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

[KaaBoom]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...-alienation-oakland-circuit-court/31537469/he judge has ordered a five day intensive reunification program for Dad and the kids following camp. Mom is not permitted. Then a 90 day temp placement with Dad before the next hearing to review custody. Looks like a tough way to go--but I do think it wise
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...al-alienation-oakland-circuit-court/31537469/

The mother's attorney, Andrew Abood, objected to the order of intensive therapy. "We think this is going to be a disaster," he said. "We are asking about the methodology...to sweep them into a hotel room for five days to do what? It seems like there is an effort to attribute fault to the mother. Why is it up to mom to solve the problems that dad created?”

Gorcyca, however, said she was hopeful the program would work, and warned that she could still change permanent custody. "I hope those first five days are amazing," she said.

Yeah, I'm sure it will be amazing, all right. Just as amazing as her sending the kids to jail for contempt. This judge sure doesn't get tired of failing.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Yeah, I'm sure it will be amazing, all right. Just as amazing as her sending the kids to jail for contempt. This judge sure doesn't get tired of failing.

Curious how you might handle the case if you were the judge.

 

[ellemo]

Yeah, I'm sure it will be amazing, all right. Just as amazing as her sending the kids to jail for contempt. This judge sure doesn't get tired of failing.

If the letter that was posted earlier was in fact submitted to the court, the mom is lucky she is not jailed for that. I am sure it amounts to fraud, forgery, submitting false evidence, amount other things.
I hope the kids can forge a relationship with their dad.

 

[gitana1]

The court should respect their wishes and say, Sorry father, they don't want to see you. Thats what most reasonable judges would do.

That is absolutely, 100% NOT what most reasonable judges would do. Not at all. Most reasonable judges would strip custody from the mother and give it to the father and order her to get therapy.

 

[MyBelle]

Yeah, I'm sure it will be amazing, all right. Just as amazing as her sending the kids to jail for contempt. This judge sure doesn't get tired of failing.

Attorney Abood sure doesn't get tired of violating the Judge's gag order.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

Neighbors described children as well behaved. When they were 'incarcerated" they were described as well behaved. Seems like "bad" behavior only comes out when they are being forced to meet with their father.
In my opinion, father needs to let them be. It's not good for them to be dragged into court and to be forced to do something they don't want to do. Maybe he can try communicate with them through letters. I don't think children being removed from their mother and put in juvenile detention is going to help them to feel better about their father.
Father has a new wife and a new child. If you ask me, father needs to concentrate on that family so the same thing doesn't happen again.
It's like Solomon story about two parents claiming the child belongs to them, and Solomon saying he will split the baby in two.

Parental alienation is extraordinarily destructive to children. That's what's happening here and it needs to be addressed and not allowed to continue:

Parental alienation involves the “programming” of a child by one parent to denigrate the other “targeted” parent, in an effort to undermine and interfere with the child's relationship with that parent, and is often a sign of a parent’s inability to separate from the couple conflict and focus on the needs of the child. Such denigration results in the child’s emotional rejection of the targeted parent, and the loss of a capable and loving parent from the life of the child.
Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." Children’s views of the targeted parent are almost exclusively negative, to the point that the parent is demonized and seen as evil.

There is now scholarly consensus that severe alienation is abusive to children (Fidler and Bala, 2010), and it is a largely overlooked form of child abuse (Bernet et al, 2010), as child welfare and divorce practitioners are often unaware of or minimize its extent. As reported by adult children of divorce, the tactics of alienating parents are tantamount to extreme psychological maltreatment of children, including spurning, terrorizing, isolating, corrupting or exploiting, and denying emotional responsiveness (Baker, 2010). For the child, parental alienation is a serious mental condition, based on a false belief that the alienated parent is a dangerous and unworthy parent. The severe effects of parental alienation on children are well-documented; low self esteem and self-hatred, lack of trust, depression, and substance abuse and other forms of addiction are widespread, as children lose the capacity to give and accept love from a parent. Self-hatred is particularly disturbing among affected children, as children internalize the hatred targeted toward the alienated parent, are led to believe that the alienated parent did not love or want them, and experience severe guilt related to betraying the alienated parent. Their depression is rooted is feelings of being unloved by one of their parents, and from separation from that parent, while being denied the opportunity to mourn the loss of the parent, or to even talk about the parent. Alienated children typically have conflicted or distant relationships with the alienating parent also, and are at high risk of becoming alienated from their own children; Baker reports that fully half of the respondents in her study of adult children who had experienced alienation as children were alienated from their own children.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01304/the-impact-parental-alienation-children

