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

[flourish]

A judge in Michigan ordered three children (15, 10 and 9) to juvenile detention for failing to have a relationship with their dad.

Dad has supervised visits and Mom physical custody after a contentious divorce. Kids and mom claim Dad hit her in front of them, but police didn't file charges.

I don't know which parent is in the right here, but nonetheless, I find the Judge's actions outrageous. She compares the kids to Manson, among other horrible statements.

Article includes link to transcript of the hearing:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...-thrown-juvie-hall-refusing-see-dad/29898491/

Bumpity bump bump. There's a whole area for the Powell case. This thread is about this family!!!!

 

[flourish]

From the above detroitnews link

All three children have been involved in numerous counseling and therapy sessions to address family concerns, which included refusing to speak to or even look at their father, or touch food he had touched with his hands. The three were greatly influenced by their mother, according to court records.

And

In the Oakland Circuit Court case, each of the children is represented by separate attorneys, "none of whom objected to the children's placement" at Children's Village, according to Middleditch's statement.

Refusing to eat food their father prepared does not seem, to me, reasonable or something kids would just come up with. When I read that, I heard a screechy voice screaming, "how could you eat food from his hands? Those same hands that beat me?" I am TOTALLY speculating here; I have no factual basis, that just didn't ring true to me.

Any thoughts on the lack of opposition from the kids' attorneys re the placement?

 

[bessie]

fftopic:

 

[sorrell skye]

As I've reviewed some of the mother's comments, it's become clear to me that she's prone to hysterical hyperbole.

For example, when the children were being escorted from the courtroom to go to the juvenile detention facility, the mother said: "I felt like I was watching them be executed," said Maya Tsimhoni.

http://wn.ktvu.com/story/29496924/f...-juvenile-center-after-refusing-to-see-father

On July 20, 2015, during a medical examination, the mother approached several members of the urgent care team and said "help remove the children from this torture" and "you have the power".

I read the above quotes of the mother on Margo/Mom's post upthread, which included a thumbnail of the court transcript. Hopefully, the following link to Margo/Mom's will work.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...t-Pontiac-9-July-2015&p=11986814#post11986814

The language the mother has used indicates (to me) that she perceives events through a filter of emotional extremes.

When she makes statements such as: "I felt like I was watching them be executed" and "Help remove the children from this torture", it makes it difficult to take her claims of abuse seriously.

While I disagree with Judge Gorcyca's decision to send the children to a detention facility (punishing them for their parents' inability to come to terms), and while I hold the father accountable for what I personally consider abandonment when he took a job overseas & moved to Israel without his wife & children, I must say the mother's own words have not convinced me that she possesses a rational mind.

 

[Margo/Mom]

From the above detroitnews link




And




Refusing to eat food their father prepared does not seem, to me, reasonable or something kids would just come up with. When I read that, I heard a screechy voice screaming, "how could you eat food from his hands? Those same hands that beat me?" I am TOTALLY speculating here; I have no factual basis, that just didn't ring true to me.

Any thoughts on the lack of opposition from the kids' attorneys re the placement?

As I recall from reading the transcript, each of the attorney's advised their child clients as to the choice before them and the consequence of defying the court. This was their second trip to the courthouse. On their first trip they refused to enter the courtroom--despite heroic efforts on the part of multiple courtroom personnel. I am not certain on what grounds their attorneys could have objected to the judge's discretion in doling out the consequence that she warned them she was prepared to do. The judge actually put considerable effort into painting a picture for them of the choice they were making--reiterating what their attorneys had already explained. Given the choice between lunch with Dad and Children's Village, they each freely chose the latter. Sorta makes you wonder what were the hidden consequences.

 

[Margo/Mom]

As I've reviewed some of the mother's comments, it's become clear to me that she's prone to hysterical hyperbole.

For example, when the children were being escorted from the courtroom to go to the juvenile detention facility, the mother said: "I felt like I was watching them be executed," said Maya Tsimhoni.

http://wn.ktvu.com/story/29496924/f...-juvenile-center-after-refusing-to-see-father

On July 20, 2015, during a medical examination, the mother approached several members of the urgent care team and said "help remove the children from this torture" and "you have the power".

