their bedroom?

So many what ifs, there is such a mosaic of possibilities from all the tiny pieces that do somehow fit together, with a lot of uncertainty in the bargain, and LE keeping on keeping on with their investigation, but not saying much.

It may be awhile yet to find out what might come out of LE's in depth ongoing investigation, IMO.

Still hoping beyond hope they will be found soon!! And if not, that they are happily playing and being loved in a new home and have not perished.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I've always hoped a sort of not-ideal-life-situation-rescue (ok, abduction) was made, for Lilly's and Jack's benefits, to go live elsewhere and to have a better homelife/upbringing, by someone who knew them and their situation, and that is why MBM and DM seemed stumped, and RCMP last said there was no evidence of a crime being committed.

However, unfortunately, I also don't think it was beyond the realm of possibility that they came to harm from someone close to them, even if a planned handoff was participated in by some close to them, and it may have been good intentions which went awry, or some are talented obfuscators/liars with no compunction regarding these two young kids and their parents/families hurting and wanting to know what happened to them.

IIRC, Lilly slept in her clothes from the day before (?) and also slept with her backpack near her that is missing along with her, Jack, and their boots.

So it makes me wonder did she know she and Jack were about to go somewhere with someone that morning, to a fun sounding full of promises for a better life destination, and they did disappear from home and wandered, but only to the end of the driveway or the side road trail, to be picked up at 9 am-ish that fateful morning.

What if they knew to play act all was per usual and to keep quiet about it that morning? Weren't they heard by their mom in the wee hours the night before/early that morning excitedly chatting and exuberant in their bedroom?

So many what ifs, there is such a mosaic of possibilities from all the tiny pieces that do somehow fit together, with a lot of uncertainty in the bargain, and LE keeping on keeping on with their investigation, but not saying much.

It may be awhile yet to find out what might come out of LE's in depth ongoing investigation, IMO.

Still hoping beyond hope they will be found soon!! And if not, that they are happily playing and being loved in a new home and have not perished.

Interesting thought!

If another close adult (not MBM or DM) groomed them, earned their trust and let's say was abusing them (SA or not) and made a 'fun plan' to runaway and the kids were aware - the person would have had to see them or interacted with them the day before somewhere I would think. MOO

Kids that age have no concept of time - so if a make believe fantasy plan was hatched with "groomer" adult, the kids wouldn't know if plan was for 2 days from now or 2 hours from now. Only that they get ready to catch the bus and go to the road to get the bus the next morning (?)

Could very well be time was of the essence and connected to the CPS/school involvement ramping up and coming to a head.

Maybe someone close by (not MBM or DM) was shaking in their boots they'd get exposed if CPS started interviewing the kids and pressing for details.

If someone was SA'ing them and it was a big secret, maybe they had to save themselves being arrested by getting rid of the poor kids MOO JMO

 

[su5ie]

Interesting thought!

If another close adult (not MBM or DM) groomed them, earned their trust and let's say was abusing them (SA or not) and made a 'fun plan' to runaway and the kids were aware - the person would have had to see them or interacted with them the day before somewhere I would think. MOO

Kids that age have no concept of time - so if a make believe fantasy plan was hatched with "groomer" adult, the kids wouldn't know if plan was for 2 days from now or 2 hours from now. Only that they get ready to catch the bus and go to the road to get the bus the next morning (?)

Could very well be time was of the essence and connected to the CPS/school involvement ramping up and coming to a head.

Maybe someone close by (not MBM or DM) was shaking in their boots they'd get exposed if CPS started interviewing the kids and pressing for details.

If someone was SA'ing them and it was a big secret, maybe they had to save themselves being arrested by getting rid of the poor kids MOO JMO

It's the timeline that gets me and the meticulously executed search . Not one method was spared . The dogs not catching a scent , not one footprint between the yard and pipeline and the big one mbm remaining silent.

There is also seemingly no forensics that we are aware of that gave indications of a homicide in the trailer . Also why were cps management so eager to get the memo sent to the higher ups ?

