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

[Ghostwheel]

This seems backwards - getting in his car and driving around before looking on foot around their home.

"As soon as I seen they were gone, immediately jumped in the car and did all the dirt roads, all the culverts, checked over the rivers and streams. As soon as I got home 10 minutes later, I headed out on foot.”

Think of it this way:
"As soon as I seen they were gone" in my mind means "As soon as I checked the house, yard and nearby surroundings and saw they weren't there (gone)" then he immediately got in the car to look in places that they might have gotten too and maybe could not get out. Maybe places they could have easily ended up if swept up in the river. Making sure they aren't in water would be a priority, I would think. Like swept into a storm drain.

 

[jillybean51]

This seems backwards - getting in his car and driving around before looking on foot around their home.

"As soon as I seen they were gone, immediately jumped in the car and did all the dirt roads, all the culverts, checked over the rivers and streams. As soon as I got home 10 minutes later, I headed out on foot.”

That’s a lot to do, in 10 minutes!

 

[MamaSleuth5]

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.

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.

I think this theory could be a good possibility IMO MOO

 

[Peanut0927]

@FansBlowing How does this suggest they’re looking for abduction?

 

[tlcya]

I don't they are looking for abduction. I think it is more they are ruling it out. They sound as if they are nailing down a timeline of the last several days prior to the children going missing. Gathering all possible digital evidence. Ascertaining who has been on the property and at what times, who may have also seen the children and under what circumstance, so those individuals can be ruled out, or not as the case may be, as potential abductors.

 

[Peanut0927]

I can’t emphasize enough how cautious CPS and RCMP would be about removing the child from the mothers care considering her connection the the indigenous community. My opinion of course but if they did take the child it would have to be for very good reason/evidence.

There would be a consult with the Chief to determine best course of action.
Former Indigenous CPS child protection officer.

 

[callmehenry]

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

We’ll see!

 

[AIGT]

I think this theory could be a good possibility IMO IMO MOO

Speaking legally if you take him at his word that CPS actually said “he can’t see the child” then it is because they are involved and have a belief him contacting the child could cause harm otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed to interject. If he was just going there hoping they would mediate a visit they would have to tell him they can’t involve themselves in the issue.

 

[MistyWaters]

I wonder if "her family thinks I did it" is not about direct harm, but could be more of a 'causing or allowing' because he hadn't got out of bed, or if he told Lily to keep away, for example?

I’m willing to bet the two sides of the family never liked each other from day one and they carried their baggage to that fateful day. Typically, her side thought she could do better perhaps because he didn’t have a steady job, his side because she didn’t work and came along with a ready made family.

So accusations of “he did it!” aren’t necessarily based on anything at all, other than an opportunity to severe the relationship once and for all. Really, what kind of people blow up each other during an emergency when the missing children ought to be the only focus?
JMO

 

[aajimo]

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

When police expect a victim/witness will need to provide evidence in court, they often tell them not to speak to media or make public statements on social media.

This is because the accused’s defence can scrutinize anything they say or look for inconsistencies, and could reduce the chances of successful conviction.

At the same time, I also think it’s very possible the mother just decided she didn’t want to do any more interviews.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I don't they are looking for abduction. I think it is more they are ruling it out. They sound as if they are nailing down a timeline of the last several days prior to the children going missing. Gathering all possible digital evidence. Ascertaining who has been on the property and at what times, who may have also seen the children and under what circumstance, so those individuals can be ruled out, or not as the case may be, as potential abductors.

I think you're spot on here. I also think the amount of info the public doesn't know is probably overwhelming, as is often the case.

 

[MistyWaters]

It's possible that neither parent is allowed to see the child at this time.

That’s what I think, neither, until a social worker has time to assess including ability to responsibility parent. It’s not always only about Daniel. I don’t think CPS has childcare facilities, could be wrong, rather the young one would be placed in a temporary foster home most likely with an indigenous family.
JMO

 

[tlcya]

MOO CPS doesn't simply deny you access to your child without some sort of allegation of abuse/neglect. They don't just deny access to "keep a tight leash" because children went missing.

I believe he and mom separated because they are both hiding something and mom wants to distance herself and their little one from whatever it is.

 

[Loyaloil]

Could it be the child is with the mother at the grandparents house and as CPS have no involvement they are unable to organise a meeting? Perhaps?

 

[MistyWaters]

When police expect a victim/witness will need to provide evidence in court, they often tell them not to speak to media or make public statements on social media.

This is because the accused’s defence can scrutinize anything they say or look for inconsistencies, and could reduce the chances of successful conviction.

At the same time, I also think it’s very possible the mother just decided she didn’t want to do any more interviews.

There’s a different between asking a potential witness to not disclose details involving potential evidence which they might become future testimony AND not to talk to “the public” about anything, for example how heartbroken she is over her children being missing, fond memories, little reminders she has of them each passing day. I won’t believe for a second that police would discourage a mother from doing that. The bus driver “humanized” these two missing children more than their own relatives!

