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

[LinasK]

The mother has been taking care of the kids by herself, while this scum-bucket absentee father was in Israel. The same way his new wife in Israel is now taking care of those kids by herself, while he spends time in the US trying to regain custody of these kids. He should be forcibly sterilized, before he can start a third family in another country.

I find it incomprehensible how anyone can defend this man. This type of attitude that it is perfectly OK for fathers to just abandoned their kids, and move on and start a new family, and then the abandoned kids should just stop what ever they are doing, so they can have lunch with their dirt-bag father when ever he happens to make it to town, once a year.:facepalm:

And I find it incomprehensible that anyone defends this emotionally abusive, law-breaking woman!!!

 

[KaaBoom]

Mother and father lived here in the US when all three of the kids were born, from my understanding. Father gets an offer to work and live in Israel. Mother and children are happy with their lives here in the US and don't want to go. Father moves to Israel alone anyway, so he did abandon his children especially in their eyes. Mother began the divorce procedure during that time. Father convinced mother to give marriage another shot so she and the children move to Israel. Marriage still is a failure so mother moves back, with the children, to the US and follows through with the divorce. Father seldom sees the children while living in Israel, his choice since he chose to move away from them. The children are going to feel that their father abandoned them no matter what he or their mother say to them. Father was there, then he wasn't. Father gets remarried and has new child. Again, the children are going to feel abandoned and now replaced. Father is supposedly transferred from Israel to the US with his job. If this was possible now, why was it not possible before when his children were much younger and needed their father in their lives more? Was it possible but father puts his wants/needs/desires ahead of his marriage and children?

Court records show that the judge told father, with children in the courtroom, that HE was the one that decided when the children would leave juvie. Children also were told that mother could not visit them while in juvie. Father was the one that decided who was able to see them while in juvie, including himself. Father then leaves the US to go back to Israel. So we have the children in juvie, not visitation from mother, father allowed to visit but is unavailable to because he is in Israel. This is not a situation that is going to make the children want to be with their father. He has once again abandoned the children but this time has even taken their mother away from them as well. May not be fair to the father but as children this is what they are going to see. The children were not even allowed to be with/spend time with each other.

This forced 5 day hotel stay with father is going to be a failure IMO. That's if father can keep his rear end in the US for the entire 5 days. If father is unwilling to see things from the children's point of view, doesn't work on changing his own attitude about how he treats his children, and continues to blame mother instead of admitting some blame himself then his relationship with his children will never get any better. While children are not adults, they do still have the desire for their wants/needs/issues to be heard and understood. So far it seems like (more than likely even more so to the children) that those things simply don't matter to the adults making the decisions for and about them.

MOO

Exactly, but none of those facts will matter to the father's rights advocates. To them the mother who actually takes care of the kids everyday is a rotten horrible person, and the absentee father is a wonderful great man. So they just stay clueless as to why the kids are closer to the mother who is there for them every day, then to the father who wants to have lunch with them once a year. It must be Parental Alienation Syndrome.:facepalm:

 

[KaaBoom]

Which two under the age of 18 are they allowed to do without parental permission???:thinking::waitasec:

They are allowed to drive and to leave home with probably one parent's permission, and in some very limited cases, they are even allowed to drink with parent's permission.

 

[KaaBoom]

Parental alienation is an actual form of child abuse. I've personally seen the effects it has on children.

It is not recognized by mental health professionals, or it would be included in the DSM. The only people who recognize it, are father's rights advocates.

 

[KaaBoom]

The route to DSM inclusion is not a short one, and rightfully so.

There are dozens of conditions listed in the DSM, that haven't been around as long as this alleged Parental Alienation BS. Parental Alienation has been proposed for the DSM, and rejected.

Abstract
An Internet survey was conducted to examine the views of mental health and legal professionals about parental alienation (PA) in child custody cases. Findings from 448 respondents revealed much awareness about the PA concept and controversies, along with the need for further research in the field. In general, respondents were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Also, they did not view PAS as meeting admissibility standards. Respondents viewed domestic violence (DV) as an important issue to assess, although they did not usually find/suspect DV in such cases. Further, respondents varied according to professional role (evaluators, trial attorneys/judges, and court facilitators) on the relative importance attributed to various assessment factors. Moreover, evaluators' assessment procedures and the frequency of recommended interventions by trial attorneys/judges and evaluators closely paralleled those typically used in child custody cases. Results are compared to past literature in the field, with hopes of clarifying misconceptions.

