MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015

[MyBelle]

The children were definitely born in the United States.

From this article:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2015/07/09/jailed-kids/29944037/

In her divorce complaint, Eibschitz-Tsimhoni said that the couple married in Israel on Aug. 17, 1995, had three children between 2001 and 2005 and lived as a family in Ann Arbor until her husband accepted a job in Israel in November 2008 and moved there permanently.

If the children had been born in Israel (which they weren't) and if Israel had been their habitual residence for the majority of their lives, the father would have had legal grounds to support his custody petition, which was denied by U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland.



http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2015/07/09/jailed-kids/29944037/

The matter of where the children were born should be laid to rest.

The children are dual citizens. I doubt Judge Cleland would make the same decision today because of those pesky statutes that govern best interest of the children in custody cases.

JMO

 

[wendiesan]

He works for GM and is being transferred to Michigan.

Do you have a link for this, or do you have personal knowledge that this is true?
If you have personal knowledge, could you become a certified insider for this thread?

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

What statute did the judge in this case use to prove parental alienation?

Statute meaning: a written law passed by a legislative body.

I'm not aware of any law (statute) that mentions "parental alienation", nor any law that mentions a minor child should be punished for failing to have a so-called "healthy relationship" with an absentee parent.

Michigan has a Child Custody Act. Judges do not prove cases, they decide them. A custodial parent is required to abide by a parenting plan and must foster a relationship between the child and non-custodial parent. If they fail to do so, the kids are removed, which is what happened in this case.

http://courts.mi.gov/administration...ublications/manuals/focb/custodyguideline.pdf

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Do you have a link for this, or do you have personal knowledge that this is true?
If you have personal knowledge, could you become a certified insider for this thread?

It doesn't matter where the father lives now because he is the non-custodial parent. He lived in Israel at the time the wife filed for divorce and that matters most because if he obtains custody now, he can move those children to Israel and their mother has little recourse because of her own conduct.

JMO

 

[SophieRose]

OT was offered a great opportunity to work with other talented Israeli scientists and engineers.
http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-Features/Reversing-the-brain-drain-in-Israel

One of the first people to answer GM’s call to return to Israel was Omer Tsimhoni, now the lab group manager of the Human Machine Interface division. Tsimhoni’s eyes were first opened to the opportunities of living abroad when in 1982, at age 17, he toured the US with the Israeli Friendship Caravan of high school students. After serving as a helicopter pilot in the Israel Air Force, Tshimhoni came to the conclusion that “there are many pilots here, but not so many scientists,” and, in 1996, enrolled in the University of Michigan’s highly regarded engineering faculty. He remained there for more than a decade, reaching his post-doctoral studies and working as an adjunct professor, until Golan came knocking.

The pull of family and homeland “were the main things that decided it for me” – Tsimhoni said he wouldn’t have accepted the same job if it had meant relocating to Australia, for example. He also said he wasn’t actively searching for work in Israel at the time, and that he wouldn’t have known GM was head-hunting Israeli expats if they had not approached him personally.

 

[MyBelle]

OT was offered a great opportunity to work with other talented Israeli scientists and engineers.
http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-Features/Reversing-the-brain-drain-in-Israel

One of the first people to answer GM’s call to return to Israel was Omer Tsimhoni, now the lab group manager of the Human Machine Interface division. Tsimhoni’s eyes were first opened to the opportunities of living abroad when in 1982, at age 17, he toured the US with the Israeli Friendship Caravan of high school students. After serving as a helicopter pilot in the Israel Air Force, Tshimhoni came to the conclusion that “there are many pilots here, but not so many scientists,” and, in 1996, enrolled in the University of Michigan’s highly regarded engineering faculty. He remained there for more than a decade, reaching his post-doctoral studies and working as an adjunct professor, until Golan came knocking.

The pull of family and homeland “were the main things that decided it for me” – Tsimhoni said he wouldn’t have accepted the same job if it had meant relocating to Australia, for example. He also said he wasn’t actively searching for work in Israel at the time, and that he wouldn’t have known GM was head-hunting Israeli expats if they had not approached him personally.

Thanks. I'm sure he looks forward to obtaining physical custody and heading back to Israel with them. And I'm betting the Judge is looking forward to the point she can make it somebody else's jurisdiction. LOL

JMO

 

[LinasK]

Thanks. I'm sure he looks forward to obtaining physical custody and heading back to Israel with them. And I'm betting the Judge is looking forward to the point she can make it somebody else's jurisdiction. LOL

JMO

It will be a great experience for them to see their heritage and a totally different lifestyle.

 

[MyBelle]

It will be a great experience for them to see their heritage and a totally different lifestyle.

I agree. Not just experience their heritage but also their little brother and the extended family of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

Thanks. I'm sure he looks forward to obtaining physical custody and heading back to Israel with them. And I'm betting the Judge is looking forward to the point she can make it somebody else's jurisdiction. LOL

JMO

Even his lawyer seems to be able to figure out that he can't have unsupervised visits with the children, because she won't have children making accusations about him.

 

[jjenny]

It will be a great experience for them to see their heritage and a totally different lifestyle.

