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

[cambull1948]

Well no matter how you look at it facts are facts ??the children have dissappeared and no one seems to know nothing!!If they have searched all the area around were they presume the children were at then were are they?? Taken perhaps a maybe who knows and what would be reasoning behind it??

 

[AIGT]

It sounds like he is fully informed? He knew where to ask and he knew why

It does seem odd that if CPS notified him they had the child that they wouldn’t also inform him that as of right now he can’t see it, a standard practice to avoid angry parents showing up. But instead he didn’t know he couldn’t see it until he showed up with his friend?

If CPS does have the child under a temporary order, by law they have to have actual evidence that him seeing the child could bring harm to the child (mental or physical). Not just speculation.

 

[iamafiusny]

It does seem odd that if CPS notified him they had the child that they wouldn’t also inform him that as of right now he can’t see it, a standard practice to avoid angry parents showing up. But instead he didn’t know he couldn’t see it until he showed up with his friend?

If CPS does have the child under a temporary order, by law they have to have actual evidence that him seeing the child could bring harm to the child (mental or physical). Not just speculation.

Maybe if mom has the baby he went there hoping he could meet with baby via cps.

 

[MistyWaters]

I feel that they’re just waiting for him to slip up. The mums family were told not to speak to anyone (reporters etc) but obviously no one told him the same which to me implies they’re waiting and watching, ready for when he says too much

I disagree that is the only obvious conclusion, it’s just most underhanded one on a scale of 1 to 10. Why would the RSMP have reason to protect the mom if she’s innocent from any criminal involvement. Let them both talk away!

Firstly we don’t know if mom’s family was really told not to speak to anyone or if that’s a convenient excuse to prevent them from being hassled. I think LE who’d never attempt to prevent freedom of speech to anyone if they choose to talk to the media. That sounds a lot more like something an attorney would advise to a client facing possible criminal charges.

Why would it be assumed he’d slip up talking to the media? LE are professionals at interviewing suspects. Besides people are not under oath during media interviews. He told us he was interviewed by police for 4 hours, if he didn’t ’slip up’ then he’s certainly not going to with his 5 minute blurbs in front of a camera.

The public wants more information and he’s the only one giving it, yet it’s believed he’s talking in the hopes he’ll incriminate himself? That’s sad, to me he appears as if he feels responsible because the children disappeared from his home and he is genuinely heartbroken and devastated.

JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Will someone show me where it says that cps took the child vs he went there to see the child? This is 2 very different things and I feel I’m missing something because all I see is that he went there for a visitation

I've not seen anything that explicitly states the baby was taken into custody, but at the same time, why would DM go there to see the baby, if the baby was somewhere else?

There's SO much about this story we're not privvy to. Far more common with Canadian cases and the way both LE and media operate compared to US media & LE. On the one hand it's good for privacy reasons, on the other hand it tends to fuel 10 times more (usually) negative speculation.

 

[MistyWaters]

It does seem odd that if CPS notified him they had the child that they wouldn’t also inform him that as of right now he can’t see it, a standard practice to avoid angry parents showing up. But instead he didn’t know he couldn’t see it until he showed up with his friend?

If CPS does have the child under a temporary order, by law they have to have actual evidence that him seeing the child could bring harm to the child (mental or physical). Not just speculation.

It appears the process is just beginning, After children are apprehended by CPS, my understanding is that a Family Court hearing is held to determine custody and/or visitation arrangements.

 

[TMich6811]

I've not seen anything that explicitly states the baby was taken into custody, but at the same time, why would DM go there to see the baby, if the baby was somewhere else?

There's SO much about this story we're not privvy to. Far more common with Canadian cases and the way both LE and media operate compared to US media & LE. On the one hand it's good for privacy reasons, on the other hand it tends to fuel 10 times more (usually) negative speculation.

As someone who works on this side and runs an agency which provides many different cps contracts my thoughts are -

He may have been told he has to schedule through them? That would be very typical in a domestic dispute. Additionally, it sounds like mothers tribal connection impacts who has the child in this type of situation, cps may help navigate that. I am not an expert related to that portions so cannot speak to that.

My true guess is that He (and mom for all we know as he didn’t speak to that) may be required to have supervised visits as of now.

 

[Freezeguy]

What about the grandmother who lives in the backyard...is she saying anything? Wouldn't she or her 'dog' have seen or heard something?

Also, wonder if there were drug use? Could be another reason for losing a child to CPS?

 

[AIGT]

It appears the process is just beginning, After children are apprehended by CPS, my understanding is that a Family Court hearing is held to determine custody and/or visitation arrangements.

For sure. However there has to be extenuating circumstances for them to take the child under a temporary order prior to a hearing. So if they do have the child then there is a reason and it can’t be just because its siblings are missing.

 

[MistyWaters]

I've not seen anything that explicitly states the baby was taken into custody, but at the same time, why would DM go there to see the baby, if the baby was somewhere else?

There's SO much about this story we're not privvy to. Far more common with Canadian cases and the way both LE and media operate compared to US media & LE. On the one hand it's good for privacy reasons, on the other hand it tends to fuel 10 times more (usually) negative speculation.

