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

[MyBelle]

BBM

I think that if Judge Gorcyca hadn't verbally abused the children in court in the manner in which she did, but had spoken to them respectfully (rather than treating them like hardened criminals), this case wouldn't have been cast into the national spotlight. Furthermore, if Judge Gorcyca hadn't sentenced the children to the juvenile facility, news of the judge's outrageous actions wouldn't have been picked up by the MSM.

IMO, the public's sympathy has primarily been toward the children, and as time has gone by and folks have learned how the father abandoned his children back in 2008-2009 to pursue a career overseas, and as folks have read recent and previous court transcripts, the sympathy toward the children has increased.

If the judge hadn't punished the children for whatever transgressions she believed the mother had committed, it's likely none of us here would have ever heard about this case.

I'm glad I heard about the case because I've seen how parental alienation adversely effects the emotional development of children. These children are victims of child abuse according to actual experts who have actually examined them. The "public" doesn't have a vote. I certainly don't share your opinion.

The father didn't abandon the children. And I think the public sympathy is with the children because their mother alienated them from their father for years. Research studies support that children do better emotionally if they have healthy relationships with both parents rather than being used as a pawn by one in order to retaliate against the other parent. The Judge's ruling was the right one and I'm glad she did it. I just wish she'd hold the mother's attorneys accountable for helping her drag it out for years.

JMO

 

[lawstudent]

These situations are a mess. But I don't blame the attorneys. Some of them end up stuck with these clients who will not do anything but cause issues. I would never go into family law and I would discourage this behavior, but the attorneys rarely know the whole truth - all they can do is go along with what the client says, within some reasonable boundaries. If an attorney is able to part ways with the client, they go find another. Some have had 30 attorneys - each one gets wise to their ways and ends the relationship, but they will never stop. Often a mental health issue. Even if the parent has some actual points/concerns, there is a point where the constant battles do the greater harm to the children in most situations. It makes everyone miserable - the parties, the kids, the judge, the attorneys. I can see why some judges sort of "snap" - I don't know how these kids can be helped. Very sad.

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM

I think that if Judge Gorcyca hadn't verbally abused the children in court in the manner in which she did, but had spoken to them respectfully (rather than treating them like hardened criminals), this case wouldn't have been cast into the national spotlight. Furthermore, if Judge Gorcyca hadn't sentenced the children to the juvenile facility, news of the judge's outrageous actions wouldn't have been picked up by the MSM.

IMO, the public's sympathy has primarily been toward the children, and as time has gone by and folks have learned how the father abandoned his children back in 2008-2009 to pursue a career overseas, and as folks have read recent and previous court transcripts, the sympathy toward the children has increased.

If the judge hadn't punisheoverlookedook children for whatever transgressions she believed the mother had committed, it's likely none of us here would have ever heard about this case.

Well, that is certainly the way that some parties have played the story in social media. And the kids' mom has done them no favors in setting her example of refusing to honor court orders. But, whether completely of their own volition or as a result of their mother's influence, the children were ordered brought to court where they essentially staged a sit-in in the hallway--refusing to respond to multiple adults including the guardian ad litem and court deputies. Kids who challenge the authority of the court routinely face consequences--house arrest, probation, out of home placements and the like. Prior to the imposition of consequences the court appointed attorneys for each of the children to ensure that they understood their choice and the consequences. This important context has been overlooked in the interest of grabbing headlines and winning public sentiment.

 

[MyBelle]

These situations are a mess. But I don't blame the attorneys. Some of them end up stuck with these clients who will not do anything but cause issues. I would never go into family law and I would discourage this behavior, but the attorneys rarely know the whole truth - all they can do is go along with what the client says, within some reasonable boundaries. If an attorney is able to part ways with the client, they go find another. Some have had 30 attorneys - each one gets wise to their ways and ends the relationship, but they will never stop. Often a mental health issue. Even if the parent has some actual points/concerns, there is a point where the constant battles do the greater harm to the children in most situations. It makes everyone miserable - the parties, the kids, the judge, the attorneys. I can see why some judges sort of "snap" - I don't know how these kids can be helped. Very sad.

BBM. Apparently in this case, the mother's attorneys only cut ties when they cease to be paid and couldn't care less about what is healthy for children.

JMO

Abood and his brother, Jeffrey, took over legal duties Monday for Eibschitz-Tsimhoni, who has had 12 different attorneys since initiating her divorce in 2009. The Aboods replace family custody expert attorney Lisa Stern as well as Jennifer Hoult, a New York City attorney who allegedly tried to send mail to the children in Children’s Village and also at the camp.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...s-custody-battle-court-ordered-camp/30409233/

 

[KaaBoom]

That is an absolute twisting of the facts.

What facts did I twist? Please be specific.

 

[Margo/Mom]

What facts did I twist? Please be specific.

I quoted them in my response. You stated:

Well, that will be their choice when they are grown up. But if it was me, and my dad had me taken away from my mother and had me thrown in juvenile lockup, it would be an easy choice. I would never talk to him again ever, and if he even tried to contact me, I would tell him to **** off.