Is he going to have to tranquilize the children to get them to go anywhere with him, let alone to another country? One thing about his children, they seem very clear about what they don't want. And are not afraid to show it.

 

[sorrell skye]

Michigan has a Child Custody Act. Judges do not prove cases, they decide them. A custodial parent is required to abide by a parenting plan and must foster a relationship between the child and non-custodial parent. If they fail to do so, the kids are removed, which is what happened in this case.

http://courts.mi.gov/administration...ublications/manuals/focb/custodyguideline.pdf

JMO

CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970 (EXCERPT)
Act 91 of 1970

722.23 “Best interests of the child” defined.


Sec. 3.

As used in this act, “best interests of the child” means the sum total of the following factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court:

(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.

(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.

(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.

(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.

(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.

(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.

(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.

(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.


History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 434, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 1981 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 259, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1993

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s4...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-23

The relevant portion of the Child Custody Act pertaining to your post would be section (j):

The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

When the noncustodial parent has willingly abandoned his young children (by relocating overseas and only returning once a year to visit the children), how is the custodial parent responsible for the lack of the absentee parent's "close and continuing parent-child relationship"?

IMO, by moving permanently overseas when his children were very young and by only visiting in the summer for the past five or more years, the father has demonstrated an apparent unwillingness and/or ability to facilitate a close and continuing parent-child relationship with his children.

I will also note section (i):

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

IMO, the oldest son is of sufficient age to express his preference, but it was denied by the Court.

 

[sorrell skye]

It will be a great experience for them to see their heritage and a totally different lifestyle.

It could be a great experience for them - if they were willing to go. Otherwise, it could wind up being a traumatizing experience if they were forcefully removed from their home and taken to a foreign country where they don't know anyone.

U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland denied the father custody, because he was abiding by the Child Custody Act of Michigan, which looks to the best interest of the children, based on the criteria set forth in the Act.

 

[wendiesan]

This is more about general background information than things specific to the discussion on this thread. So it may not be of interest to everyone. Please feel free to scroll on by. Thanks.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/560116/jewish/Custody-Considerations.htm

FWIW
For an idea of a traditional Jewish view of divorce, custody, and so on, this website seems very well put together. If I understand correctly, this site deals with the principles and philosophies of one branch of Judaism. I don't think this is the branch that MET and OT are part of, since OT is a professional woman with a career, but it might help to put the disagreement between the parents in context. For instance, I found some very interesting statements that seemed to explain OT's insistence that he'd made child support payments.

A couple of excerpts from Custody Considerations, by Rueven P. Bulka, follow.

"With special regard to the parent-child dialectic, the parents do not have rights over their children. They have responsibilities towards their children, even as the children, as they enter into the age of responsibleness, then become obligated in fulfilling their duties towards their parents.
The governing principle in deciding the custody of the children is not what is the right of the parent, or parents, but what is right for the child."

"It is important for divorcing parents to realize that their divorce can have a devastating effect on their children, potentially even more serious than the death of a parent. The children can be caught up in the continuing conflict with the parents, and may even become pawns in this dragged-out battle. The effects of this on the child can be nothing short of disastrous. They will see themselves as locked into a trauma with no exit. This may cause them to become frustrated, depressed, and even permanently melancholic."

"Every child needs maternal nurturing and paternal guidance. In the general population, only one-fifth of children from a divorced parental set maintain good relations with both parents. About three-fifths have a good relationship with the mother, and one-third have a good relationship with the father. One-third never see one of the parents."

"Additionally, when even casual, intermittent contact with either of the parents is considered to be deleterious to the child's welfare, the Rabbinical Court may in fact prohibit such visitation by the abusing or unfit parent. Visitation of the children comes under the same rubric as custody itself; it is looked upon as the child's right, not the parent's right. When it is deemed to be in the best interests of the child, then it is a part of the long range agreement. When it is detrimental to the child, then visitation is curtailed."

 

[KaaBoom]

The father has or will be moving to Michigan, in same town as ex.

Source?

 

[KaaBoom]

The chain-link fence only looked like it was high enough to prevent balls from leaving the yard. Do you have pictures of the interior? Because I have yet to see a photo of a "jail". It sure looked like a playground on a school yard, complete with basketball courts.

It goes all the way to the roof, and is curved inwards to prevent someone on the inside from climbing out. If you look closely there are also some kind of device on the top of the building to prevent kids from climbing on to the roof and getting out that way.

Again the Judge sentenced them to "jail" and ordered that they be kept in separate "cells". The quotes are the judges own words.

 

[sorrell skye]

OT was offered a great opportunity to work with other talented Israeli scientists and engineers.
http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-Features/Reversing-the-brain-drain-in-Israel

One of the first people to answer GM’s call to return to Israel was Omer Tsimhoni, now the lab group manager of the Human Machine Interface division. Tsimhoni’s eyes were first opened to the opportunities of living abroad when in 1982, at age 17, he toured the US with the Israeli Friendship Caravan of high school students. After serving as a helicopter pilot in the Israel Air Force, Tshimhoni came to the conclusion that “there are many pilots here, but not so many scientists,” and, in 1996, enrolled in the University of Michigan’s highly regarded engineering faculty. He remained there for more than a decade, reaching his post-doctoral studies and working as an adjunct professor, until Golan came knocking.

