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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #741
The court had no choice in the vendor they chose. Since the American Psychiatric Association or any other medical or professional association does not support this type of "therapy" there are no professionals to do it. As for the rest of your post. I get your point. You love the father and you hate the mother. That seems to be a common opinion in this thread.

I believe you are mixing apples and grapefruits. APA has turned down the inclusion of Parental Alienation Syndrome as a diagnosis. They did, however recently include some related diagnoses having to do with disturbed parent-child relationship, or attachment disruptions--I forget the specific terminology. These kinds of changes are seldom speedy--doesn't mean that the actual conditions don't exist.

But as far as treatments go, I don't know that the issue has so much to do with approving any specific intervention being approved per se as it has to do with how and by whom as much as what. Traditional talking therapies are probably sound. But with children we have the compounding issue of things like where they will live in the meantime, how to protect them from being hurt all over again--and meanwhile they are growing and developing while people try to figure things out. Perhaps therapists should be the ones to handle the behavioral aspect of reintroducing family members--but probably a very expensive way to go. I am also leery of the coaching approach--but less alarmed than many, particularly realizing that this is accompanied by what is likely a pretty heavy dose of ongoing therapy.
 
  • #742
Because I have read every single post in this thread supporting the father, and they all seem to come down to father's rights. Which is fine, but that is empathizing with the father, not the children. The kids were happy and doing just fine with the mother. They just needed to be left alone.

I admit I'm not a supporter of father's rights. I'm almost 100% for mother's rights. But if this situation was reversed, and the kids had been living with their father for the last eight years, he was taking care of them, the kids were happy and doing well, I'd say the same thing. They are happy, leave them alone with the father. Why disrupt the kids lives with a custody change, when they are doing fine where they are at?

Kids are not property, and they shouldn't be treated as such by the courts. Parent's right's should not trump the children's rights, ever.



I don't view or judge what's going on in terms of mother's or father's "rights."

Those children were born to a father and a mother, both of whom profess to love their children. Both parents are entitled to have access to their own children, unless it can be PROVEN that one or the other parent is abusive. I've read what's available, and I do not see any proof whatsoever that the father was abusive to either kids or wife.

I also know for a fact that it is possible for kids to excel academically and to do well in extracurricular lessons, etc., and yet be damaged to the core.

The kids' individual lawyers, the Court appointed attorney for the kids, every mental health professional other than those hired by the mom, and the Court have all expressed concern that the mom, not the dad, is harming those kids.
 
  • #743
Do you have any evidence that she is not working <modsnip>?



If the father was not fighting for custody of the children, then there would be no reason for any legal action, now would there? As a matter of fact the judge probably wouldn't even remember who these people are, after all these years. But you think it's OK for the father to keep taking legal action, but not the mother?

I don't have a good source for her work situation--mostly posts from her supporters claiming that Dad has ruined her career. So--I'm open to hearing something more solid.

As far as who is taking legal action--up until about a month ago the only legal actions pertained to the enforcement of the original JOD and custody arrangements. So basically--Mom could have avoided a lot of show cause hearings (requested by both Dad and the GAL), by just following through on the agreements.
 
  • #744
Well stated.
 
  • #745
I don't have a good source for her work situation--mostly posts from her supporters claiming that Dad has ruined her career. So--I'm open to hearing something more solid.

OK please provide a link to those posts. I haven't seen anything like that.
 
  • #746
OK please provide a link to those posts. I haven't seen anything like that.

I've seen those comments also (but they come from internet posts so who knows how credible it is).
 
  • #747
OK please provide a link to those posts. I haven't seen anything like that.

No point--they are posts in the comments to newspaper articles and the like--not verifiable sources. There may have been and interview somewhere in which she said she was choosing to parent full-time rather than working, but I couldn't point to it. I believe that there was also something in a filing accusing Dad of ruining her ability to practice since Google searches of her name were coming up with associations to the divorce and abuse--and claiming that this was harming her career. But--I don't have time right now to go back through all 5 years of trial docs. If I come across it, however, I'll post it.

Do you have some reason to believe that Mom is employed somewhere?

I'm perfectly willing to concede the point.
 
  • #748
No point--they are posts in the comments to newspaper articles and the like--not verifiable sources. There may have been and interview somewhere in which she said she was choosing to parent full-time rather than working, but I couldn't point to it. I believe that there was also something in a filing accusing Dad of ruining her ability to practice since Google searches of her name were coming up with associations to the divorce and abuse--and claiming that this was harming her career. But--I don't have time right now to go back through all 5 years of trial docs. If I come across it, however, I'll post it.