Their father has no authority to have the children "thrown in a juvenile lockup." This was the judge's response to their challenge of the court's authority. Apparently at an earlier date the judge had attempted to facilitate the father's parenting time by ordering the children into court and scheduling their father's parenting time to be held there. The children not only refused to enter the courtroom, they also resisted any conversation with multiple adults in the employ of the court, from the GAL to deputies.

According to the transcript, the judge was ready to have them removed into custody at that time, but their father objected and the judge allowed them to return home with their mother, however also appointing for them attorneys to explain to them what was expected as well as the consequences of their actions (essentially drawing from the same menu of options used for any other unruly youth attempting to test the court's authority). In similar cases one option would be release to the authority of a parent, or to place the children on some form of house arrest. These options would appear not to be readily available to the court as the children are openly flaunting the authority of one parent (with shared custody, a legal arrangement arrived at by the court), and the other parent demonstrates a complete unwillingness to exercise any authority when it comes to ensuring the parenting time of the other--or even ensure the children's presence in the court room (or to engage in a joint counseling program designed to assist warring parents in putting their children's best interests ahead of any lingering animosities or adult agenda).

The only possible role of the children's father in their removal into care is that the judge expected him to report back to her on the childrens' behavior during lunch--which represented a last-ditch effort, one more time offering the two younger children an out that would prevent the consequences.

There is nothing to substantiate your interpretation that their father had them thrown into juvenile detention.

 

[giagreen]

Well, for one thing, that would be a lot of legal fees, and the mother appears to be broke, having already spent over $75,000 in legal fees to try to keep custody of her children.

It doesn't coast anything to get a new judge. Its her right. She might have to pay a fee with her lawyer but at this point what does she have to lose.?
She needs a new judge.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It doesn't coast anything to get a new judge. Its her right. She might have to pay a fee with her lawyer but at this point what does she have to lose.?
She needs a new judge.

I am not an attorney, but I rather suspect that a motion for a new judge requires something to back it up. And it would be up to the judge to determine how to respond to such a request. And I would imagine that most judges take a dim view of judge shopping. I think that there might be an appeals process to get a higher ruling, but it's an iffy proposition. If she were to lose, then she would have to face the same judge she tried to dump.

This woman already appears to change lawyers as often as she changes her underwear. The report is that the last one left because she hadn't paid the bill, but I would imagine that provides and easy out for someone with an intensely difficult client. I cannot imagine that she follows her attorney's advice when she does things like refusing to follow the parenting schedule, or not showing when ordered to attend a program designed to assist couples at odds with making their own decisions together. And despite (or because of) her unpaid legal fees, I would imagine that she has had to pay some hefty retainers.

 

[jjenny]

It doesn't coast anything to get a new judge. Its her right. She might have to pay a fee with her lawyer but at this point what does she have to lose.?
She needs a new judge.

You don't just go get a new judge because you want one.
Her lawyer could file a motion, but she has to have a reason, and judge would have to agree to recuse herself.

 

[KaaBoom]

I quoted them in my response. You stated:



Their father has no authority to have the children "thrown in a juvenile lockup."

It was 100% the father's doing that they were in juvenile detention. The judge clearly said that she would let them out if the dad asked her to. Which is how they were eventually released. From the transcript:

So, that's my order. We'll set a review hearing I guess what, September 1st? Unless you, for whatever reason, talk to your dad and your dad comes to me and says, "oh, my gosh" -- oh, and he needs to have counseling in Children's Village. And your dad says, "Judge Gorcyca, I -- my son has seen the light and he's changed and can -- can you let him out? And he's -- wants to have a relationship with me." And then I'll do it, so.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It was 100% the father's doing that they were in juvenile detention. The judge clearly said that she would let them out if the dad asked her to. Which is how they were eventually released. From the transcript:

Saying that getting out is contingent on dad's testimony regarding their progress towards acknowledging him is a far cry from him being able to lock them up at will.

Only the judge can do that. And the children gave her ample reason.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It was 100% the father's doing that they were in juvenile detention. The judge clearly said that she would let them out if the dad asked her to. Which is how they were eventually released. From the transcript:

And they were released because three parties: Mom, Dad and the Guardian Ad Litem approached the judge with the alternate plan to send them to camp. Where they will go when camp is over is still up in the air. Dad as requested full custody--and the judge appears to be inclined to grant it, although I am eager to hear what transpires in court today.

 

[KaaBoom]

It doesn't coast anything to get a new judge. Its her right. She might have to pay a fee with her lawyer but at this point what does she have to lose.?
She needs a new judge.

She can't pay the lawyers fees that she already has incurred. How is she going to pay more? You really think her lawyers are going to keep doing this for free? Maybe you would like to pay her $100,000 legal bill, so she can continue the fight and maybe get a new judge?