The pull of family and homeland “were the main things that decided it for me” – Tsimhoni said he wouldn’t have accepted the same job if it had meant relocating to Australia, for example. He also said he wasn’t actively searching for work in Israel at the time, and that he wouldn’t have known GM was head-hunting Israeli expats if they had not approached him personally.

"The pull of family and homeland".

I understand his desire to return to Israel - to the country of his birth and to where his parents and other extended family members reside. I also understand the honor he must have felt when he was recruited by General Motors head-hunters. He undoubtedly felt that all his dreams were coming true.

My nephew in-law is an IT engineer who is frequently approached by head-hunters (most of whom he turns down because he doesn't want to move overseas away from family & friends). Two and a half years ago, he was recruited by a company in Hawaii. After discussion with my niece (his wife) they decided together that they would relocate to Hawaii. I have no doubt that if my niece had not agreed to leave her family and friends (not to mention her career), he would not have left her and their children to go chase a career opportunity in Hawaii. His wife and children are more important to him than a job.

When you have a wife and children, your decisions affect people other than yourself. If you value your marriage and your relationship with your children, you don't abandon them for a job - no matter how prestigious the job and no matter the location of the job.

IMO, his first priority should have been to his then-wife and his children. If he had made them his first priority, he wouldn't be experiencing the heartbreak of a lack of relationship with his kids that he's currently facing.

 

[MyBelle]

CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970 (EXCERPT)
Act 91 of 1970

722.23 “Best interests of the child” defined.


Sec. 3.

As used in this act, “best interests of the child” means the sum total of the following factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court:

(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.

(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.

(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.

(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.

(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.

(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.

(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.

(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.


History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 434, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 1981 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 259, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1993

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s4...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-23

The relevant portion of the Child Custody Act pertaining to your post would be section (j):

The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

When the noncustodial parent has willingly abandoned his young children (by relocating overseas and only returning once a year to visit the children), how is the custodial parent responsible for the lack of the absentee parent's "close and continuing parent-child relationship"?

IMO, by moving permanently overseas when his children were very young and by only visiting in the summer for the past five or more years, the father has demonstrated an apparent unwillingness and/or ability to facilitate a close and continuing parent-child relationship with his children.

I will also note section (i):

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

IMO, the oldest son is of sufficient age to express his preference, but it was denied by the Court.

How 'bout you note the section "i" that you conveniently omitted in your post? (j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

The court now clearly supports the father because of the unwillingness of the mother. Because the father was living overseas at the time his wife filed for divorce, he will end up with the children and they will be living in Israel. Where he lives now is totally irrelevant because after they live in Israel for six months, the U.S. will gladly relinquish all jurisdiction over those children.

The mother and her P.R. team can certainly attempt to change public opinion but so far, it hasn't worked and will continue not to work because they truly seem clueless.

JMO

 

[sorrell skye]

How 'bout you note the section "i" that you conveniently omitted in your post? (j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

The court now clearly supports the father because of the unwillingness of the mother. Because the father was living overseas at the time his wife filed for divorce, he will end up with the children and they will be living in Israel. Where he lives now is totally irrelevant because after they live in Israel for six months, the U.S. will gladly relinquish all jurisdiction over those children.

The mother and her P.R. team can certainly attempt to change public opinion but so far, it hasn't worked and will continue not to work because they truly seem clueless.

JMO

The part that you claim I omitted from my post is included - not only included, but bolded. Please read again.

 

[MyBelle]

The part that you claim I omitted from my post is included - not only included, but bolded. Please read again.

Yes, I see. You conveniently omitted section "j". LOL. Hard to take you seriously.

 

[MyBelle]

"The pull of family and homeland".

I understand his desire to return to Israel - to the country of his birth and to where his parents and other extended family members reside. I also understand the honor he must have felt when he was recruited by General Motors head-hunters. He undoubtedly felt that all his dreams were coming true.

My nephew in-law is an IT engineer who is frequently approached by head-hunters (most of whom he turns down because he doesn't want to move overseas away from family & friends). Two and a half years ago, he was recruited by a company in Hawaii. After discussion with my niece (his wife) they decided together that they would relocate to Hawaii. I have no doubt that if my niece had not agreed to leave her family and friends (not to mention her career), he would not have left her and their children to go chase a career opportunity in Hawaii. His wife and children are more important to him than a job.

When you have a wife and children, your decisions affect people other than yourself. If you value your marriage and your relationship with your children, you don't abandon them for a job - no matter how prestigious the job and no matter the location of the job.

IMO, his first priority should have been to his then-wife and his children. If he had made them his first priority, he wouldn't be experiencing the heartbreak of a lack of relationship with his kids that he's currently facing.

A couple of facts that you continue to overlook: the mother agreed to the transfer to Israel, AND,

Hawaii isn't a foreign country. Hasn't been since '59. Most importantly, your niece CHOSE to move there just as the wife in this case chose to move to Israel.

JMO