Where the hell are those kids ?? How much distance could they travel on foot in difficult terrain and get so far ahead that not one dog could track some form of the direction they were headed in ?? Not one trail camera that we are aware of that the kids were picked up on to verify they were in the woods .

Is it the same neighbour who claimed parties were being held , the same neighbour who claimed to have heard the five speed and why would DM state it was claimed because the neighbour wanted to distract from their own activities. What activities would you want a distraction from in the case of two missing children .

And why if the kids never closed the porch door did they do it that morning? And not only close it but so fully ?

If them kids remains are on the property because they hid in fright I will literally scream .

And while im at the questions why did janie not allow LE to search her trailer initially ( or is that an unverified rumour )

And why is MBM not coming right out and saying I did not hide my kids with a band member as this seems to be a the prevailing theory or rumour doing the rounds

If we look only at bio relatives of mbm which after all are the most important in regards to the relationship with the children and how argumentative they are said to have been on the first or second morning and how quick they were to point fingers of blame . Where is the fighting talk now ? Because we are entering September now a full 4 months since and not as much as the rustling of a tumbleweed .

I know meadow is important and prehaps this is the reasoning behind the silence but I don't think speaking up for lilly and jack would make a difference to access or custody and in actual fact if I were a cps officer I might be inclined to view the seemingly lack of concern as a red flag in regard to parental capability

imo the kids disappearance seems to be forgotten like winter snow and the only voices keeping it in the public eye are people who are monetizing on them including people who proclaim to care . Seems those buy me a cup of coffee have grown into a rather large nest egg for some and I'm just angry that if there is no poi ,did the family just accept the kids fate and move on ?

Sorry for the rant

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I wonder if their mother has stayed silent since moving out right after they disappeared because, amongst other reasons, she has her suspicions, and a bundle of them at that, but just doesn't know which is the most plausible.

And has been so heartbroken and thinking about the what ifs, and if onlys... and rumors, and can only keep her head down and try to care for Meadow in the best way possible, her only remaining child of her three babies.

For instance, she told LE a few days later maybe their bio dad had taken them to New Brunswick (at the time it could have been hope talking based on the grapevine/rumors), and at first, when she awoke and didn't hear them anymore, she hoped they had wandered from home (in the title of this thread).

I agree with OPs that LE & their S&R teams looking for them near home with all the top notch resources they had to hand & no scent dogs picking up their scent nearby & no cadaver dogs employed means they left another way (not on foot) or were spirited off in a vehicle(s) far away (hence LE requesting footage all across the region).

A witness in New Brunswick said they saw their bio dad in a hotel that night, but LE ran it to ground and found some evidence that agreed with him saying he was in Nova Scotia.

Not to forget after the first few weeks LE stated since they hadn't been found around home they were going out into the wider community, and had interviewed &/or polygraohed 52 people.

This is starting to feel, if not all along, certainly now, like some people aren't talking who may know something for whatever their reasons may be, which at the heart of the matter may just be them thinking Lilly and Jack may be better off wherever they were taken, if they were taken.

JMO

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Could be MBM has strong suspicions but is remaining silent to protect her and the baby.

If she suspected someone somewhat known to her or the kids or family or from a store they frequented or whatever - if a person(s) has the evil and power to take those 2 kids, what would stop them from doing the same to her or the baby?

I think she is scared and hiding herself and baby. Perhaps she blames DM and/or his family if she suspects an association through them is linked to this in some form. MOO JMO

 

[OneLove]

>>respectfully snipped <<
I think she is scared and hiding herself and baby. Perhaps she blames DM and/or his family if she suspects an association through them is linked to this in some form. MOO JMO

I do think it's most likely she is scared, and that she is hiding herself. Exactly *what* she is scared of may be multifaceted. No doubt she has a heavy weight to process and part of that *might* even include her own culpability.

One thing we do know is that Daniel has admitted to both drug use (including meth) and to anger management issues. Everyone has anger at times; it's the *management* of anger that necessitated intervention in hjs case. Thats not good when young children, especially ones not his, are involved. Meth use often catapults this into the danger zone.