Yes very true, although often what is known still fuels a lot of negative speculation. It’s as if as a society we’ve developed have a thirst for grief and pain in others.

I do agree on confidentially of legal proceedings involving custody of minor children, it should be kept private. JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

As someone who works on this side and runs an agency which provides many different cps contracts my thoughts are -

He may have been told he has to schedule through them? That would be very typical in a domestic dispute. Additionally, it sounds like mothers tribal connection impacts who has the child in this type of situation, cps may help navigate that. I am not an expert related to that portions so cannot speak to that.

My true guess is that He (and mom for all we know as he didn’t speak to that) may be required to have supervised visits as of now.

I'm curious as to why he'd be subjected to supervised visits with his child if he isn't named as a suspect in the disappearance of the other kids?

 

[AIGT]

What about the grandmother who lives in the backyard...is she saying anything? Wouldn't she or her 'dog' have seen or heard something?

Also, wonder if there were drug use? Could be another reason for losing a child to CPS?

Haven’t even seen any mention of the parents originally asking if she had seen the kids, her joining in to help look etc.

The only mention of grandma from Martell is that she kicked “people” off the property.

Could be a plethora of reasons for CPS. It could’ve simply been that upon arrival RCMP thought the living situation was unacceptable for the child. However if that was the case and with the mother leaving to a new place they would have to return the child to her if it was an acceptable living arrangement.

 

[TMich6811]

I'm curious as to why he'd be subjected to supervised visits with his child if he isn't named as a suspect in the disappearance of the other kids?

Not Being named a POI doesn’t mean there are not child welfare concerns related to neglect of the children being gone. Cps (here anyway) absolutely could feel this was neglectful and do an emergency order for supervision.

Alternatively, something was found or something is not known. Privacy keeps being discussed as huge in the area for LE and legal matters so it would make sense that we have no idea, right?

 

[TMich6811]

Not Being named a POI doesn’t mean there are not child welfare concerns related to neglect of the children being gone. Cps (here anyway) absolutely could feel this was neglectful and do an emergency order for supervision.

Alternatively, something was found or something is not known. Privacy keeps being discussed as huge in the area for LE and legal matters so it would make sense that we have no idea, right?

An example of this but not directly related to this case

A child is not being supervised because they are left alone, substance involvement, other domestic violence related issues. Child elopes and falls, hits head and dies. Or goes swimming and drowns.

The parent wouldn’t be named a POI but cps absolutely could say they aren’t able to supervise independently due to negligence and submit emergency order for supervised visits while child is in family care

 

[AIGT]

In regards to an abduction -

Anyone who’s not Canadian may not be aware of the public scrutiny the RCMP has taken the past several years for handling of certain cases.

I think they are very sensitive about how they handle cases now, especially in Eastern Canada so in my opinion I put a lot of credibility in how adamant they have been about this not being an abduction. I am sure they know a lot more and have for a while.

If this was to end up an actual abduction case it would bring an unimaginable amount of hell onto the RCMP.

 

[MistyWaters]

For sure. However there has to be extenuating circumstances for them to take the child under a temporary order prior to a hearing. So if they do have the child then there is a reason and it can’t be just because its siblings are missing.

I agree, just guessing, maybe it pertains to negligence in child care in general? I vaguely recall that CPS may request custodial parents to enrol in some type of Child Care program to improve on their ‘parenting’ skills. I wouldn’t want to say all parents are bad who’s children run off but if it’s a situation where children that young are left to look after themselves because the parent/s haven’t gotten out of bed in the morning, that’s not so good.

The step dad has gotten so much backlash but surely the children’s mother holds some responsibility for her children’s proper care?
JMO

 

[skrito]

Maybe if mom has the baby he went there hoping he could meet with baby via cps.

This makes sense especially considering he said the mother blocked him. He can't get a hold of her and wants to see his child so I'd imagine that would be the best avenue to go.

 

[TMich6811]

I agree, just guessing, maybe it pertains to negligence in child care in general? I vaguely recall that CPS may request custodial parents to enrol in some type of Child Care program to improve on their ‘parenting’ skills. I wouldn’t want to say all parents are bad who’s children run off but if it’s a situation where children that young are left on their own devices to look after themselves because the parent/s haven’t gotten out of bed in the morning, that’s not so good.
JMO

One of our CPS programs is this - parenting courses for parents who are not actively abusive but unintentionally negligent. CPS would open and parents would need to gain skill to show they can independently parent safely.

Imo this isn’t the case here but it could be, we don’t know

 

[MistyWaters]

One of our CPS programs is this - parenting courses for parents who are not actively abusive but unintentionally negligent. CPS would open and parents would need to gain skill to show they can independently parent safely.

Imo this isn’t the case here but it could be, we don’t know

Yes, that’s it, thank you!

 

[AnnieOakley123]

Maybe if mom has the baby he went there hoping he could meet with baby via cps.

I think this is the most logical theory. Only from Daniel's words have we learned that the mom left the day after the children went missing and cut off all contact. There has been no official confirmation that CPS took the 16-month-old away from the mom. He may have contacted CPS as the legal mediator for a visitation request.