 

[gitana1]

They were from Israel, but moved to US before children were born. Children were born in US, so the children are not from Israel. As for father job's transferring him here, I have yet to see the link that this is so.

"The mother has physical custody. The father lived in Israel, but has since returned to Michigan, where he is employed as an engineer." http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...oakland-county-family-court-experts/31435087/

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.

What you have quoted is the statute that allowed a judge to determine whether there is parental alienation. You just proved Mybelle's point, actually.

 

[gitana1]

Another highlight. The mother hasn't paid the attorney who managed to keep her out of jail.



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

Having multiple attorneys is a huge red flag. I won't take new clients who have cycled through multiple attorneys. They are always found to have been unreasonable in litigation, unwilling to take responsibility for their actions, and unwilling to pay their bill.

And I don't use the word "always" pretty much ever!!!!

 

[gitana1]

This site includes the hearing transcripts from a number of court appearances. http://everything-pr.com/tsimhoni-vs-tsimhoni/258461/

I do not see the GAL report, which I would love to read.

It is apparent that there have been multiple attempts to support a less-divisive situation, including something called The Bridge Program that the court ordered them (not sure if it was just the parents or the whole family) to attend. Apparently the Mom was a no-show. The Judge ordered her into court and imprisoned for a weekend, again a no-show.

The judge rescheduled the father's parenting time to occur in her courtroom--and the children refused to enter. GAL testified that someone (sounded like perhaps a previous counselor? Babysitter? Someone who had since been dismissed according to the GAL) told them that the court was poison.

Two things seem clear. The judge and the GAL have both gone to great lengths to accommodate this family. The mother at the same time has been non-compliant with a number of things that really look critical. Now--knowing very little about the dad, I am inclined to go with the judge's assessment that there has been major interference with, if not outright refusal to honor, the custodial arrangements, including some major messing around with her kids heads.

Right. As a family law attorney practicing since 2001, I can tell you this has all the hallmarks of a severe parental alienation case. The evidence is quite clear to me. I do not think the judge handled this situation well, though, at all, but I do understand why she got so frustrated.

So, lets say she grants him custody. Will they have to physically drag the children, kicking and screaming, into his custody? Children don't want to even have lunch with him. How is he going to keep the children in his custody?
After sitting in juvenile facility for two weeks children still didn't want to have lunch with him.
Even his lawyer admitted that she is concerned about him having unsupervised visits with the children, because they could make accusations about him (as they had in the past, and we can debate whether the accusations are true or not, fact is, children have made them).
And where does he actually live?
Despite judge for whatever reason thinking he lost his job in Israel, I don't believe that to be the case.
Right after the hearing in which his children were locked up, he went back to Israel.

Sometimes that is what has to happen. The kids bounce back though quite quickly. Earlier in this thread I posted about a colleague of mine who was subjected to horrible parental alienation. As a result, the judge finally sent him to live with his dad, who he absolutely hated, at age 15. He went. He said he was sullen and a jerk for several months but after about a year, he acclimated and grew to love his dad again. He now has a close relationship with both parents but regrets what his mother did to him.

ETA: I am behind and catching up. Sorry to monopolize the thread!!!

 

[gitana1]

Why hasn't this woman asked for a different judge? Can't she do that? Isn't that within her rights?

It is very hard to do. Judicial misconduct or personal bias and prejudice needs to be shown - not just frustration or bias based on the conduct of the party seeking recusal.

Things that would support a motion to disqualify are things like comments on the record by the judge: "Well you know how black people are...I am denying your motion, Mr. Smith."