MBM almost surely knew Daniel was doing these drugs, including meth, AND knew he had anger management issues. I wish we knew the details of exactly how bad his out of control rages actually were. In any case, MBM knew. Another thing we know is that the likelihood that a live-in partner of a drug addict is more likely than not doing those drugs also. Meth is addictive at lightening speed, super addictive at super lightening speed. We saw this dynamic over and over and over in juvenile justice cases and social work cases requiring legal interventions. As a mother of 3 young vulnerable children, MBM chose to stay. Love for Daniel? Lack of better options? Too incapacitated to take steps toward change?

I'm not minimizing how difficult her situation must have been, how overwhelmed with parenting duties without family support, how sleep deprived she must have been, nor how meth changes one's ability to think clearly or calm oneself appropriately when needed.

I have wondered if her sequestered status so quickly after her children's dissappearance might have involved badly needed drug withdrawal and maybe treatment also, along with finally a safe space to regain her true authentic self again and find some peace and balance in which to process the unimaginable hell she'd just walked through that may have tragically ended Jack and Lily's lives.

I do hope she has no culpability in their deaths or disappearance. For whatever reason, it seems she wants to remain off radar. I wish her peace and healing, regardless.

 

[Greenestdays]

If we look only at bio relatives of mbm which after all are the most important in regards to the relationship with the children and how argumentative they are said to have been on the first or second morning and how quick they were to point fingers of blame . Where is the fighting talk now ? Because we are entering September now a full 4 months since and not as much as the rustling of a tumbleweed .

I have been pondering similar questions. They were quick to point fingers and cause a scene and then nothing…? It’s been 4 months. Not a single appeal or search by them. So bizarre.

 

[su5ie]

I do think it's most likely she is scared, and that she is hiding herself. Exactly *what* she is scared of may be multifaceted. No doubt she has a heavy weight to process and part of that *might* even include her own culpability.

One thing we do know is that Daniel has admitted to both drug use (including meth) and to anger management issues. Everyone has anger at times; it's the *management* of anger that necessitated intervention in hjs case. Thats not good when young children, especially ones not his, are involved. Meth use often catapults this into the danger zone.

MBM almost surely knew Daniel was doing these drugs, including meth, AND knew he had anger management issues. I wish we knew the details of exactly how bad his out of control rages actually were. In any case, MBM knew. Another thing we know is that the likelihood that a live-in partner of a drug addict is more likely than not doing those drugs also. Meth is addictive at lightening speed, super addictive at super lightening speed. We saw this dynamic over and over and over in juvenile justice cases and social work cases requiring legal interventions. As a mother of 3 young vulnerable children, MBM chose to stay. Love for Daniel? Lack of better options? Too incapacitated to take steps toward change?

I'm not minimizing how difficult her situation must have been, how overwhelmed with parenting duties without family support, how sleep deprived she must have been, nor how meth changes one's ability to think clearly or calm oneself appropriately when needed.

I have wondered if her sequestered status so quickly after her children's dissappearance might have involved badly needed drug withdrawal and maybe treatment also, along with finally a safe space to regain her true authentic self again and find some peace and balance in which to process the unimaginable hell she'd just walked through that may have tragically ended Jack and Lily's lives.

I do hope she has no culpability in their deaths or disappearance. For whatever reason, it seems she wants to remain off radar. I wish her peace and healing, regardless.

Imo if someone is going to anger management courses . They have lashed out at loved ones verbally or physically and the anger has caused issues in a person's life with regards to employment, family or friends .

Everyone gets angry from time to time but is it that explosive as to regard it as an issue that needs dealing with by professionals ?

Most clients attending anger management have used anger as a way to control and when angry they cannot control what they do when in a rage .


There is an element of reading between the lines re any information that has come out from msm . They are saying a lot that insinuates a situation that gives images of a home that living in it would put children in danger whether physically, verbally or emotionally but yet on the other hand they are playing down any scenario that usually comes from that type of environment in cases where children are missing .

