Middle child was willing to go at first, but judge kept berating the children. Middle child changed his mind, said he would go with brother to children's village instead.
By the way father's lawyer used to work with the judge.
MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
- Status
Middle child was willing to go at first, but judge kept berating the children. Middle child changed his mind, said he would go with brother to children's village instead.
By the way father's lawyer used to work with the judge.
Mathematics ability has very little to do with sound judgment. I don't want to jump on to the side of either parent here, but the kids refused the order of the court to go to the jury room to have conversation with their father. There are reports of hysterics when the father attempted to pick them up from school to go to family counseling. Further, there have been a number of adults involved in advocacy for the children over a long period of time recommending some contact with their father--as well as various and sundry controls put in place (such as his surrender of passport when in country for visits) to ensure their safety.
Something here appears to be not wholly rational when it comes to the behavior of these children.
BTW--I just saw a clip indicating that the kids have been released?
I think that the judge takes it very seriously when anyone--even a minor--refuses to follow a court order.
I believe that actually began in a report from a Mr. Linton (sp?)--who is either a GAL, or a court therapist who was charged with evaluating the kids. He reported that when he met with them, the kids all three huddled up in a corner and would only communicate with one another (like Manson followers, was his comparison). He was also advocating that there be some contact between the kids and their father in order to make progress, presumably in the direction of ensuring that custody arrangements could be adhered to.
If there is something in the kids' experience that actually supports their apparent fears, one would think that by now they might have divulged it to an attorney representing them, a counselor (who would have been obligated to make a report if there were suspicion of abuse), the GAL, or even a teacher or school personnel. Their degree of insularity is at this point rather frightening, as well as their open defiance of any authority.
Although lunch with dad was presumably the stay out of jail card.
What if she ordered somebody to jump off the cliff?
What is it do you think they are going to reveal they haven't already? In 2010, they accused their father of threatening to kill them. Are you expecting something else?
Umm, yeah. Get back to me when that happens, OK?
She ordered a child to have a healthy relationship with his father. Do you think it's possible to order someone to have a healthy relationship?
I would imagine that every parent at some time loses it and says something that could be (mis)reported as a death threat. The sort of thing that might be helpful in separating a stupid outburst from an intent to kill would be other kinds of supporting evidence. Prior acts of violence against the children or others. Instances of actually having "lost it," and doing other kinds of damage--punching holes in walls, breaking down doors, killing pets, that kind of thing.
Frankly, I have known a lot of adults who came out of very violent homes who spent years digging through their own denial in order to be able to admit that they were actually the victim of parental violence (physical or emotional). This is a common and typical pattern with lots of literature backing it up. Also typical is a high degree of loyalty to abusers--defending them by minimizing the abuse, willingness to return to them, understand them, give them a chance to do better, that sort of thing.
This is why the defiance and hysteria of the children--and the absence of any further indications of abuse (even to people who are trained in the clues)--are very confusing to me.
I haven't formulated any personal opinion of what is going on--just asking a lot of questions, and not coming up with good answers yet.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,788
- Reaction score
- 44,806
I saw some bratty kids do this one time in a group meeting with parents. It was extremely distracting, I couldn't hear the speaker, missed some critical information, and their parents didn't bother to stop them and they were right there!!
It is possible to be in the same room with someone agreeing to have a conversation. She was pretty explicit in what she was laying out for the two younger children by offering them the possibility to make a demonstration of willingness to follow court orders.
How should the court respond to 8 and 9 year olds who refuse to do what a judge tells them to do? Particularly after their custodial parent has also told them, and a court-appointed attorney has laid out for them the consequences of refusing?
If these parents were not well-educated professionals, you gotta wonder if these delinquents would even be getting notice.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,788
- Reaction score
- 44,806
Looks more like a school than a jail to me!
TorisMom003
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 7
It seems that one very important fact, IMO, that was listed in the very first post of this thread is being overlooked or ignored. Father has SUPERVISED visitation. There has to be a reason why his visits have to be supervised.
As a child of divorced parents that was forced to spend time with a mother that clearly was more concerned with her own life and whatever male was in the picture at the time, I know that you can not force a "happy" relationship between parent and child. I also had to go to court to explain to the judge who I wanted to live with because my mother was fighting my dad for custody, even though she was absent completely for over a year after telling me that I was just staying with my dad "for the summer". If the kids don't want to spend time with their father, I feel that he has done something or said something to them to cause this. No matter what the mother may say to them at 15 the oldest knows what is true and what is not.