It is very hard to prove.

This is a very complex case. Both sides have done wrong. IMO - it could appear that dad put his job above his kids, so I get that they felt abandoned and had resentment towards him. The mother failed by not supporting his requests to see his kids.

If for some reason I had to be physically separated from my kids, and their father was not supporting my visits and in fact was contributing to their reluctance to see me, I would not be able to just walk away and let them think I didn't want to see them.

As far as the kids having the right to make that decision, I have to disagree. Especially with supervised visits. Suppose your kids are with the other parent and they don't want to see you. Could you really accept that?

Children are not allowed to make a lot of choices - schooling, medical care, curfews, etc. In some cases, they are required to visit parents in prison. Why should they be able to decide to cut a parent out of their life.

Great, balanced post.

 

[gitana1]

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.

The judge does not have to agree.

 

[gitana1]

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?

With some exceptions, any parent who would simply give up and step out of their kids' lives because the kids say they don't want to see them, is a bad parent.

 

[gitana1]

Is this a rule of thumb that we extend to all children, or only the children of divorce?

Child welfare has a long history of expecting children to submit to parental authority--barring abuse, neglect or other circumstances that indicate that a parent is unable to care for their children. Likewise we expect parents to accept various responsibilities for their children with regard to feeding, clothing and sheltering them, keeping them safe, seeing that they are educated. And we have never, to my knowledge, allowed for an arbitrary severing of that relationship by either party, and especially not by the children.

It is problematic that so many see this case as having a mother's side and a father's side. In the eyes of the court, what is of concern is protecting the interest of the children. And the interest of children is never well-served by granting them the power to make decisions for which they are not developmentally or emotionally prepared, and for which they cannot reasonably anticipate or assume responsibility for the consequences.

Clearly these children are well-schooled at playing games and manipulating situations. They are taken to dinner and they refuse to eat. For this they are rewarded when they get home by Mom feeding them. They refuse communication/cooperation not only with their father, but also with the GAL, various counselors, social workers and even court deputies (and the irony is that Mr. Abood describes them as "well-behaved," LOL). Dad takes them bowling and Mom cannot let go of hovering to make certain that they don't let down their guard and have a little fun with dad. So they sit out while Mom runs the show.

BTW--how many children have you given away in your own lifetime? And what would it take for you to do so?

BBM

BAM!!!!!!

In fact, there are multiple adults paid to hear and articulate for the court what the children have to say. These include not only the GAL, but multiple counselors, lawyers, law enforcement officials, physicians and so forth. As a parent I can well assert that being heard is far different from having one's own way.

It is also helpful to consider the subtle difference between the role of an attorney representing a children (and there were 2 or 3 appointed by the court in the most recent contempt charges) and the role of the GAL. A GAL is charged with acting in the best interest of child--which may or may not be what the child wants at any given time. The role of an attorney is to ensure that their client is well-advised regarding the consequences of any choices that they make. Hence, in the transcript from June 24, each of the attorneys representing the children tells the court that their clients have been advised of the consequences of defying a direct court order that they comply with the terms of the parenting agreement arrived at between their parents and the court. And each child then made an informed decision to defy the order.

The GAL is operating out of more generalized notion that, barring evidence of parental abuse/neglect and the like, children are best served having a relationship with both of their parents, as well as serving as a general witness and central data collection point to the multiple professionals in various capacities who stand witness to the mother's ongoing efforts to interfere with the children having such ongoing relationship. These are cited through instances of failure to comply with the visitation schedule, interfering with father's visits with her physical presence, making questionable reports to police and physicians of physical abuse against mom and children (not born out on investigation), as well as more subtle forms of interference such as feeding the children a meal immediately before or after a scheduled meal with their father (encouraging them not to eat food provided by him), or not adequately preparing the children for a court appearance such that the children apparently thought it proper that they refuse to enter the courtroom--even after approached by a court social worker, the GAL, deputies, etc.