Can I assume that because the RCMP usually are very tight lipped regarding investigations that they would also not give the public any clue as to whether they had changed opinion since July about whether or not it is still considered a non criminal investigation and are major crimes officers as tight-lipped .

 

[su5ie]

7 Signs You Should be Taking Anger Management Classes -

Part of having strong control of your anger requires knowing when you need professional help. Here are signs you should be taking anger management classes

thediversioncenter.com

Anger Management Therapy & Treatment, Benefits and Risks.

Discover the benefits and risks of anger management treatment. Learn how to manage anger, improve your relationships, and live a more fulfilling life. Get expert advice and tips today.

larkinhealth.com

I have a question for anyone who may be in the legal profession or know someone that is .

If I lose my temper and shout at a child and that child runs away in fear , am I criminally responsible if they go missing .
Put another way if a parent shouts and screams in temper at a young child or teen over behaviour they deem as unacceptable and that child packs a bag and has made a "childish " decision to run away and gets lost am I criminally responsible ? Would LE see it that I caused the child to go missing or would they view it as an unforeseeable circumstance or unforeseeable consequence of the confrontation.? Would LE deem it a criminal investigation or missing persons or both ?

 

[TMich6811]

7 Signs You Should be Taking Anger Management Classes -

Part of having strong control of your anger requires knowing when you need professional help. Here are signs you should be taking anger management classes

thediversioncenter.com

Anger Management Therapy & Treatment, Benefits and Risks.

Discover the benefits and risks of anger management treatment. Learn how to manage anger, improve your relationships, and live a more fulfilling life. Get expert advice and tips today.

larkinhealth.com

I have a question for anyone who may be in the legal profession or know someone that is .

If I lose my temper and shout at a child and that child runs away in fear , am I criminally responsible if they go missing .
Put another way if a parent shouts and screams in temper at a young child or teen over behaviour they deem as unacceptable and that child packs a bag and has made a "childish " decision to run away and gets lost am I criminally responsible ? Would LE see it that I caused the child to go missing or would they view it as an unforeseeable circumstance or unforeseeable consequence of the confrontation.?

I’d think it would be more like - that child was able to leave and go missing which was neglectful parenting because they lacked supervision.

The action prompting would be considered also if it was significant

But even yelling at a child out of anger shouldn’t result in one not providing supervision

Do I make sense here ha

 

[su5ie]

I’d think it would be more like - that child was able to leave and go missing which was neglectful parenting because they lacked supervision.

The action prompting would be considered also if it was significant

But even yelling at a child out of anger shouldn’t result in one not providing supervision

Do I make sense here ha

Yes you do make sense but my question is pertaining to whether an investigation would be considered a criminal investigation or a missing persons .

Many parents have rightly or wrongly shouted at children for behaviour that was deemed as ' bold" but really the child is just being a child and have said go to your room or the parent goes and does whatever in another part of the house . It happens the world over in homes were there is no other violence. Grant it , its normally a thing a teen would act out .

So what I'm saying is lilly and jack were awake from very early ,adults and baby trying to sleep ,lilly keeps coming in and out of the room , DM himself states he told the kids to be quiet. So hypothetically if DM shouted at the kids in temper .and as a consequence of that the kids " ran away" and got lost . Is it considered by an investigation that he is criminally responsible if he had could not have foresaw that the kids would go missing as a consequence

 

[thelesis]

Yes you do make sense but my question is pertaining to whether an investigation would be considered a criminal investigation or a missing persons .

I don't think there's a blanket answer to this. There's too many variables, including the culture of the local LE, the culture of the community, the culture of the local justice system, etc. Discretion and nuance is built into the system.

The investigation will always focus on finding the missing person(s). Even a parent that has a clear physical alibi will be investigated to make sure they didn't do something like hire someone to do something to the kids.

I know where you're going with this, but LE can distinguish a rare moment of parents yelling at a child from an established pattern of verbal abuse.

 

[su5ie]

I don't think there's a blanket answer to this. There's too many variables, including the culture of the local LE, the culture of the community, the culture of the local justice system, etc. Discretion and nuance is built into the system.