Examining Parental Alienation in Child Custody Cases: A Survey of Mental Health and Legal Professionals

 

[TorisMom003]

Well, you are certainly not alone in cheering on the failure of the next attempt at healing prior damage (which includes the inevitable trauma of divorce). Personally I have a really hard time in hoping that the best available efforts fail.

Snipped by me.

I waited before responding to this part so that I could fully digest it. Please show me where in any of my posts that I have been "cheering on the failure of the next attempt at healing prior damage". It certainly wasn't in my post that you quoted and then responded to. Perhaps it is best to avoid reading between whatever imaginary lines one wishes to make and instead reading the post as it is written and taken at face value, as was intended. I frankly am not as concerned about the father's feelings or how difficult the 5 day stay is going to be for him and more concerned about the 3 children that are constantly being put in the middle of two parents that use a court system to attack one another. I want what is best for the children. And being forced to spend 5 days straight with a man that they feel abandoned them is not something that will make everything peachy, especially if father himself feels he never did anything wrong.

MOO

 

[KaaBoom]

BBM. I believe you know your claim is not true.

The fact that the children lived with their father until the mother took them and returned to the U.S. is not a fact in dispute.

Yes, it is in dispute.

The youngest child is not even old enough to remember living with her father. To her, he is just a strange man whom she has only met a handful of times. Then suddenly she got taken away from her mother and locked up in juvenile detention because she didn't want to have lunch with him.

 

[KaaBoom]

It means that the folks who are claiming that the kids are justifiably in fear of their father need to present some more solid evidence.

What more evidence would that be? Their testimony is not enough?

 

[KaaBoom]

You're not getting a Driver's License at 15 without parental permission, and you can't legally become an emancipated minor without going before a judge. Big deal if some kids start college at 17- I did, and my parents (both of them) were the ones who moved me.
Not sure what you think you're proving.

A statement was made that children are not legally allowed to leave home, drive cars, or drink alcohol. Which is not correct.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, it is in dispute.

The youngest child is not even old enough to remember living with her father. To her, he is just a strange man whom she has only met a handful of times. Then suddenly she got taken away from her mother and locked up in juvenile detention because she didn't want to have lunch with him.

Please post a link that supports your claim it is in dispute the youngest child lived with both parents.

Doesn't matter if youngest remembers living with her father. It is in the best interest of the child that she have a relationship relationship with her father and her father certainly has parental rights as well.

The law is based on scientific and medical research, not emotional hyperbole.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

What more evidence would that be? Their testimony is not enough?

Testimony has to be credible for the Judge to form a conclusion.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Snipped for brevity.


If the country abducted to is a Hague Convention signatory, the Hague Convention is the appropriate tool used, the FBI will facilitate this but it is a CIVIL action not a criminal one. Women have been able to use the above quoted page to fight return to the US which criminalizes the taking parent, which prejudices their case before they have been heard in family court. The FBI can liaise with other countries, but they have no power.

Parental abduction, is a civil matter in most countries. The US probably need to decide where they stand on the issue of children and family court, because 'best interest of the child' and 'criminalizing a parent' (who may well be working in the best interest of the child) are at odds.

BTW - I am not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that a lot of Child and Family law (in the US and UK) is great on paper, big on rhetoric, but dismally failing in practice.

The Feds spent 20 years until finally tracking down Dorothy Lee Barnett in Australia so I think they do take it seriously and treat it as crime not a civil matter.

18 U.S.C. § 1204– International parental kidnapping

Section 1204 of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal crime for a parent to remove or attempt to remove a child from the United States, or retain a child outside the United States with intent to obstruct another parent's custodial rights. A parent who removes a child from the United States in this capacity is subject to federal prosecution, and if convicted, faces fines and imprisonment for up to 3 years.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-international-parental-kidnapping

 

[NSS]

The Feds spent 20 years until finally tracking down Dorothy Lee Barnett in Australia so I think they do take it seriously and treat it as crime not a civil matter.