Do you have some reason to believe that Mom is employed somewhere?

I'm perfectly willing to concede the point.

You are the one making the charge that she is unemployed. You should be able to provide some evidence to back that up. It shouldn't be up to me, to prove she is employed.:facepalm:

Dr. Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni MD Ophthalmologists in Canton, MI
 
  • #749
You are the one making the charge that she is unemployed. You should be able to provide some evidence to back that up. It shouldn't be up to me, to prove she is employed.:facepalm:

Dr. Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni MD Ophthalmologists in Canton, MI

Shoulda quit while you were ahead. That was a doc-search app, not necessarily up to date information. That location is for Canton Health Center, a part of he UofM System (where Mom did work at one time--undisputedly). Their current website does not list Dr. Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni, nor any other pediatric opthalmologists. http://www.uofmhealth.org/our-locations/chc-home.

Ball is now in your court.
 
  • #750
View attachment 20151005_MOTION_FLD_PLF-LIMINE_EXCLUD_DFT_EXP_TESTMNY-MEM-POS_064416542-1.pdf

Well, court-watchers, a whole lot going on in this case (I try not to use the family name--kids should be able to grow up without trending on Google). I can't quite keep up with the flurry of filings. However, it looks as though in addition to a request to hold off on the scheduled custody hearing in order to allow Mom to appeal (and I think even to appeal beyond the local to a state court) there a multiple things going on--some of which were prep for the custody hearing that was just postponed. As I understand it, the kids will remain with Dad under the terms of the most recent court ruling until all appeals are exhausted--allowing for a new custody hearing.

But--the attached I find interested. Mom's side seems to be asking for a Daubert Hearing. As I understand it (from watching the Zimmerman trial) this is a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony based on whether or not their theories are generally accepted. The document names Parental Alienation Syndrome--which is probably inaccurate so far as anyone that Dad's side might be planning to bring to testify--there are other, accepted diagnoses, in use to describe the particular pathologies of these kids.

I think Mom has found herself some attorneys who are young, poor and inexperienced willing to take her case to try to make a name for themselves. I also think they may be in over their heads--as they seem to have really botched the request for recusal. And it doesn't look like they have done much better on the appeal--can't figure out what their grounds for appeal are, other than not liking Gorcyca's ruling.
 
  • #751
View attachment 82737

Well, court-watchers, a whole lot going on in this case (I try not to use the family name--kids should be able to grow up without trending on Google). I can't quite keep up with the flurry of filings. However, it looks as though in addition to a request to hold off on the scheduled custody hearing in order to allow Mom to appeal (and I think even to appeal beyond the local to a state court) there a multiple things going on--some of which were prep for the custody hearing that was just postponed. As I understand it, the kids will remain with Dad under the terms of the most recent court ruling until all appeals are exhausted--allowing for a new custody hearing.

But--the attached I find interested. Mom's side seems to be asking for a Daubert Hearing. As I understand it (from watching the Zimmerman trial) this is a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony based on whether or not their theories are generally accepted. The document names Parental Alienation Syndrome--which is probably inaccurate so far as anyone that Dad's side might be planning to bring to testify--there are other, accepted diagnoses, in use to describe the particular pathologies of these kids.

I think Mom has found herself some attorneys who are young, poor and inexperienced willing to take her case to try to make a name for themselves. I also think they may be in over their heads--as they seem to have really botched the request for recusal. And it doesn't look like they have done much better on the appeal--can't figure out what their grounds for appeal are, other than not liking Gorcyca's ruling.




PAS in legal proceedings looks to be a hotly contested sticky wicket indeed. For anyone who's interested in checking out the scorecard of how it has played in court, a great link: www.dvleap.org

Looks like judges' preferred strategy so far is to avoid addressing/ruling explicitly on the term (especially the word "syndrome").
 
  • #752
PAS in legal proceedings looks to be a hotly contested sticky wicket indeed. For anyone who's interested in checking out the scorecard of how it has played in court, a great link: www.dvleap.org

Looks like judges' preferred strategy so far is to avoid addressing/ruling explicitly on the term (especially the word "syndrome").

I. Found a compilation of individual cases--apparently selected for having given custody or visitation to an accused parent. I didn't find any actual case law in them, particularly vis a vis alienation. Monkeying around in people's lives is always perilous business. We know from McMartin that children too young to distinguish between fantasy and reality are easily led to produce testimony that they believe will be well-accepted by adults. Courts are right to be skeptical when very young children are the only witnesses to abuse--with no confirming physical evidence. Social workers and judges face incredibly difficult decisions.