The father ruined any chance he may of had of reconnecting with his kids when he decided that the trip to Israel was more important than spending time with his kids. He left them in a juvie detention hall for spite, or so it seems. And if the judge really did at one time work with the father's lawyer, she should have never been a part of the case to begin with.
MOO
As a child of divorced parents that was forced to spend time with a mother that clearly was more concerned with her own life and whatever male was in the picture at the time, I know that you can not force a "happy" relationship between parent and child. I also had to go to court to explain to the judge who I wanted to live with because my mother was fighting my dad for custody, even though she was absent completely for over a year after telling me that I was just staying with my dad "for the summer". If the kids don't want to spend time with their father, I feel that he has done something or said something to them to cause this. No matter what the mother may say to them at 15 the oldest knows what is true and what is not.
The father ruined any chance he may of had of reconnecting with his kids when he decided that the trip to Israel was more important than spending time with his kids. He left them in a juvie detention hall for spite, or so it seems. And if the judge really did at one time work with the father's lawyer, she should have never been a part of the case to begin with.
MOO
Worked with her and witnessed her devotion to public service.
"As a former assistant prosecutor and now an attorney in private practice, I have had the privilege of working with Lisa Gorcyca. I witnessed first-hand her devotion to public service."
http://archive.freep.com/article/20...0312/Think-again-about-candidate-endorsements
"As a former assistant prosecutor and now an attorney in private practice, I have had the privilege of working with Lisa Gorcyca. I witnessed first-hand her devotion to public service."
http://archive.freep.com/article/20...0312/Think-again-about-candidate-endorsements
According to the judge, she had wanted to send them into custody when they refused her orders at an earlier hearing and the father had objected.
The children have been allowed out to go to summer camp--cost to be shared by the parents:
"Attorneys appointed to represent each child said their clients reported good treatment at Children's Village, but wanted to return home to their mom. The parents’ attorneys and the children’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, William Lanset, agreed that the children should be taken out of the center.
“The plan has to involve taking them out of Children’s Village, but it cannot involve the mother,” Lanset told the judge before she ruled. “She damaged these children.”
Eibschitz-Tsimhoni currently has custody of the children. Gorcyca and Lanset rebuked the mother for purposely alienated her kids from their father, sabotaging their relationship and visits, missing court dates, and ignoring court orders."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...orcyca-camp-michigan_55a04026e4b0ecec71bc3b4a
"Attorneys appointed to represent each child said their clients reported good treatment at Children's Village, but wanted to return home to their mom. The parents’ attorneys and the children’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, William Lanset, agreed that the children should be taken out of the center.
“The plan has to involve taking them out of Children’s Village, but it cannot involve the mother,” Lanset told the judge before she ruled. “She damaged these children.”
Eibschitz-Tsimhoni currently has custody of the children. Gorcyca and Lanset rebuked the mother for purposely alienated her kids from their father, sabotaging their relationship and visits, missing court dates, and ignoring court orders."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...orcyca-camp-michigan_55a04026e4b0ecec71bc3b4a
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
[
You could be right. Being afraid of a man who has threatened to kill you and who you recall having seen hit your mother may not be rational.
I don't find it particularly rational that the GAL thinks children should be thrown into jail for continued and permanent incarceration in order to prevent them from carving a baby from a pregnant woman's uterus and then killing the mother and the baby. These aren't gang members. They aren't stealing cars and doing drugs. They are frightened children who, if all posters are at least partially correct, have reason to trust no one but each other. Nor do I think JLG is rational for wanting to jail Natalie for nine years just because the little girl doesn't appreciate the PR job JLG's friend has done for her client, the girls' father.
NY attorney representing the children, J. Hoult says
On the other hand, I do think it's rational to remember that throwing children into jail has had financial benefits for some judges. For instance, President Judge Mark Ciavarella ("I wanted them to be scared out of their minds. I dont understand how that was a bad thing." http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/4/kids_for_cash_inside_one_of) and Senior Judge Michael Conahan ("I did not perform my duties as I should. I did not have integrity. http://citizensvoice.com/boss-conahan-sentenced-to-17-years-1.1207996) had some very great benefits accrue for throwing children into jail. They ruined the lives of 5,000 children, IIRC, before they were stopped.