18 U.S.C. § 1204– International parental kidnapping

Section 1204 of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal crime for a parent to remove or attempt to remove a child from the United States, or retain a child outside the United States with intent to obstruct another parent's custodial rights. A parent who removes a child from the United States in this capacity is subject to federal prosecution, and if convicted, faces fines and imprisonment for up to 3 years.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-international-parental-kidnapping

Was there a crime committed outside of the childs removal? Was the parent charged and jailed? Was the 'child' returned to the left behind parent? Is she suffering any ill effects from having been kidnapped? We also need to look at whether the kidnapping is parental interference or in the best interest of the child.

The Hague Convention is a civil matter. You have proved my point that it is the system that often fails these children, an 'oppositional' stance in court, Judges that are free to attempt their own form of alienation to attempt to redress the balance. A legal system that criminalizes parents instead of helping them, a system that does not see 'emotional abuse' as damaging to children, but they see 'parental alienation' as abusive. I could go on, but I am probably too emotionally invested in this topic.

 

[NSS]

The Feds spent 20 years until finally tracking down Dorothy Lee Barnett in Australia so I think they do take it seriously and treat it as crime not a civil matter.

18 U.S.C. § 1204– International parental kidnapping

Section 1204 of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal crime for a parent to remove or attempt to remove a child from the United States, or retain a child outside the United States with intent to obstruct another parent's custodial rights. A parent who removes a child from the United States in this capacity is subject to federal prosecution, and if convicted, faces fines and imprisonment for up to 3 years.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-international-parental-kidnapping

The following paragraph reads.

It is important to distinguish between the prosecution of the parent who kidnapped a child and the return of that child to the United States. Extradition is the legal surrender of an alleged criminal to the jurisdiction of another country. Although the parent who removed the child from the United States is generally eligible for formal extradition because they are charged with a federal crime, the child is a victim of international parental kidnapping and often not eligible for formal extradition. In other words, federal prosecutors may investigate and prosecute the parent, but they typically have no control over the return of the child or custodial decisions affecting that child.


If the left behind parent would like to see their child,

The FBI route is NOT the best one to take. Often other countries refuse to extradite because it would leave the child without either parent. the child can't be extradited.

The final paragraph in that statute supports exactly what I posted.

The return of internationally kidnapped children is often settled through negotiation. The U.S. Department of State handles the coordination of efforts with foreign officials and law enforcement agencies to effectuate the return of children to the United States. In some circumstances, the return may be governed by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction (1980). This Convention was established to facilities the return of children abducted into foreign countries. The Convention only applies if both countries involved in the international parental kidnapping situation are signatories to the Convention. The United States is a signatory country.


I

 

[MyBelle]

Was there a crime committed outside of the childs removal? Was the parent charged and jailed? Was the 'child' returned to the left behind parent? Is she suffering any ill effects from having been kidnapped? We also need to look at whether the kidnapping is parental interference or in the best interest of the child.

The Hague Convention is a civil matter. You have proved my point that it is the system that often fails these children, an 'oppositional' stance in court, Judges that are free to attempt their own form of alienation to attempt to redress the balance. A legal system that criminalizes parents instead of helping them, a system that does not see 'emotional abuse' as damaging to children, but they see 'parental alienation' as abusive. I could go on, but I am probably too emotionally invested in this topic.

Dorothy Lee Barnett is in a federal prison. I don't know how much clearer it can be. I don't blame the court, I blame the parent who commits the crime.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

The following paragraph reads.

It is important to distinguish between the prosecution of the parent who kidnapped a child and the return of that child to the United States. Extradition is the legal surrender of an alleged criminal to the jurisdiction of another country. Although the parent who removed the child from the United States is generally eligible for formal extradition because they are charged with a federal crime, the child is a victim of international parental kidnapping and often not eligible for formal extradition. In other words, federal prosecutors may investigate and prosecute the parent, but they typically have no control over the return of the child or custodial decisions affecting that child.