 

[KaaBoom]

And they were released because three parties: Mom, Dad and the Guardian Ad Litem approached the judge with the alternate plan to send them to camp. Where they will go when camp is over is still up in the air. Dad as requested full custody--and the judge appears to be inclined to grant it, although I am eager to hear what transpires in court today.

Wrong again, the mother had no say in the matter. It was an agreement between the father and the GAL. The father is calling all the shots. He got them into jail, he got them out. I suspect he is paying off the judge and the GAL to do it. Otherwise I can't imagine how the judge's decisions can be so one sided.

"The court finds that is in the children's best interests to grant the father's and the guardian ad litem's motion to allow the children to attend summer camp.

Judge releases 'jailed' kids, sends them to summer camp

As far as what will happen in court, nothing will happen. The children will stay in the summer camp, until the judge decides to grant custody to the father. Which she has already said she will do.

 

[giagreen]

She can't pay the lawyers fees that she already has incurred. How is she going to pay more? You really think her lawyers are going to keep doing this for free? Maybe you would like to pay her $100,000 legal bill, so she can continue the fight and maybe get a new judge?

Okay but with the fact that this judge is making her come back over and over it just might be cheaper in the long run. I don't understand why you are so offended. Its just a question. Settle down....ehhh

 

[KaaBoom]

Okay but with the fact that this judge is making her come back over and over it just might be cheaper in the long run. I don't understand why you are so offended. Its just a question. Settle down....ehhh

Sorry I came off that way. I'm not offended. It was a good question. I just answered it the best that I could.

 

[Nova]

It was 100% the father's doing that they were in juvenile detention. The judge clearly said that she would let them out if the dad asked her to. Which is how they were eventually released. From the transcript:

With respect, KaaBoom, your own links say the children would be released not just on the father's say so, but on his swearing that the son's attitude has changed and the son now wants a relationship with his father.

So, yes, it was "up to the father", but only if he was willing to commit perjury.

 

[Nova]

Wrong again, the mother had no say in the matter. It was an agreement between the father and the GAL. The father is calling all the shots. He got them into jail, he got them out. I suspect he is paying off the judge and the GAL to do it. Otherwise I can't imagine how the judge's decisions can be so one sided....

(Emphasis added.)

Wow! That's quite an accusation. As for the judge's decisions being "one-sided", I'm not sure that's true. But most judges take a dim view when parties refuse to obey orders from the Bench.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Wrong again, the mother had no say in the matter. It was an agreement between the father and the GAL. The father is calling all the shots. He got them into jail, he got them out. I suspect he is paying off the judge and the GAL to do it. Otherwise I can't imagine how the judge's decisions can be so one sided.





Judge releases 'jailed' kids, sends them to summer camp



As far as what will happen in court, nothing will happen. The children will stay in the summer camp, until the judge decides to grant custody to the father. Which she has already said she will do.

I do not agree that the judge's rulings have been one-sided. In response to maternal concerns, the court has ordered that Mr. Tsimhoni surrender his passport while visiting the children. She has ruled that he must speak in English only, in response to mom's claims that dad was threatening them in Hebrew. Visitation has been supervised, I would imagine in response to multiple unsubstantiated claims.

It is unclear at what point mom's attorney indicated buy-in to the kids going to camp, however it was reported that this was jointly acceptable. "Attorneys appointed to represent each child said their clients reported good treatment at Children's Village, but wanted to return home to their mom. The parents’ attorneys and the children’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, William Lanset, agreed that the children should be taken out of the center." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...orcyca-camp-michigan_55a04026e4b0ecec71bc3b4a

Also, do not forget that mom has been the custodial parent for a long stretch of time now--and has demonstrated a pattern of interference with the father's visitation, including planning a trip to Italy during his month in the US expressly FOR visitation. Further, whatever occurred in 2010 in the park happened while she was lurking around during dad's scheduled visitation time. And recall that despite a 911 call and police response there was no substantiation of any crime having occurred (and while mom initiated a protection order, she dropped the matter without completing it).

As I have said before, insinuations of collusion are best backed up with evidence. And I see none--only suppositions that it MUST be going on, because you disagree with the judge.

 

[KaaBoom]

With respect, KaaBoom, your own links say the children would be released not just on the father's say so, but on his swearing that the son's attitude has changed and the son now wants a relationship with his father.

So, yes, it was "up to the father", but only if he was willing to commit perjury.

OK I will try to make this simple. The kids don't want to have anything to do with their father. If the father would just accept that, and go back to Israel and take care of his new wife and baby there, none of this would be happening. The mother has had custody of the children for the last five years. She would continue to have custody. The status quo would continue. If the father wasn't pushing it, there would be no reason for the court to even be involved anymore. There would be no reason for the court to order the kids to have lunch with him.

The father is the only one who could put a stop to this. But because he is all but hurt about the kids not wanting to talk to him, is doing his best to make their lives a living hell. He's cost the mother $75,000 in legal fees, and he got his nine year old daughter thrown in jail. He's a big man, isn't he?