I read the above quotes of the mother on Margo/Mom's post upthread, which included a thumbnail of the court transcript. Hopefully, the following link to Margo/Mom's will work.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...t-Pontiac-9-July-2015&p=11986814#post11986814

The language the mother has used indicates (to me) that she perceives events through a filter of emotional extremes.

When she makes statements such as: "I felt like I was watching them be executed" and "Help remove the children from this torture", it makes it difficult to take her claims of abuse seriously.

While I disagree with Judge Gorcyca's decision to send the children to a detention facility (punishing them for their parents' inability to come to terms), and while I hold the father accountable for what I personally consider abandonment when he took a job overseas & moved to Israel without his wife & children, I must say the mother's own words have not convinced me that she possesses a rational mind.

Agreed that Mom has a bent for hysterical exaggeration. Back in 2008 there was a police run. Dad called. Mom's fingers got slammed in a door and she shoved/slapped back. Dad was on his way out when it happened--staying in a hotel. Mom called police later saying she was afraid Dad was going to kill her. No threats. No history of violence. Only post-incident contact was a calm msg asking hed to call. Sheriff advised her to go somewhere she felt safe--a reasonable precaution. But the overall incident strikes me as unreasonable--and certainly has to impact how the kids see their father.

 

[Margo/Mom]

As I recall from reading the transcript, each of the attorney's advised their child clients as to the choice before them and the consequence of defying the court. This was their second trip to the courthouse. On their first trip they refused to enter the courtroom--despite heroic efforts on the part of multiple courtroom personnel. I am not certain on what grounds their attorneys could have objected to the judge's discretion in doling out the consequence that she warned them she was prepared to do. The judge actually put considerable effort into painting a picture for them of the choice they were making--reiterating what their attorneys had already explained. Given the choice between lunch with Dad and Children's Village, they each freely chose the latter. Sorta makes you wonder what were the hidden consequences.

BTW--this seems to be an oft-repeated pattern. Mom takes kids to couseling--they refuse to leave the waiting room. Dad's time is scheduled at the zoo, kids refuse to exit the car. Seems calculated to be able to say Mom did her part--the kids just refused. All by themselves. Individually.

 

[wendiesan]

As I recall from reading the transcript, each of the attorney's advised their child clients as to the choice before them and the consequence of defying the court. This was their second trip to the courthouse. On their first trip they refused to enter the courtroom--despite heroic efforts on the part of multiple courtroom personnel. I am not certain on what grounds their attorneys could have objected to the judge's discretion in doling out the consequence that she warned them she was prepared to do. The judge actually put considerable effort into painting a picture for them of the choice they were making--reiterating what their attorneys had already explained. Given the choice between lunch with Dad and Children's Village, they each freely chose the latter. Sorta makes you wonder what were the hidden consequences.

Could you explain heroic in this context?

 

[BritsKate]

I'm just gonna say it the way I see it. Even if mom were truly abused by dad, how dare she use that to contravene law & order. (Posted as a DV survivor who followed every single directive issued by the Family Court and eventually relocated my own children abroad.)

Victimization shouldn't put us above following rules and I believe people who openly, defiantly flout such rules are at least nearly as bad as those making false allegations. It all muddies the waters for judges, advocates, attorneys, and even society. If mom's worst fear is that the children are exposed to her abusive ex - why would she put the children in a position that may well find 'abusive' dad as their primary parent?

JMO and FWIW

 

[Margo/Mom]

Could you explain heroic in this context?

As I understand it the children were approached by the Court Social Worker, the GAL, deputies, etc, to help them overcome their extreme reluctance to enter the courtroom.

Heroic may have been the wrong word, but as I understand from reading the transcripts, multiple people went well beyond the call of duty to assuage any fears the children may have had, and to assist them in understanding the gravity of their tantrum. The description provided of their response was that they sat huddled together resisting any interaction with any adults--although they whispered amongst themselves, and may have communicated with one another in other ways.

Clearly, however, there has been a good deal of reinforcement for this particular set of behaviors. The judge has in fact attempted some parent skills training around what an appropriate and supportive response to some of these refusals might be (assuming that these are free choices made independently by each of the three children--which strikes me as highly unlikely)--such as not providing a dinner at home when the children have refused to eat in their father's presence (in a restaurant). When one of the sons stayed home from school due to dad's alleged abuse, the judge instructed that he was to also not participate in extracurricular activities. I believe she also recommended that the children not be allowed access to electronic toys/games/whatever when they spent their Skype time with Dad looking at the ceiling.

Sorry to go off into the details. It just stands out so clearly to me that this is not at all the behavior of children who are in terror, but rather children who feel very secure in the support for their defiant actions.

 

[jjenny]

I'm just gonna say it the way I see it. Even if mom were truly abused by dad, how dare she use that to contravene law & order. (Posted as a DV survivor who followed every single directive issued by the Family Court and eventually relocated my own children abroad.)

Victimization shouldn't put us above following rules and I believe people who openly, defiantly flout such rules are at least nearly as bad as those making false allegations. It all muddies the waters for judges, advocates, attorneys, and even society. If mom's worst fear is that the children are exposed to her abusive ex - why would she put the children in a position that may well find 'abusive' dad as their primary parent?

JMO and FWIW

Some people send their kids for court ordered visitation only to never see them again. But at least they followed all the rules.

 

[jjenny]

As I understand it the children were approached by the Court Social Worker, the GAL, deputies, etc, to help them overcome their extreme reluctance to enter the courtroom.

Heroic may have been the wrong word, but as I understand from reading the transcripts, multiple people went well beyond the call of duty to assuage any fears the children may have had, and to assist them in understanding the gravity of their tantrum. The description provided of their response was that they sat huddled together resisting any interaction with any adults--although they whispered amongst themselves, and may have communicated with one another in other ways.

Clearly, however, there has been a good deal of reinforcement for this particular set of behaviors. The judge has in fact attempted some parent skills training around what an appropriate and supportive response to some of these refusals might be (assuming that these are free choices made independently by each of the three children--which strikes me as highly unlikely)--such as not providing a dinner at home when the children have refused to eat in their father's presence (in a restaurant). When one of the sons stayed home from school due to dad's alleged abuse, the judge instructed that he was to also not participate in extracurricular activities. I believe she also recommended that the children not be allowed access to electronic toys/games/whatever when they spent their Skype time with Dad looking at the ceiling.

Sorry to go off into the details. It just stands out so clearly to me that this is not at all the behavior of children who are in terror, but rather children who feel very secure in the support for their defiant actions.

Basically, children are constantly punished by the court for not wanting to spend time with dad.
Is that going to somehow endear him to the children?
At 14, I certainly knew who I wanted or didn't want to spend time with.

 

[flourish]

Some people send their kids for court ordered visitation only to never see them again. But at least they followed all the rules.

Wow, so what do you recommend? Do we just take mom at her word just because? One parent gets power hungry and spiteful and punishes for real or imagined marital offenses by stating the other can't see the children and accuses them of violence. Well someone alleged violence so let's all overreact out of paranoia! What happens when the Josh Powells catch on and preemptively accuse their already beaten-down spouses of abuse and take off with the kids? What omniscient entity is going to make sure that doesn't happen?

Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk

 

[lisalei321]

Basically, children are constantly punished by the court for not wanting to spend time with dad.
Is that going to somehow endear him to the children?
At 14, I certainly knew who I wanted or didn't want to spend time with.

No, they are being taught a lesson in respect. If you don't follow a court order, there are consequences for your actions.

I would like to see Dad get custody, and mom have supervised visitation. And lot's of counseling all around.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

Basically, children are constantly punished by the court for not wanting to spend time with dad.
Is that going to somehow endear him to the children?
At 14, I certainly knew who I wanted or didn't want to spend time with.

Any child who believes spending time with their loving parent is a form of punishment is also a child in dire need of psychiatric evaluation.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

Some people send their kids for court ordered visitation only to never see them again. But at least they followed all the rules.

All of the visitations since 2011 have been supervised. Mom selected the supervisor herself. As the judge pointed out to the kids, the jury room the courthouse cafeteria and just about every other part of the building have cameras. Since the first visitation Dad has had to surrender his passport in order to see the kids. This has gone way beyond any notion that this is about ensuring the safety of these kids.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Basically, children are constantly punished by the court for not wanting to spend time with dad.
Is that going to somehow endear him to the children?
At 14, I certainly knew who I wanted or didn't want to spend time with.

Not every uncomfortable experience is a punishment.

