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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

The analogy was 100% spot on, because it proves the father doesn't love the kids. There is no doubt in my mind that if this judge ordered the kids cut in two, the father would say, do it. Why wouldn't he? He has all ready had them thrown in juvenile detention. It is obvious that he will stop at nothing.

I would argue that it's the father and the judge that want to brainwash the kids. It's not the mother who wants to lock them up in a hotel room for five days. That is what sounds like mind control to me.
 
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.

The father didn't have them thrown in jail, and it wasn't a jail, and sure didn't even look like a detention center from the photo of the grounds! Looked like a nice school yard complete with a basketball court.
 
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.
You have obviously never met my stepsons mother. NPH had to have a deputy go with him to pick up his son cause mom would have screaming fits that he was an unfit father (he's not).

If it wasn't for a judge who understood what she was trying to do, now 18yr old son would have zero relationship with his dad.

He now lives with us and is a full time college student with a part time job.

She told him he couldn't get his license cause then she wouldn't be able to stop him seeing his dad.

There are crazy ones out there, be glad and pray that you never have to deal with one.

(Under your analogy NPH should have given up and let her control everything, DSS and I are both glad he didn't)



Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk
 
The father didn't have them thrown in jail, and it wasn't a jail, and sure didn't even look like a detention center from the photo of the grounds! Looked like a nice school yard complete with a basketball court.

For the 100th time the judge sentenced them to "jail". That is the judge's own words. Regardless a father who loved his children would not have them sent to juvenile lockup, because they didn't want to have lunch with him. That is not normal.

And most prisons have basketball courts. What the hell does that prove?:facepalm:

4xYsdEg.jpg
 
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.

Nor did this parent. The judge put them there in response to their refusal to participate in scheduled parenting time with their father. Holding it at the courthouse was a last-ditch attempt to deal with all the excuse-making and accusations. They chose to refuse. They were put in an emergency placement to remove them from their mother's harmful influence. And it was their father, working with the GAL, who worked out the alternative of camp.
 
So who here think that this therapy (which is I understand it includes being held for five days in a hotel with their father) is actually going to work?
Do we expect them to emerge magically not alienated after five days?
 
The analogy was 100% spot on, because it proves the father doesn't love the kids. There is no doubt in my mind that if this judge ordered the kids cut in two, the father would say, do it. Why wouldn't he? He has all ready had them thrown in juvenile detention. It is obvious that he will stop at nothing.

I would argue that it's the father and the judge that want to brainwash the kids. It's not the mother who wants to lock them up in a hotel room for five days. That is what sounds like mind control to me.

Children are not little adults. And we routinely require children to do all kinds of things. They have to go to school, or otherwise participate in education. Age-based curfews are pretty common. And there are various other "status" crimes based on the recognition of adult responsibility for overseeing their little lives. We don't allow them to leave home, drive cars, drink alcohol. And they don't get to choose their parents.
 
So who here think that this therapy (which is I understand it includes being held for five days in a hotel with their father) is actually going to work?
Do we expect them to emerge magically not alienated after five days?

No--I am not expecting magic. And if the move forward with the temp placement with dad, he is going to have a hard way to go. I do expect that some things can be accomplished. For one thing, a kid who refuses to eat with dad is going to to get mighty hungry--and break the current behavioral rule and see that nothing bad happens. They may be introduced to the notion that their feelings are very much like those of other children of divorce. They can be granted permission to respect both parents. Def easier with the younger kids. But by no means impossible. Progress, not perfection.
 
This case is about far more than lunch. In essence you are advocating for children to be able to arbitrarily deny parental rights.

I don't see a problem with that. Children are not property owned by their parents. They are human beings and as such they should have a right to make their own decisions. In short screw parent's rights. I'd rather focus on the children's rights.
 
So who here think that this therapy (which is I understand it includes being held for five days in a hotel with their father) is actually going to work?
Do we expect them to emerge magically not alienated after five days?

Well, considering the judge's decision to send the kids to juvenile detention for two weeks to try and deprogram them there was an epic FAIL, now she is going to try and do it in five days. :facepalm: I think it's a safe bet that the kids will just be more pissed off at their father, then ever.
 
Children are not little adults. And we routinely require children to do all kinds of things. They have to go to school, or otherwise participate in education. Age-based curfews are pretty common. And there are various other "status" crimes based on the recognition of adult responsibility for overseeing their little lives. We don't allow them to leave home, drive cars, drink alcohol. And they don't get to choose their parents.

Now there is a bad analogy. Two of those three things they can do.
 
No--I am not expecting magic. And if the move forward with the temp placement with dad, he is going to have a hard way to go.

So what good is going to be accomplished with this, or do you just hate the mother so much, that you want to see her separated from her children?
 
This case fascinates me because of what NPH went through. Luckily the judge saw right away what DSS mom was trying to do and put a stop to it. He had a deputy accompany hubby when he picked up DSS and one accompany the mom when she picked him up. The deputy was actually the one who made transfer till DSS was old enough to walk to the cars alone.

He also gave joint custody, so if she tried to stop the visits, she would be arrested (I don't remember what the charge would have been).

I really hope this Dad can get these kids past all that Mom has done to them. They deserve a chance to know him.

And the mom had to pay the cost for the deputy, hubby paid the child support, and the cost of the deputy came out of that, then she got the balance.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk
 
So what good is going to be accomplished with this, or do you just hate the mother so much, that you want to see her separated from her children?
Why do you hate the dad so much, that you want to see him separated from his children?

Again, I quote Robert Heinlein " A fair deal is when both parties suffer equally".

The father and the mother both have the right to raise their children. Neither has the right to stop the other from seeing them.