If the left behind parent would like to see their child,

The FBI route is NOT the best one to take. Often other countries refuse to extradite because it would leave the child without either parent. the child can't be extradited.

The final paragraph in that statute supports exactly what I posted.

The return of internationally kidnapped children is often settled through negotiation. The U.S. Department of State handles the coordination of efforts with foreign officials and law enforcement agencies to effectuate the return of children to the United States. In some circumstances, the return may be governed by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction (1980). This Convention was established to facilities the return of children abducted into foreign countries. The Convention only applies if both countries involved in the international parental kidnapping situation are signatories to the Convention. The United States is a signatory country.


I

The U.S. Justice Dept. arranges for the return of the child. It is irresponsible to suggest any parent should circumvent the U.S. Justice Dept./FBI in dealing with any international matter of law whether it be civil or criminal.

JMO

After consulting with MWAA and the FBI and when Flight 897 was in Canadian airspace, United Airlines ordered Flight 897 to return to Dulles International Airport. The plane returned approximately 4 hours after it had taken off, and Ms. Liu was arrested for attempted international kidnapping as soon as she got off the plane.

https://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/pr...f-attempted-international-parental-kidnapping

 

[NSS]

The U.S. Justice Dept. arranges for the return of the child. It is irresponsible to suggest any parent should circumvent the U.S. Justice Dept./FBI in dealing with any international matter of law whether it be civil or criminal.

JMO

After consulting with MWAA and the FBI and when Flight 897 was in Canadian airspace, United Airlines ordered Flight 897 to return to Dulles International Airport. The plane returned approximately 4 hours after it had taken off, and Ms. Liu was arrested for attempted international kidnapping as soon as she got off the plane.

https://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/pr...f-attempted-international-parental-kidnapping

The FBI ordered the return of a US airline, and arrested the mother so of course her child was returned. If she had landed in China, the FBI could do zero. I 'kidnapped' my child in 2012. I was taken to court using the Hague Convention. They could make my child return but could NOT make me return. Return was denied anyway in the High Court. Decision was appealed and upheld. There were 8 more cases brought here and a concurrent case in Florida. I am here with full custody of my child. The FBI didn't arrest me or even put out a warrant.

No parental alienation from me, my child loves his father and communicates with him very regularly, I offered and facilitate this. I do what I can to promote a relationship whilst maintaining his safety. There is a single thing that sets my case apart from most and that is, there were no court orders in place when I left. I don't advocate my path for everyone, but for me and my circumstances, it was the right thing to do. The UK returns 99% of children to the requesting country so mine was an extraordinary case (parents can't be forced to return under the Hague Convention)

The lady found in Australia forged passports in order to leave. She is a US citizen extradited back to the US, she was also the non custodial parent. Doesn't make her right, she did it solely to cut the father out of the childs life.

In the case we are discussing, threats and orders and therapy and jailing the kids is simply not working. It needs slowly untangling, children are getting very damaged here. I also don't think that mum in this case is emotionally stable, but it is possibly fear of losing her children that is making her cling so tightly to them, she certainly needs a reality check but switching custody to the father at this point is not truly what is best for the children. For whatever reasons they are resisting being with him, to make them live with him would be cruel and would likely involve a slow process to minimize further harm. This means there needs to be a neutral placement for the children, they have been through enough. I'm not sure how you can force parents to act like adults.

Maybe the judge or someone needs to sit both parents in a room and refuse to let them out until they reach an agreement on what will work for the children.

 

[LinasK]

They are allowed to drive and to leave home with probably one parent's permission, and in some very limited cases, they are even allowed to drink with parent's permission.

BBM. Not legally!

 

[flourish]

BBM. Not legally!

No, there are exceptions. See http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002591#chart2 for more information if interested.

Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk

 

[gitana1]

One thing I would never do is assume everybody behaves in exact same way.

True. But as you know, one particular factor is not examined in a vacuum in these cases. The behavior of the children needs to be analyzed in context with the behavior of the mother, the father, the reports of psychologists, minor's counsel, etc.