IMO, it's possible that JLG may be under a lot of personal stress which may make her unable to maintain her own sense of decorum in the courtroom of which she is currently in charge. (Her husband was found personally liable for a $1-million judgment against him in November, 2014 for a defamation case, which he has said he cannot afford to pay and which he is appealing. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/18/gorcyca-liable-million/19235377/ and http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2014/12/25/gorcyca-judgment/20878201/) In such a stressful situation, perhaps I too would feel that a teenage boy who did not submit to my command should be thrown in jail.
Is it rational for a judge not to recuse herself from a case in which she has a relationship with the lawyer representing one of the parties? Is it rational for a judge to change from arbiter to a de facto advocate of that same party?
So, as I understand the effect of language on an alleged abuse victim, the rational judge builds up the man who is seen by Liam as an abuser, thereby furthering the abuse and putting herself squarely in the same camp as his father. Not Liam's camp. Nor Roee's, nor Natalie's. The father's camp. Or, perhaps, his father's attorney's camp. IMO, by saying "I think.." not "the court has found", JLG shows that she's identifying with the father, and not maintaining a professional distance. I don't see this as being a rational way of helping Liam see that following JLG's admonitions would be of any benefit to himself or his siblings. JLG doesn't mention that the visits the father had with his children were supervised. IMO, Liam would have known the visits were supervised and he would know that JLG knew that. I believe that Liam would also know that JLG denied the order of protection herself, so that's just another sign that the judge is not impartial. I think that through her public abuse of these children, JLG showed that she cared nothing about them, but that she instead cared about publicizing the attributes of her friend's wealthy client. Liam's also smart enough to know that his father had people working PR for him, so, I think it could have seemed to him as though JLG was behaving as though she was just another member of his father's PR team.
IMO, Liam has come to see himself as the protector of his siblings, and, possibly, his mother. If gitana is correct (and she has much more knowledge about such things than I will ever have), the mother is crazy. If the father deserved to be limited to supervised visits, and Liam was threatened and did see his mother hit, then, IMO, the dad isn't a such a great parent that he should have custody. Further, IMO, the father's request to move the kids to camp, which he made with the GAL (this GAL should really be investigated) was nothing more than a PR move suggested by his PR team. The article that mentioned the math course had a very significant sentence about Liam: "He is such a fine big brother that he asked for deferred admission until his younger siblings could come with him. http://observer.com/2015/07/lawyer-...speaks-out-against-ludicrous-jailing-of-kids/ So, I think that Liam may have seen himself as the only person in his immediate world who cared about his younger siblings, Roee and Natalie. He could have seen himself as protecting his mother, even if that meant protecting her from herself. It seems that he wouldn't leave them alone with the mother, the father, the GAL, or JLG. In fact, I think that Liam could be an example of parentification--both instrumental and emotional. IMO, by losing her professional distance and focusing on a fake alienation argument from the father's legal and PR teams, JLG, missed seeing the signs as it developed. And with what she said, with what she has done, JLG has made it worse rather than alleviating it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parentification
So, IMO, not understanding he should lie and suck up to the judge, trying to behave as he things a strong man would, like many a young idealist, Liam was honest with JLG. Big mistake.
Because, in response, JLG used the power of her position to demean and intimidate the people she was supposed to protect. When you can follow the courts direct order and have a normal, healthy relationship with your father, I would review this, Gorcyca said. "It might be three years. It might [not] be till youre 18." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a-juvenile-detention_559e25f5e4b0967291557f38 Now that's rational behaviour.
You could be right. Being afraid of a man who has threatened to kill you and who you recall having seen hit your mother may not be rational.
I don't find it particularly rational that the GAL thinks children should be thrown into jail for continued and permanent incarceration in order to prevent them from carving a baby from a pregnant woman's uterus and then killing the mother and the baby. These aren't gang members. They aren't stealing cars and doing drugs. They are frightened children who, if all posters are at least partially correct, have reason to trust no one but each other. Nor do I think JLG is rational for wanting to jail Natalie for nine years just because the little girl doesn't appreciate the PR job JLG's friend has done for her client, the girls' father.
NY attorney representing the children, J. Hoult says
http://observer.com/2015/07/lawyer-...speaks-out-against-ludicrous-jailing-of-kids/
On the other hand, I do think it's rational to remember that throwing children into jail has had financial benefits for some judges. For instance, President Judge Mark Ciavarella ("I wanted them to be scared out of their minds. I dont understand how that was a bad thing." http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/4/kids_for_cash_inside_one_of) and Senior Judge Michael Conahan ("I did not perform my duties as I should. I did not have integrity. http://citizensvoice.com/boss-conahan-sentenced-to-17-years-1.1207996) had some very great benefits accrue for throwing children into jail. They ruined the lives of 5,000 children, IIRC, before they were stopped.
IMO, it's possible that JLG may be under a lot of personal stress which may make her unable to maintain her own sense of decorum in the courtroom of which she is currently in charge. (Her husband was found personally liable for a $1-million judgment against him in November, 2014 for a defamation case, which he has said he cannot afford to pay and which he is appealing. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/18/gorcyca-liable-million/19235377/ and http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2014/12/25/gorcyca-judgment/20878201/) In such a stressful situation, perhaps I too would feel that a teenage boy who did not submit to my command should be thrown in jail.
Is it rational for a judge not to recuse herself from a case in which she has a relationship with the lawyer representing one of the parties? Is it rational for a judge to change from arbiter to a de facto advocate of that same party?
So, as I understand the effect of language on an alleged abuse victim, the rational judge builds up the man who is seen by Liam as an abuser, thereby furthering the abuse and putting herself squarely in the same camp as his father. Not Liam's camp. Nor Roee's, nor Natalie's. The father's camp. Or, perhaps, his father's attorney's camp. IMO, by saying "I think.." not "the court has found", JLG shows that she's identifying with the father, and not maintaining a professional distance. I don't see this as being a rational way of helping Liam see that following JLG's admonitions would be of any benefit to himself or his siblings. JLG doesn't mention that the visits the father had with his children were supervised. IMO, Liam would have known the visits were supervised and he would know that JLG knew that. I believe that Liam would also know that JLG denied the order of protection herself, so that's just another sign that the judge is not impartial. I think that through her public abuse of these children, JLG showed that she cared nothing about them, but that she instead cared about publicizing the attributes of her friend's wealthy client. Liam's also smart enough to know that his father had people working PR for him, so, I think it could have seemed to him as though JLG was behaving as though she was just another member of his father's PR team.
IMO, Liam has come to see himself as the protector of his siblings, and, possibly, his mother. If gitana is correct (and she has much more knowledge about such things than I will ever have), the mother is crazy. If the father deserved to be limited to supervised visits, and Liam was threatened and did see his mother hit, then, IMO, the dad isn't a such a great parent that he should have custody. Further, IMO, the father's request to move the kids to camp, which he made with the GAL (this GAL should really be investigated) was nothing more than a PR move suggested by his PR team. The article that mentioned the math course had a very significant sentence about Liam: "He is such a fine big brother that he asked for deferred admission until his younger siblings could come with him. http://observer.com/2015/07/lawyer-...speaks-out-against-ludicrous-jailing-of-kids/ So, I think that Liam may have seen himself as the only person in his immediate world who cared about his younger siblings, Roee and Natalie. He could have seen himself as protecting his mother, even if that meant protecting her from herself. It seems that he wouldn't leave them alone with the mother, the father, the GAL, or JLG. In fact, I think that Liam could be an example of parentification--both instrumental and emotional. IMO, by losing her professional distance and focusing on a fake alienation argument from the father's legal and PR teams, JLG, missed seeing the signs as it developed. And with what she said, with what she has done, JLG has made it worse rather than alleviating it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parentification
So, IMO, not understanding he should lie and suck up to the judge, trying to behave as he things a strong man would, like many a young idealist, Liam was honest with JLG. Big mistake.
Because, in response, JLG used the power of her position to demean and intimidate the people she was supposed to protect. When you can follow the courts direct order and have a normal, healthy relationship with your father, I would review this, Gorcyca said. "It might be three years. It might [not] be till youre 18." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a-juvenile-detention_559e25f5e4b0967291557f38 Now that's rational behaviour.
- Status