JMO, MOO...etc



Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk
 
Why do you hate the dad so much, that you want to see him separated from his children?

It's not a matter of me wanting to see him separated from his children. He made that decision years ago when he decided to live in another country.

Why do I hate him? I guess because he is an absentee dad, and he is just an *******. If my dad had me sent to juvenile detention, I guarantee you that would have been the last time I would have talked to him ever. I would not have been as nice about it as these kids are. I would demand that the judge hold me in contempt, and keep me in juvenile detention until I was 18.
 
I don't see a problem with that. Children are not property owned by their parents. They are human beings and as such they should have a right to make their own decisions. In short screw parent's rights. I'd rather focus on the children's rights.

Explain how that works.
 
It's not a matter of me wanting to see him separated from his children. He made that decision years ago when he decided to live in another country.

Why do I hate him? I guess because he is an absentee dad, and he is just an *******. If my dad had me sent to juvenile detention, I guarantee you that would have been the last time I would have talked to him ever. I would not have been as nice about it as these kids are. I would demand that the judge hold me in contempt, and keep me in juvenile detention until I was 18.

Sooo--would you argue that military personnel are all absentee parents when sent overseas?

The reality is that this father never walked out on his children. He accepted a position in Israel, where both parents have citizenship. It was his hope and desire that the whole family unit would move there together. Both parents have roots, and citizenship, in Israel. Both parents have family there. My understanding is that there may have been some contention between the parents regarding this decision. However, after a time, mom sold the family house, and cars and arranged to ship all of the family belongings to Israel. They cosigned an extended lease on a condo there. The children were enrolled in school. And then mom bolted with the kids. Now those are pretty much the facts as they appear in the original divorce proceedings and custody discussion--which took place in an international court due to the two country issue. The court ruled that due to the short time the children had lived in Israel, and despite the indications that this was clearly intended as permanent home for them, that their ties to the US had greater weight. There was no termination of parental rights, however, and the parents were awarded joint legal custody. The father pays child support, has a right to regular visitation and a role in major decision-making.

Now--this does not mean that the children may not perceive his actions as abandonment. Recall that their ages at the time were something like 4, 5 and 9 (or so). Feelings do not always follow facts. Children may well feel that a parent did not fight hard enough to maintain a relationship, or to remain in a marriage. Meanwhile they are privy to the day-to-day impacts of the broken marriage on the parent with physical custody. I fully understand, from friends' divorces, that a parent in pain carries an incredibly heavy load to support children's respect for the absent parent, particularly when they are angry, hurt or unresolved. Consider the possibility that mom in this case did not want the marriage to end so much as she wanted it to continue but under her own conditions and in the US. I would suggest that this is a very common scenario.

However, now, after five years, and after review of the record of controlling behaviors on the part of the mom, and particularly the overt efforts to sabotage anything in the way of healing therapy for the children--coupled with the reality that the father has fought across two continents consistently during that time, including multiple different visitation arrangements (including supervised visitation, not to mention surrendering his passport when he visits), I think it is time to recognize that these kids are being actively harmed by the current situation. I don't feel a need to lay out blame, however, I would point out that despite mom's obvious capability of arranging a full and complete schedule of lessons (tennis, tae kwan do, guitar, violin) for these children in addition to school, she has never of her own volition made counseling for the children a priority. In addition, they seem to be locked together as a block--they all take guitar lessons together, they all take violin together--one set of lessons even includes mom. Given age and gender differences, not to mention the likelihood of individual differences in temperament, interests, development and the like, this looks more pathological than healthy--feeding into an inability of the children to see themselves as individuals separate from their mother and from one another. Mom seems to be very threatened by the notion of any kind of healing therapy for either the children, or herself. Because she is stuck she has placed an enormous emotional load on her children to see the parents as being on opposite sides of a battle in which they must choose one or the other. Again--not healthy. Personally I hope that she takes advantage of the time she has been offered under the current situation to get some personal support and help. Because her children need an emotionally healthy mother, as well as needing a connection to their father.
 
It's not a matter of me wanting to see him separated from his children. He made that decision years ago when he decided to live in another country.

Why do I hate him? I guess because he is an absentee dad, and he is just an *******. If my dad had me sent to juvenile detention, I guarantee you that would have been the last time I would have talked to him ever. I would not have been as nice about it as these kids are. I would demand that the judge hold me in contempt, and keep me in juvenile detention until I was 18.
The mom went with him to that country, she made the decision to leave the country with the kids and without him. She filed for divorce here in the states while he was still there. So you are blaming dad for moms actions.

So again you are blaming the dad for what MOM did...

He didn't choose to be an absentee dad, she forced him into being one. For gosh sakes, she's the one who took the kids to Italy during what was supposed to be their summer visitation with him.

If he had done that, he would have been vilified, as it is he is being vilified for just wanting to see his kids...

Turn it around and see it this way...

He takes the kids to another country, files for divorce, does everything in his power to make sure mom never sees the kids ( including taking them to Italy during moms scheduled summer visitation), Kids don't want to see Mom, dad has filled their heads with all sorts of stuff about her...

Would you still defend him? If it was turned around that way?

You have to turn around the situation to see it, to see that it's not right what she has/is doing.

My kids hated flying 4 states away to visit their dad, but I still put them on a plane every summer. And he's the one who choose to move so far away! And before skype made sure they talked to him twice a week. The time was scheduled and they had no choice in it.

She has done the exact opposite of what a responsible should/must do.

And he's still being vilified for her actions.

Please look at this as if he had done what she did, and tell me, you would still be defending these actions?





Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
1,531
Total visitors
1,727

Forum statistics

Threads
599,507
Messages
18,095,932
Members
230,867
Latest member
Maylon
Back
Top