Yes--I believe that this came up in court. The alleged incident occurred during a supervised visitation. I haven't found the specific court transcript yet, but my best guess is that either the supervisor testified in court, or presented a detailed write-up. And then the matter was dropped.
MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187- Latest: girlhasnoname
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Charlot123
- Status
Yes--I believe that this came up in court. The alleged incident occurred during a supervised visitation. I haven't found the specific court transcript yet, but my best guess is that either the supervisor testified in court, or presented a detailed write-up. And then the matter was dropped.
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?
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,862
- Reaction score
- 24,205
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?
If he were a drug-dealer or some kind of abusive parent- physical or mental, I might tend to agree with you. but since he's not-the only evidence of abuse seems to be the mother's brain-washing of the children against him he absolutely should continue to fight for his rights to be a father to his children.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,862
- Reaction score
- 24,205
Wow this mother thinks she's special!!:banghead: Why the heck should she be allowed to break camp rules to bring in a dog or her neighbor or have a picnic outside of camp grounds??? This has nothing to do with the father's so-called abusiveness, but everything to do with a woman who is used to geting her own way!!! She strikes me alot like Lacey Spears in her actions.
And yet, if this father (or any other parent in a broken family) decided to go to Israel, or Brazil, or even just California, and never speak to his kids and never see them, ever....there would be no court interference, no way to force him to have a relationship with his/her children. It's okay to hate and resent and neglect and ignore your children, apparently. Please don't say that there aren't parents like that. There are, and there are a lot of them. The older boy is almost to the age where the father can't even attempt to force the issue. And it's not as though Dad has been living down the street or across town. He's only available one month a year. He's likely lost those kids forever, regardless.
SophieRose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 3,065
I read the father saw the children three to four times a year. That article addressed one summer where the mother took the kids to Italy to see her father without telling the children's father when she knew he would be coming to the USA.
In fact, parents are legally required to care for their children or they can be jailed or lose custody or have parental rights severed.
I really don't see how that applies in this case, however. And certainly does not excuse the things Mom has done.
I am not on either the mother's or father's "side". I simply think the kids should have a voice, especially with all the drama between the parents.
Just because a kid doesn't talk to their father, GAL, or whomever doesn't mean to me they are not well-behaved kids. I think they're wanting to know they're respected and listened to just as the judge is wanting for herself. Perhaps they trust no one they perceive on the father's "side". Maybe with good reason. Maybe not. That is for them to decide.
I don't understand you're thinking on if they don't eat dinner and mom feeds them later. Are you suggesting that mom should let them go without eating? I would do the same as her and feed them and seriously hope if the tables were turned their father would do the same.
Did you ever think that maybe mom is "hovering" nearby to give the kids a sense of security? Maybe they fear he will take them, hide them and not let them go back home?
Something has to give in this case or everyone is a loser. I wish the father would release his hold on the kids so that, if possible, at a later date and time they will choose to be a part of his life if he's truly a good dad.
If the mom is alienating the kids, then shame on her.
If the dad doesn't spend more time and is more concerned with his career than his kids, shame on him. The kids are the victims here to me. Plain and simple.
JMO
lisalei321
Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,216
- Reaction score
- 5
I wonder what the comments would be if the situation was reversed? Dad has the kids and won't let Mom have visitation?
"A fair deal, is when both parties suffer equally" Robert A. Heinlein.
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Blue
"A fair deal, is when both parties suffer equally" Robert A. Heinlein.
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Blue
Mother doesn't prevent the children from visiting the father. Children don't want to see the father.
She took the kids out of the country during Dad's visitation time--I would call that prevention. She has a long history of taking the kids out of town when dad is in town.
I am very concerned about the recent allegation of abuse--in the presence of the parenting supervisor, who Maya reports "did nothing." Really? Maybe Maya is fearful of abuse, but she has never been able to substantiate those fears in any rational way. Meanwhile her hovering behavior is communicating big-time to the kids that she is fearful, that she is in control, that they have no duty of respect to either their father or to the court.
If these parents were poor and black 1. Nobody would notice. 2. Mom would be accused of contributing to the delinquency of minors, and 3. The would have been in foster care long ago. With no expensive summer camp vacations.
I would feel the same.
I want the kids to have a voice. To be heard. To be respected. They didn't ask to be in this mess, the parents put them there.
One of my fears is if this continues then the kids will never opt to have a relationship with their dad. Maybe it's a bit pollyannaish of me but kids do grow up and make their own choices regardless and my hope is they can know both parents for who they each are without the other sometime later in life.
If the parents are doing something wrong, punish them, not the kids. Put the parents in the summer camp and see how fast they come to a workable conclusion to this mess.
JMO
It's amazing how many people fail to pay child support and how few are in jail. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. My neighbor's 35 year old niece is visiting her father out west this month. He left her mother (his wife of 10 years) when she was pregnant with this girl and has never paid a dollar of child support although he is wealthy. She has spent time with him on only about 5 occasions through the years. Years go by without so much as a phone call. He has never been in jail for failure to pay child support. My neighbor believes he asked her for a visit this time because he thinks she has inherited money from her grandfather and he's hoping to 'advise' her on what to do with it!