The investigation will always focus on finding the missing person(s). Even a parent that has a clear physical alibi will be investigated to make sure they didn't do something like hire someone to do something to the kids.

I know where you're going with this, but LE can distinguish a rare moment of parents yelling at a child from an established pattern of verbal abuse.

Thank you . So yelling frequently can be considered indirect homicide if the child comes to harm as a consequence even if you did not physically kill them

 

[MistyWaters]

<snipped to reply>. Is it considered by an investigation that he is criminally responsible if he had could not have foresaw that the kids would go missing as a consequence

Yelling is not a criminal act in Canada, therefore he wouldn’t be held criminally responsible for something that is not a criminal act.

JMO

 

[TMich6811]

Yelling is not a criminal act in Canada, therefore he wouldn’t be held criminally responsible for something that is not a criminal act.

JMO

Dunno about Canada law otherwise but it Could be classified as emotional abuse in the children and family services act depending on the investigation under “any similar acts” which is similar to how yelling is typically handled.

 

[FromGermany1]

I don't know, what happened to Lilly and Jack. But I want to mention my opinion on Lilly and Jack and how they are looking on photos: They are looking not too thin, not too unhealthy, not too inhibited (drilled by some adult) and not too unhappy (even not too autistic). Had you shown me pics of them and I didn't know the background, I would have said: looking like cheerful little kids their age, growing up in a "normal" (Patchwork-)family. MOO

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I don't know, what happened to Lilly and Jack. But I want to mention my opinion on Lilly and Jack and how they are looking on photos: They are looking not too thin, not too unhealthy, not too inhibited (drilled by some adult) and not too unhappy (even not too autistic). Had you shown me pics of them and I din't know the background, I would have said: looking like cheerful little kids their age, growing up in a "normal" (Patchwork-)family. MOO

I agree. The kids do look fairly healthy and happy in photos.

I have actually heard of some people say that the way they lived was 'semi normal' for low income rural Nova Scotia however that is not a fact obviously and a big, broad statement!

I do not think it was norm how they were treated, however the housing condition/set up itself? Possible.

I see housing like this where I live in a city and it's expected in every province I think. Not everyone has nice yards or houses or the time or money to maintain that.

However, if deemed an "unhealthy" or unhygienic environment that's another story.

MOO JMO

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Thank you . So yelling frequently can be considered indirect homicide if the child comes to harm as a consequence even if you did not physically kill them

Maybe not yelling per se, but negligence or reckless disregard.

This is an AI response to my Google questions, re: is there a charge for negligence leading to homicide/death:

Yes, there is a charge of criminal negligence causing death in Canada, which is a form of culpable homicide under Section 220 of the Criminal Code. This offence applies when someone's actions show a "wanton or reckless disregard" for the safety of others and result in a person's death, even if there was no intent to kill. The prosecution must prove the accused had a legal duty of care, breached that duty through their conduct, and that this breach was a significant contributing factor to the death.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

To add to above post for those curious:

Criminal Negligence​

Marginal note:Criminal negligence

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

• (a) in doing anything, or
• (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
• shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

• Definition of duty
  
  (2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 202

Marginal note:Causing death by criminal negligence

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

• (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
• (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220
• 1995, c. 39, s. 141

Marginal note:Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 221
• 2019, c. 25, s. 76

Criminal Code of Canada and Criminal Negligence

Canada’s Criminal Code outlines different negligence criminal offences, including failure to provide the necessities of life and dangerous driving. The criminal negligence offence is described in Section 219, while Section 220 outlines criminal negligence causing death.

According to Section 220, if you cause death to another person through criminal negligence, you may be guilty of an indictable offence. Upon conviction, you face a minimum punishment of imprisonment for 4 years if you used a firearm to commit the crime. The maximum punishment for this criminal offence is life imprisonment.

Criminal Negligence and Homicide​

According to Section 222 (1) of the Criminal Code, a person commits homicide when he or she causes the death of another human being. A homicide can be either culpable or non-culpable, and the latter is not considered a criminal offence.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca