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

[Margo/Mom]

OMG.. He wants them in foster care ? Why not with their mother ?

Step back and take a breath. What you are suggesting did not come from Dad, but from Dr. B--according to Mom's attorney. We know nothing whatsoever of the context in which this was discussed. We do know--as of yesterday--that the GAL says that Dr. B opposes the children returning to their mother's custody.

The GAL, in his response, was pretty careful not to go throwing a lot of details around in a public record (just by contrast to Mom's attorney who seems to delight in playing to the crowd rather than the court), however, he did allude to emerging concerns coming from conversation with the kids. Now--do I think that this means that the kids have stopped wanting to see/live with Mom? No. But do I believe that their recent removal and change has resulted in some different adults listening to them in different ways, and perhaps giving them some new sets of permissions to see and share differently.

I too worry about the suggestion that the children may need to be separated, but not because I think it would move forward in the way that Mom's attorney has described, or because I believe that Dad doesn't really WANT all of them. I worry because to me it signals that at a minimum they are reinforcing harmful patterns in one another. And, at a maximum--well I don't like to go there.

 

[Hope4More]

I agree, that's the way it should happen. But unfortunately it seems to be a popular opinion these days, in this forum, in society, and in the legal community, that children are the property of their fathers, and that as such, the father’s rights to access to his property is more important then the child’s wishes, or even more important then what’s best for the child.

??? Children as property of their fathers is a popular opinion? I am pretty well read, read widely, have done so for decades, and can honestly say I have never read about any such trend in opinion.

 

[Hope4More]

Do you think the children are better off now ? Was this really in their best interests ?

An unequivocal YES!!!! Yes, they are better off. At least now they have a chance to know their father loves them.

 

[Hope4More]

If the kids are truly frightened of their father, or honestly detest him, why do his rights trump theirs?

Personally, I can't imagine being forced by a court to have dinner, or much less live with someone I hate, parent or not.

Are you a parent?

Theoretically. How would you feel if you divorced and your ex- spouse turned your kids against you so absolutely that they were afraid to be with you? Because your ex-spouse hated you so much s/he was willing to harm her children's sense of security and reality in order to cause you pain?

Would you really say- oh, damn. The kids hate me now, so I think it's better they live with the mother who inflicted such damage upon them?

Or would you fight with everything you had in you to make sure they had a chance at mental health?

I know with 100% certainty what option I'd choose.

 

[Margo/Mom]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B52A8Z1GjojaMU1ySS1za0xUM2M/view

Judge Young today raised the question of jurisdiction--based on the acknowledged fact that Mom misrepresented the length of both her Oakland County residence and her residency in the state of Michigan.

I have no idea what the potential ramifications would be. But I think Mom's legal team has suddenly been thrown into the deep end. Their numerous, and lengthy, filings have struck me as legal-lite and emotion (and accusation) heavy. Their appeals have been tossed on legal grounds. I haven't been able to figure out if they are really short on legal chops or if they are intentionally playing on emotions because they haven't much on their side legally. Judge Young has given both sides a deadline (no more last-minute filings) and a page limit (no more meandering all over the place).

I think this means she isn't buying into the kids are deteriorating line.

Maybe this will spur some cooperation between the parties while they wait.

Mom's attorney--in a last minute response to the GAL's response to the motion to remove the GAL--admitted that Mom refuses to meet with Dr. B, who is apparently the therapist who was finally arrived at for after-care.

 

[jjenny]

Am I missing something? This judge is using the fact that mother moved to Israel in 2009 (briefly) as to question whether she lived in Michigan for the last 6 months? This is bizarre.
She obviously isn't still leaving in Israel. The fact that she lived there briefly in 2009 doesn't mean she is still living there (which she obviously doesn't).

 

[jjenny]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B52A8Z1GjojaMU1ySS1za0xUM2M/view

Judge Young today raised the question of jurisdiction--based on the acknowledged fact that Mom misrepresented the length of both her Oakland County residence and her residency in the state of Michigan.

I have no idea what the potential ramifications would be. But I think Mom's legal team has suddenly been thrown into the deep end. Their numerous, and lengthy, filings have struck me as legal-lite and emotion (and accusation) heavy. Their appeals have been tossed on legal grounds. I haven't been able to figure out if they are really short on legal chops or if they are intentionally playing on emotions because they haven't much on their side legally. Judge Young has given both sides a deadline (no more last-minute filings) and a page limit (no more meandering all over the place).

I think this means she isn't buying into the kids are deteriorating line.

Maybe this will spur some cooperation between the parties while they wait.

Mom's attorney--in a last minute response to the GAL's response to the motion to remove the GAL--admitted that Mom refuses to meet with Dr. B, who is apparently the therapist who was finally arrived at for after-care.

Ramification of what? Is there any suggestion mother isn't living in Michigan and instead is living in Israel?
She hasn't been in Israel in years. She obviously returned from Israel a long time ago. Just because she told a judge in 2009 she plans to move to Israel doesn't mean she stayed in Israel all this time (well, obviously she didn't). So to use the fact that in 2009 she had plans to move to Israel as justification for why she isn't right now living in Michigan makes zero sense. I don't understand what kind of game is being played here.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Am I missing something? This judge is using the fact that mother moved to Israel in 2009 (briefly) as to question whether she lived in Michigan for the last 6 months? This is bizarre.
She obviously isn't still leaving in Israel. The fact that she lived there briefly in 2009 doesn't mean she is still leaving there (which she obviously doesn't).

It is a basic question of jurisdiction. Filing for divorce in Michigan apparently requires that a person be a resident--as defined by 180 days continuously living in the state, and apparently a minimum of 10 days in the county of filing. Different, say from Las Vegas, which used to be known for "quickie divorces." While it was acknowledged at the time that Mom met neither requirement, apparently there was a waiver agreed to by the parties. Judge Young asserts that no such waiver exists as a possibility under the law.

So--I don't know where they might go from here. Perhaps a return to Israel? Or refiling now that residency has been met? Is there some other court with jurisdiction? Or some remedy? It does help refocus away from emotional appeals and onto issues of law. Helps to set a tone.

 

[jjenny]

It is a basic question of jurisdiction. Filing for divorce in Michigan apparently requires that a person be a resident--as defined by 180 days continuously living in the state, and apparently a minimum of 10 days in the county of filing. Different, say from Las Vegas, which used to be known for "quickie divorces." While it was acknowledged at the time that Mom met neither requirement, apparently there was a waiver agreed to by the parties. Judge Young asserts that no such waiver exists as a possibility under the law.

So--I don't know where they might go from here. Perhaps a return to Israel? Or refiling now that residency has been met? Is there some other court with jurisdiction? Or some remedy? It does help refocus away from emotional appeals and onto issues of law. Helps to set a tone.

So is this judge then suggesting the two are still married? Divorce wasn't legal? What about father's second wife? Would that be bigamy? Does mother now has the right to all the assets father amassed over last six years? That could be fun.

 

[KaaBoom]

OMG.. He wants them in foster care ? Why not with their mother ?

Honestly, I think it’s because he hates the mother, and he is but-hurt that the kids would rather live with her, then him. He will do anything, and will not spare any expense to keep the kids away from their mother.

Remember, this is the same guy who left the kids locked up in a Juvenile Detention Center while he took a trip to Israel. What normal person would do that?

 

[Margo/Mom]

Honestly, I think it’s because he hates the mother, and he is but-hurt that the kids would rather live with her, then him. He will do anything, and will not spare any expense to keep the kids away from their mother.

Remember, this is the same guy who left the kids locked up in a Juvenile Detention Center while he took a trip to Israel. What normal person would do that?

Maybe a guy who had just rearranged his entire work situation to move where his kids are and was working on how to manage a big chunk of time off to go through reunification services. He could stay here and take time off to go visit kids who were refusing to see him--or he could go clear his desk--so to speak--at work to get ready for the next steps. Oh, and meanwhile working out the camp solution and trying to find a program to take the family. And what was Mom doing? Going on tv, posting her kids pictures around the internet. Inflaming public opinion so that extra security was needed at the camp. Not exactly good parenting.

 

[KaaBoom]

An unequivocal YES!!!! Yes, they are better off. At least now they have a chance to know their father loves them.

Yeah, he does a great job of showing them how much he loves them. Taking them away from their mother whom they love and have lived with all their life, leaving them locked up in Juvenile Detention while he took a trip to Israel. Now he plans to split them up, and dump one of them in foster care and send another away to live in a wilderness camp. What a way for a father to show love, and it’s paying off so well. The kids have thrived since he got custody, and now they love him so much, they never want to leave him. Oh wait...:thinking: That didn’t happen. The exact opposite happened. Their condition has deteriorated, and now they hate his guts, more then ever. I wonder why with all that love he has shown them? :facepalm: This guy is the father from hell.

 

[Hope4More]

Honestly, I think it’s because he hates the mother, and he is but-hurt that the kids would rather live with her, then him. He will do anything, and will not spare any expense to keep the kids away from their mother.

Remember, this is the same guy who left the kids locked up in a Juvenile Detention Center while he took a trip to Israel. What normal person would do that?

I'm sure dad has been butt-hurt by having his own children so turned against him they were afraid to be with him. And yet, somehow, he was adult enough and loved his kids enough not to give up and walk away. I find that admirable.

 

[Hope4More]

Yeah, he does a great job of showing them how much he loves them. Taking them away from their mother whom they love and have lived with all their life, leaving them locked up in Juvenile Detention while he took a trip to Israel. Now he plans to split them up, and dump one of them in foster care and send another away to live in a wilderness camp. What a way for a father to show love, and it’s paying off so well. The kids have thrived since he got custody, and now they love him so much, they never want to leave him. Oh wait...:thinking: That didn’t happen. The exact opposite happened. Their condition has deteriorated, and now they hate his guts, more then ever. I wonder why with all that love he has shown them? :facepalm: This guy is the father from hell.