The reality is that the children's voice cannot be heard when they refuse to speak. Further, it is problematic for the court to "hear" statements from the oldest son that he disagrees with the findings of the court and multiple investigators--who did in fact hear his allegations regarding his father's violence, but found them without merit. The court has offered multiple safeguards (father turning in passport during visitation to ensure he does not attempt to take them out of the country; supervised visitation; visitation within the courthouse itself) against harm coming to the children. This is all evidence that concerns are being heard.

Perhaps what the children are seeking from the court is some kind of confirmation for a belief that their mother is a good person and their father is a bad person--and that this is a zero sum game. The reality is that this is not a zero sum game. Both parents have faults as both must certainly also have assets. And each child has received from both--genetically and influentially. Acceptance of this reality is in their best interest--and multiple resources are available to support this journey. And in fact the court has ordered such supports along the way. What I continue to see is a mother who is deeply invested in avoiding any such examination by her children, but also by herself.

Great post but one correction - the children's attorneys are charged with litigating on behalf of the best interests of the children. They are charged with promoting the best interests, not just advising the kids.

View attachment 79416

gitana--I wonder if you would care to take a look at and comment on the attached psych report.

There have apparently been multiple eval/counseling situations ordered by the court. This one appears to have been arranged by the mom. It strikes me as odd. First off, it mentions having "seen" mom and kids--but does not specify any specifics regarding evaluation. Further--it spends a lot of time discussion dad and his desires and expectations--apparently without ever having met the man. Which makes his conclusion that the kids don't have a problem, but dad does seem like it is invented from whole cloth.

And last, his suggestion to the GAL that he recuse himself owing to some prior knowledge of one another that the Dr. has "heard" about seems particularly off-base, as I would regard this as being more a legal than a psychological matter.

Now, I am certainly aware that there are specialists for hire to say all kinds of things--but this one strikes me as being particularly bizarre. Or am I off-base?

Hired gun and transparently so. Shameful that any psychologist would recommend no therapy for kids who are going through what they are going through - especially if his stated "facts" were actually true!

 

[jjenny]

With some exceptions, any parent who would simply give up and step out of their kids' lives because the kids say they don't want to see them, is a bad parent.

Remember the little story of King Solomon, knife and splitting the baby in two? The one willing to step away rather than split the baby was the true parent.

 

[gitana1]

Remember the little story of King Solomon, knife and splitting the baby in two? The one willing to step away rather than split the baby was the true parent.

That works both ways. But dad isnt trying to split the kids in two. He is not trying to say he gets the kids and she doesn't. He is simply trying to have a relationship with them. To my knowledge, he has never asked that she give up her kids and walk away. Yet so many are suggesting he needs to do so or he is a bad parent. WTH?

Not only is that nonsense, it's bad for the kids as I posted above.

Oh and ETA: Your analogy is a bad one. A parent giving up their kids when the kids say they don't want to see dad because they've been brainwashed is not the same as a parent agreeing to slice their child in two.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Remember the little story of King Solomon, knife and splitting the baby in two? The one willing to step away rather than split the baby was the true parent.

Soooo--in this case we have no true parents?

 

[LinasK]

Soooo--in this case we have no true parents?

Well, mom's not willing to step away in this case, so she's certainly not the "true parent"! Her children are apparently her pawns against her husband.

 

[KaaBoom]

Remember the little story of King Solomon, knife and splitting the baby in two? The one willing to step away rather than split the baby was the true parent.

Thats the story I keep thinking about when reading about this case. It is so apparent that this father has nothing but contempt for these children.

 

[KaaBoom]

That works both ways. But dad isnt trying to split the kids in two. He is not trying to say he gets the kids and she doesn't. He is simply trying to have a relationship with them. To my knowledge, he has never asked that she give up her kids and walk away. Yet so many are suggesting he needs to do so or he is a bad parent. WTH?

No father who loves his children would have them thrown in jail, because they didn't want to have lunch with him. That is just not normal. I have never heard of any parent doing that.

 

[KaaBoom]

Curious how you might handle the case if you were the judge.

Sorry dad, the kids don't want to have lunch with you.