Depends who is picking up the slack. States have become increasingly activist when a parent refuses to pay resulting in eligibility for assistance. In other cases the custodial parent doesn't want to put up the $ and time for a court fight. However parents who disavow responsibility frequently lost parental rights. On the other hand many adults are able to end a marriage and work things out very well. Others do the best they can because they can't afford all this. What we are watching is dysfunction enabled by checkbook.
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.
I understand that there are theoretical teeth in the law that requires parents, custodial or not, to support their minor children. But I don't see why children who hate/wish to ignore their parent are subject to the court and possible detention, but a parent who hates/chooses to ignore his/her children, never gets called into court for it. Daddy can book before the child is born and never see the child- ever- and as long as he pays child support, no one says he should see his kids or face any sort of penalty.
Courts do not just go around looking for lives to insert themselves into. Custody cases end up in court because one or the other parent--or both--brings and issue to the court's attention. Some parental neglect cases may be brought in by Child Protective Services. But this is far less likely to happen if the children are being adequately cared for by one of the parents. Nobody is going to go in and demand that the missing parent "man up" or "woman up," unless it is the parent left behind. And many prefer not to--either because they don't believe it to be worth the effort, or because they don't want to share custody or have contact with the missing parent.
As I understand it, this case has been fairly consistently before the court owing to a failure to follow through on approved and agreed to visitation schedules. It may be easy for someone just walking in the door for the first time to see this as simply the children's choice. But bear in mind that five years ago the nine-year-old was only four. Was she fully in charge of all her decision-making at that time? I hardly think so. Even the oldest was only nine. They were not the ones planning trips to Italy or North Carolina whenever Dad was scheduled for a visit. Mom has invested in being the "good parent," the one who smuggles a dog and picnic lunch into camp for them, while Dad follows the rules. Read the parenting supervisor's report. We don't know what Mom was whispering to the kids in all those sudden trips to the car for forgotten items, or what she said when she pretended to lapse into Hebrew. We do know what Dad said to them. He apologised for his role in making their lives uncomfortable. He said he wouldn't extend their discomfort by staying in their presence. But he did tell them that he would stay just outside until the end of the scheduled time to be available--if any of them wanted to see him. I do hope for some healing in the time that they are scheduled for therapy together after camp.
What kind of heavy therapy might be involved in getting the children to the point where they don't hate Dad anymore and they won't mind spending time with him? Therapy is frequently open ended, and the children might be subjected to years of it. This may be a battle that Dad can never win. He might do better by backing away for the time being and by writing the children letters, perhaps enclosing photos of their little half-sibling, of the home he's sharing with his family, of activities he participates in. Give them a chance to think about him without going to court. Many children learn to live without one of their parents being involved in their lives. This seems like torture for all involved. If the father backs down, he will be the only one suffering. Yes, I know that the two-parent family is ideal, and that most children benefit from having a relationship with the non-custodial parent. It seems to me that this battle is lost in this situation, and threatening the kids and the mother with legal consequences doesn't help the father's case. It just hurts the children.
And I know that the emphasis in this case has been that the mother hates the father so much she is doing all she can to thwart him. Perhaps the converse is also true- he may -or may not- have little real interest in his children and is just prolonging this to torment the mother. At any rate, the blameless children are suffering and should have a right to have peace and privacy regardless of what the adults think.
And I know that the emphasis in this case has been that the mother hates the father so much she is doing all she can to thwart him. Perhaps the converse is also true- he may -or may not- have little real interest in his children and is just prolonging this to torment the mother. At any rate, the blameless children are suffering and should have a right to have peace and privacy regardless of what the adults think.
My knowledge comes from working many years in a consular section of an Israeli consulate in the States. Israel has a Two Parent Consent Law. Children cannot leave Israel to travel without the consent of both parents. She smuggled them out, and hasn't gone back to Israel since, because she knows she'd be charged.
The mom's actions (removing the kids from Israel without dad's permission) was one of the things that struck me since I remember that the first thing we did, when considering a passport application for a child, was to check whether the authorizations from both parents were in place.
There are mechanisms to appeal a parent's refusal to give consent, but I don't think she ever sought her ex's permission to begin with. She just left with the kids.
Nope. In Israel, it is forbidden by law for a child to travel abroad without the consent of both parents. I believe the parent would be charged with child abduction, under the Hague Convention. There is a similar law in the US that does not allow passports to be issued to children without the consent of both parents, but I don't know how it is enforced.
And yep, I agree she was probably 'jurisdiction-shopping.'
And yet no one 'caught' the mother in the act of abduction? I thought that Israel was very cautious with security and would surely notice if a parent was attempting to smuggle her children out of the country. Or did she go overland to another country to fly out? Are minor children routinely checked at the Israeli borders when traveling with only one parent? I would assume that they had US passports which may have been issued when the parents were living together. Can Israel stop American citizens for breach of Israeli law? And as for jurisdiction-shopping, it sounds to me as though she just wanted to live in her home country.
PS OT, but maybe you know the answer! As a 17 year old tourist, a person I know well (cough, cough) was arrested in Tel Aviv and charged with possession of a small amount of cannabis. He went home with his tourist group without appearing in court. Here's my question- can this 45-year-ago offense keep him from visiting Israel? Thanks, if you know. (He's afraid he will be met by Israeli security forces and taken away to prison.)
- Status