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

[sorrell skye]

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.

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

Section (j) is there in its entirety, as are all the other sections.

Please read again.

 

[MyBelle]

Section (j) is there in its entirety, as are all the other sections.

Please read again.

Oh yes! Indeed you did include it........and then pretended it doesn't matter. Here it is again:

(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 father relocated BEFORE the petition for divorce was filed so it doesn't matter where he lives now.

The Judge has decided mother failed to facilitate and encourage a close relationship.

JMO

 

[wendiesan]

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

In other threads, people who have personal knowledge of a case do not have to provide links if they are verified insiders.
Despite your answering on behalf of that particular person, I'd prefer hearing from the person involved.

 

[MyBelle]

Especially the part where the children do their compulsory service in the Israeli military.

My dad and brother did their compulsory service in the military and they are both great fathers so what exactly is your point?

 

[MyBelle]

In other threads, people who have personal knowledge of a case do not have to provide links if they are verified insiders.
Despite your answering on behalf of that particular person, I'd prefer hearing from the person involved.

In other threads where posters have personal knowledge of a case, other posters are not required to believe them.

JMO

 

[wendiesan]

In other threads where posters have personal knowledge of a case, other posters are not required to believe them. JMO

And I'm pretty sure SophieRose can answer for herself should she choose to do so.

 

[wendiesan]

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

Especially the part where the children do their compulsory service in the Israeli military.

Under the DS Law, every Israeli citizen or permanent resident aged 18 to 40 is subject to the military draft. The upper age limit is 45 for officers, and other age limits apply to persons in designated occupations. (DS Law §§ 1 & 36A.) Yeshiva (Jewish ultra-orthodox religious schools) students have traditionally been exempted from implementation of the draft duty. (See Ruth Levush, Israel: Supreme Court Decision Invalidating the Law on Haredi Military Draft Postponement (Mar. 2012), Law Library of Congress website.)
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403917_text

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

Oh yes! Indeed you did include it........and then pretended it doesn't matter. Here it is again:

(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 father relocated BEFORE the petition for divorce was filed so it doesn't matter where he lives now.

The Judge has decided mother failed to facilitate and encourage a close relationship.

JMO

Thank you for finally acknowledging that I had included section (j) in my original post.

I disagree with your assertion that I "pretended it doesn't matter".

Again, here was my response to section (j):

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.

Please take note of sections (d) and (e):

(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.

When the father moved overseas and abandoned his children, he disrupted the continuity of the family environment and his relationship with his children.

When the father established permanent residency in Israel without his children, he abandoned not only his children, but the permanence of the existing family unit and the custodial home.

 

[sorrell skye]

In addition:

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

The father can blame the mother all he wants for the lack of love, affection, and emotional ties between him and his children, but how could he have realistically expected to have any emotional bond with children he abandoned when they were very young - with children who he has physically interacted with once a year in June?

It's ludicrous to think that any parent can have a "healthy relationship" with their children under those circumstances.

 

[MyBelle]

In addition:

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

The father can blame the mother all he wants for the lack of love, affection, and emotional ties between him and his children, but how could he have realistically expected to have any emotional bond with children he abandoned when they were very young - with children who he has physically interacted with once a year in June?

It's ludicrous to think that any parent can have a "healthy relationship" with their children under those circumstances.

The Judge, not the father, is blaming the mother. The father didn't abandon his children. The law recognizes his parental rights and it isn't going to change just because you don't agree with it and are choosing to invent another version of facts.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Thank you for finally acknowledging that I had included section (j) in my original post.

I disagree with your assertion that I "pretended it doesn't matter".

Again, here was my response to section (j):

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.

Please take note of sections (d) and (e):

(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.

When the father moved overseas and abandoned his children, he disrupted the continuity of the family environment and his relationship with his children.

When the father established permanent residency in Israel without his children, he abandoned not only his children, but the permanence of the existing family unit and the custodial home.

When the father moved overseas and abandoned his children, he disrupted the continuity of the family environment and his relationship with his children.

The father lived in Israel at the time the divorce was filed. As the verified lawyers patiently explained to you to no avail it seems, the mother disrupted his parental rights, not the other way around.

JMO

 

[sorrell skye]

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

According to articles linked upthread, the mother did not agree to move to Israel. The father moved there anyway - without her and without the children. She later acquiesced and moved there, but it wasn't long before she moved back to the States with the children and then filed for divorce. If everything was so hunky-dory, why did she take the children and flee?

Yes, my niece chose to move with her husband to Hawaii. The relevant factor is choice. The relevant factor is that parents make these important life decisions together and come to an agreement so that the family can be preserved - so that the family can thrive.

The relevant factor is that if one parent steadfastly abandons their children, then that parent has only him/herself to blame for not having a close relationship with their children. To believe that visiting your children once a year, to believe that phone calls, texts, or e-mails from abroad can replace a physical, personal relationship with your children constitutes a serious lack of awareness of what it takes to be a parent.

 

[sorrell skye]

The father lived in Israel at the time the divorce was filed. As the verified lawyers patiently explained to you to no avail it seems, the mother disrupted his parental rights, not the other way around.

JMO

From a Detroit Free Press article:

In a separate case argued in federal court in Detroit over whether the children should be returned to Israel, U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland wrote in an order that after watching both parents testify, he struggled to believe either one.

"The court ultimately cannot find either party fully credible or fully persuasive," Cleland wrote. "There are inconsistencies in earlier statements made by each party that are sufficient to raise reasonable concern about each party's credibility."

But Cleland ultimately ruled the "children were not present in Israel long enough to establish it as their habitual residence."

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

Yes, the father lived in Israel when the divorce proceedings commenced, but a Federal Court judge ruled that the children would remain in the mother's custody because they had not resided in Israel long enough to establish habitual residency - ergo, the mother DID NOT disrupt the father's parental rights, according to the law.

 

[Margo/Mom]

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

Currently he is required to surrender his passport to the court during visitation in the US, in order to prevent any possibility of leaving the country with the children.

 

[gxm]

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

You are misreading sorrell skye's post, it clearly has "j" included AND in bold type.

 

[MyBelle]

Currently he is required to surrender his passport to the court during visitation in the US, in order to prevent any possibility of leaving the country with the children.

That might be under the current custody/parenting Order but it doesn't matter because as of the March 4, 2015 Motion Hearing, the father has moved back to the U.S.

When there is a new custody order, he will be free to take the children to Israel to live. And it is just a matter of time before there is a new custody order.

JMO

 

[TorisMom003]

MyBelle, do you have the link to that motion hearing that states the father has moved back to the US? If so, can you please post it. Thanks. I'd like to read it.

 

[wendiesan]

Lansat concluded his report by stating that Mr. Tsimhoni needs to consider moving back to the United States and shift to a court recommended parenting time schedule. He currently only returns to Michigan sporadically for two to three weeks at a time due to his job.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/gene...campaigns-begin-in-wake-of-gorcycas-decisions

 

[MyBelle]

MyBelle, do you have the link to that motion hearing that states the father has moved back to the US? If so, can you please post it. Thanks. I'd like to read it.

PR Firm has posted many of the legal documents. See March 4, 2015 Motion Hearing, Mr. Lansat, beginning about Line 14.

http://everything-pr.com/tsimhoni-vs-tsimhoni/258461/

 

[MyBelle]

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/gene...campaigns-begin-in-wake-of-gorcycas-decisions

From your link:

The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) report compiled by William Lansat in November of 2014