I have known a good number of kids who were removed from families for many reasons having to do with parental insufficiency. I cannot think of a one in which the kids went into foster care saying, oh, good, you rescued me. Pretty much universally they feel punished for something they have done or said (even as deep as being born in the first place).

In this case the kids were plainly offered a choice to step aside from Mom and Dad's issues and have a lunch in which they treated Dad with as much courtesy as they would treat any other normal human being. Minimal expectations such as eating the food, getting the head up off the table and making eye contact. For those who insist that there is no "proof" of Mom's efforts at alienation, I suggest that the kid's inability to set on foot outside of what Ms. Hayes (the parenting time analyst) identified as the "family rule" against speaking to Dad speaks directly to that. Res Ips Loquetor (sp? the thing speaks for itself).

 

[Margo/Mom]

I'm just gonna say it the way I see it. Even if mom were truly abused by dad, how dare she use that to contravene law & order. (Posted as a DV survivor who followed every single directive issued by the Family Court and eventually relocated my own children abroad.)

Victimization shouldn't put us above following rules and I believe people who openly, defiantly flout such rules are at least nearly as bad as those making false allegations. It all muddies the waters for judges, advocates, attorneys, and even society. If mom's worst fear is that the children are exposed to her abusive ex - why would she put the children in a position that may well find 'abusive' dad as their primary parent?

JMO and FWIW

Typical or not, Mom has denied multiple times to LE and others that Dad has ever struck, abused or threatened her.

IF in fact she had ever experienced DV at the hands of Dad, it is flat out wrong to deny it but then use her kids as some kind of shield or weapon to deal with it outside of any notion of legal enforcement. I fully understand the fears and syndromes that accompany being battered, and why women do not always report. But I do not see any evidence of that in this woman. Further, if she has a closet full of such experiences, she is certainly long past the time she ought to have gotten a ladder and gotten over it--to protect her children.

I just don't believe there is anything there.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Basically, children are constantly punished by the court for not wanting to spend time with dad.
Is that going to somehow endear him to the children?
At 14, I certainly knew who I wanted or didn't want to spend time with.

At 14 a child who flouts the authority of a parent--refusing to be with them--is typically considered unruly and possibly a runaway. The fact that Mom is sheltering them and allowing or encouraging such behavior should not matter.

 

[gitana1]

I'm just gonna say it the way I see it. Even if mom were truly abused by dad, how dare she use that to contravene law & order. (Posted as a DV survivor who followed every single directive issued by the Family Court and eventually relocated my own children abroad.)

Victimization shouldn't put us above following rules and I believe people who openly, defiantly flout such rules are at least nearly as bad as those making false allegations. It all muddies the waters for judges, advocates, attorneys, and even society. If mom's worst fear is that the children are exposed to her abusive ex - why would she put the children in a position that may well find 'abusive' dad as their primary parent?

JMO and FWIW

BBM. Good point. And I think that's precisely what is going to happen. She's going to lose custody.

As I understand it the children were approached by the Court Social Worker, the GAL, deputies, etc, to help them overcome their extreme reluctance to enter the courtroom.

Heroic may have been the wrong word, but as I understand from reading the transcripts, multiple people went well beyond the call of duty to assuage any fears the children may have had, and to assist them in understanding the gravity of their tantrum. The description provided of their response was that they sat huddled together resisting any interaction with any adults--although they whispered amongst themselves, and may have communicated with one another in other ways.

Clearly, however, there has been a good deal of reinforcement for this particular set of behaviors. The judge has in fact attempted some parent skills training around what an appropriate and supportive response to some of these refusals might be (assuming that these are free choices made independently by each of the three children--which strikes me as highly unlikely)--such as not providing a dinner at home when the children have refused to eat in their father's presence (in a restaurant). When one of the sons stayed home from school due to dad's alleged abuse, the judge instructed that he was to also not participate in extracurricular activities. I believe she also recommended that the children not be allowed access to electronic toys/games/whatever when they spent their Skype time with Dad looking at the ceiling.

Sorry to go off into the details. It just stands out so clearly to me that this is not at all the behavior of children who are in terror, but rather children who feel very secure in the support for their defiant actions.

I fully understood what you meant by "heroic efforts". It's a figure of speech for goodness sake.