I agree, claims of being asked “not to talk” are less colder than a terse “no comment”.
JMO

 

[aajimo]

There’s a different between asking a potential witness to not disclose details involving potential evidence which they might become future testimony AND not to talk to “the public” about anything, for example how heartbroken she is over her children being missing, fond memories, little reminders she has of them each passing day. I won’t believe for a second that police would discourage a mother from doing that. The bus driver “humanized” these two missing children more than their own relatives!

I agree, claims of being asked “not to talk” are less colder than a terse “no comment”.
JMO

I’ve seen police here in Canada say that to victims personally. It’s not because they’re being cold or heartless, it’s because it is very difficult to get a conviction in Canadian courts and they don’t want to risk having people get off on a technicality or delay.

Here our courts are very backed up. If they can’t make a decision within 18 months, the whole case is thrown out and the accused gets off scott free. (With some exceptions).

 

[Can_Sleuth]

I wonder if "her family thinks I did it" is not about direct harm, but could be more of a 'causing or allowing' because he hadn't got out of bed, or if he told Lily to keep away, for example?

I keep thinking about this too. Sliding glass doors often have a lock on the handle that flips up or down and is pretty easy even for a 6 year old to unlock. But many have a “pin” type lock at the bottom that goes vertically up and down into the bottom frame. Those can be really difficult even for an adult to pull up, especially on an older glass door.


I wonder if the parents knew the kids could not unlock that bottom part independently. Maybe DM smokes cigarettes, went out for a smoke at some point after the kids went to bed Thursday. When mom realized/assumed the kids went out the sliding glass door Friday morning, maybe she also came to the conclusion (whether right or wrong) that DM had neglected to lock that bottom lock, thereby “allowing” the kids to get out the sliding glass door without the parents realizing.

 

[Can_Sleuth]

My personal experience only, but I believe CPS could certainly restrict access to baby M by one or both parents without the rcmp publicly naming either of them as a person of interest.

I once fled a domestic violence situation with 5 kids. RCMP were in the process of investigating my ex for various crimes, but certainly did not publicly release any of that info. CPS (technically MCFD as I’m on the west coast of Canada) told me that my ex was not to have any contact with the children until the rcmp concluded their investigation. RCMP ended up not laying charges due to lack of evidence, ex took me to court for visitation, and CPS told me that if the court were to grant him any unsupervised access to the kids to call them immediately because despite a ruling by a judge, they would not allow him unsupervised access until he had satisfied their (MCFDs) requirements, namely drug testing and anger management classes. The threshold for CPS to temporarily restrict access to a child is much lower than the threshold for RCMP to actually lay charges against a parent.

I had legal representation and was advised at the very beginning that if I were to go back to my husband or let the kids see him unsupervised that there was a real risk of CPS restricting MY access to the kids, as they saw it as “failing to protect the kids from potential harm by the other parent”.

 

[AIGT]

My personal experience only, but I believe CPS could certainly restrict access to baby M by one or both parents without the rcmp publicly naming either of them as a person of interest.

I once fled a domestic violence situation with 5 kids. RCMP were in the process of investigating my ex for various crimes, but certainly did not publicly release any of that info. CPS (technically MCFD as I’m on the west coast of Canada) told me that my ex was not to have any contact with the children until the rcmp concluded their investigation. RCMP ended up not laying charges due to lack of evidence, ex took me to court for visitation, and CPS told me that if the court were to grant him any unsupervised access to the kids to call them immediately because despite a ruling by a judge, they would not allow him unsupervised access until he had satisfied their (MCFDs) requirements, namely drug testing and anger management classes. The threshold for CPS to temporarily restrict access to a child is much lower than the threshold for RCMP to actually lay charges against a parent.

I had legal representation and was advised at the very beginning that if I were to go back to my husband or let the kids see him unsupervised that there was a real risk of CPS restricting MY access to the kids, as they saw it as “failing to protect the kids from potential harm by the other parent”.

Certainly no argument that they don’t have to be a person of interest in the missing case for CPS to restrict access.

But CPS has to have evidence they are a danger to the child mentally or physically to prevent that access whether that evidence is related to the missing children or something else RCMP was told or saw while on seen for the missing children call.

 

[MistyWaters]

I’ve seen police here in Canada say that to victims personally. It’s not because they’re being cold or heartless, it’s because it is very difficult to get a conviction in Canadian courts and they don’t want to risk having people get off on a technicality or delay.

Here our courts are very backed up. If they can’t make a decision within 18 months, the whole case is thrown out and the accused gets off scott free. (With some exceptions).

Interesting. I’m Canadian as well. Without getting into specific details, how have you seen police here in Canada say that to victims?

I can’t recall even one court case which I’ve followed where media comments have came into play, for or against. It’s evidence of committing the crime that supports a conviction, not merely words.