There isn't much basis for discussion if the basic facts of what's going on aren't kept straight.

 

[Hope4More]

It is a basic question of jurisdiction. Filing for divorce in Michigan apparently requires that a person be a resident--as defined by 180 days continuously living in the state, and apparently a minimum of 10 days in the county of filing. Different, say from Las Vegas, which used to be known for "quickie divorces." While it was acknowledged at the time that Mom met neither requirement, apparently there was a waiver agreed to by the parties. Judge Young asserts that no such waiver exists as a possibility under the law.

So--I don't know where they might go from here. Perhaps a return to Israel? Or refiling now that residency has been met? Is there some other court with jurisdiction? Or some remedy? It does help refocus away from emotional appeals and onto issues of law. Helps to set a tone.

I imagine that neither mom or dad anticipated this curveball, and that neither are especially happy about it. One simplistic interpretation of what might be intended is that the judge is "offering" a reset opportunity, a do-over from scratch.

If that's the case I think mom has far more to lose. As in, this time around she likely wouldn't be rewarded outright custody of the kids, and maybe not even shared custody either unless she undergoes counseling.

 

[jjenny]

I imagine that neither mom or dad anticipated this curveball, and that neither are especially happy about it. One simplistic interpretation of what might be intended is that the judge is "offering" a reset opportunity, a do-over from scratch.

If that's the case I think mom has far more to lose. As in, this time around she likely wouldn't be rewarded outright custody of the kids, and maybe not even shared custody either unless she undergoes counseling.

Oh I don't know. If the two were legally married all this time, maybe mother should show up in his house. After all she could still be his legal wife. As such, is she entitled to half his money? Is the second wife actually his legal wife now? Or not?

 

[CHICANA]

Maybe a guy who had just rearranged his entire work situation to move where his kids are and was working on how to manage a big chunk of time off to go through reunification services. He could stay here and take time off to go visit kids who were refusing to see him--or he could go clear his desk--so to speak--at work to get ready for the next steps. Oh, and meanwhile working out the camp solution and trying to find a program to take the family. And what was Mom doing? Going on tv, posting her kids pictures around the internet. Inflaming public opinion so that extra security was needed at the camp. Not exactly good parenting.

He wouldn't have needed a reunification plan if he hadn't left them in the first place. I wouldn't want to be with this man either if I were them.

 

[CHICANA]

In your schools the allow abusive teachers?

Teachers aren't going to automatically be fired based on a student's accusation. The kid would be moved while they investigated. If a kid at the elementary level has issues that don't amount to abuse with a teacher, my kid's school would move them to another classroom at the parent's request. I know from experience.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Yeah, he does a great job of showing them how much he loves them. Taking them away from their mother whom they love and have lived with all their life, leaving them locked up in Juvenile Detention while he took a trip to Israel. Now he plans to split them up, and dump one of them in foster care and send another away to live in a wilderness camp. What a way for a father to show love, and it’s paying off so well. The kids have thrived since he got custody, and now they love him so much, they never want to leave him. Oh wait...:thinking: That didn’t happen. The exact opposite happened. Their condition has deteriorated, and now they hate his guts, more then ever. I wonder why with all that love he has shown them? :facepalm: This guy is the father from hell.

I don't think we have any idea what Dad "plans" to do, although it would appear as though he is actively working with a number of people to sort out what is best for them. Ditto the current condition of the children, although I would surmise from the lack of judicial response to the "emergency" filings asking for return of the children owing to "deterioration" that the various reports under seal are not terribly supportive of the narrative put forth by Mom's attorney in that regard.

And I would strongly urge that you consider anything coming from Mom's attorney at this point to have been specifically cherry-picked, filtered and possibly outright misrepresented in order to produce exactly the reaction that you are giving.

How about if we ask this, IF Dr. B. seriously contemplated a recommendation to split the children up (as reported by Dad's attorney), what might have led to such a recommendation? In fact, sometimes children in families must be separated for reasons that have to do with the safety, health and well-being of all members of the family. It is never an easy decision, and knowing some families that have actually had to make such decisions, it is incredibly hard on the parents.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Teachers aren't going to automatically be fired based on a student's accusation. The kid would be moved while they investigated. If a kid at the elementary level has issues that don't amount to abuse with a teacher, my kid's school would move them to another classroom at the parent's request. I know from experience.

In my district (and I'm sure in most, if not all districts) the teacher is moved while there is an investigation. It would be unconscionable to leave the rest of the class vulnerable if abuse of any child is suspected. However, in this case, there have already been investigations. And the children's behavior is rude and dismissive of an adult (their father) who has responsibility for them.