What I think the Mom's new lawyers are angling for is to make a name for themselves by demanding a Daubert hearing to prevent testimony from certain expert witnesses knowledgeable of the underlying constructs of alienation, or bonding and attachment issues. IOW, they are looking for a court ruling that PAS is bunk. I don't know if there is specific case history of rulings. But I do think they are going to have a hard way to go--as there is a growing body of peer-reviewed lit.

IMO, the circus aspect of this case is about to get amped up, the attorneys will get some publicity--and all decisions will be prolonged. Looking at this with my social worker hat on--this is all enabling Mom's high level of denial about her own issues--which appear to be immense. It might be credible if she made any specific accusations against Dad, or didn't insist on widening her belief regarding who is persecuting her. She is on the record in a transcript claiming the GAL told the children that they were responsible for their grandfather's death. She (and her cheerleaders) is now accusing the judge of being against her, and have already announced an intent to discount the appeals judge's ruling if it doesn't go her way.
 
  • #753
PAS in legal proceedings looks to be a hotly contested sticky wicket indeed. For anyone who's interested in checking out the scorecard of how it has played in court, a great link: www.dvleap.org

Looks like judges' preferred strategy so far is to avoid addressing/ruling explicitly on the term (especially the word "syndrome").

BBM. I agree-- I think the best plan with these cases is NOT to try to define a new "syndrome". Thinking about all of the successfully prosecuted "Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome" criminal cases, the most effective approach seems to be to avoid giving the behaviors a diagnostic title. Often when there is a "syndrome" invoked in charging language, the defense is easily able to get that thrown out because the accused hasn't been "officially" diagnosed with MBPS, therefore there can "be" no MBPS. Insisting on using a diagnosis like MBPS also puts the emphasis in court on the pathology of the parent, and not the EFFECT of the behaviors on the child-- which is child abuse (medical or otherwise).

I think PAS is kind of in the same boat-- if there is a rush to make these behaviors fit into a newly defined syndrome, then the court process (as Margo/ Mom points out with Daubert), will necessarily be on TESTING the criteria for the syndrome diagnosis, and again, NOT on the effect of the behaviors on the children.

I'm fine with PAS being defined as a colloquial term, but I don't think it's beneficial to work to have it added to the DSM or something. Abuse is abuse, manipulation is manipulation-- the focus (especially in family courts) should always be on the EFFECT of the parental behavior on the child-- not on the pathology of the parent.

The role of the court is to make decisions about the best interests of the child-- not to diagnose pathology in a parent. They can DESCRIBE the pathological behaviors without putting a label on them-- I just think that ultimately that strategy would be a whole lot more effective than battling out a new diagnostic syndrome. :twocents:
 
  • #754
I. Found a compilation of individual cases--apparently selected for having given custody or visitation to an accused parent. I didn't find any actual case law in them, particularly vis a vis alienation. Monkeying around in people's lives is always perilous business. We know from McMartin that children too young to distinguish between fantasy and reality are easily led to produce testimony that they believe will be well-accepted by adults. Courts are right to be skeptical when very young children are the only witnesses to abuse--with no confirming physical evidence. Social workers and judges face incredibly difficult decisions.

What I think the Mom's new lawyers are angling for is to make a name for themselves by demanding a Daubert hearing to prevent testimony from certain expert witnesses knowledgeable of the underlying constructs of alienation, or bonding and attachment issues. IOW, they are looking for a court ruling that PAS is bunk. I don't know if there is specific case history of rulings. But I do think they are going to have a hard way to go--as there is a growing body of peer-reviewed lit.

IMO, the circus aspect of this case is about to get amped up, the attorneys will get some publicity--and all decisions will be prolonged. Looking at this with my social worker hat on--this is all enabling Mom's high level of denial about her own issues--which appear to be immense. It might be credible if she made any specific accusations against Dad, or didn't insist on widening her belief regarding who is persecuting her. She is on the record in a transcript claiming the GAL told the children that they were responsible for their grandfather's death. She (and her cheerleaders) is now accusing the judge of being against her, and have already announced an intent to discount the appeals judge's ruling if it doesn't go her way.


Quick stand- alone point....the link I included above goes to the front page of that org's site. Did you find the PDF file that is an executive summary of case law relating to PAS? It pops up on a Google search with the org's name plus "PAS."
 
  • #755
Quick stand- alone point....the link I included above goes to the front page of that org's site. Did you find the PDF file that is an executive summary of case law relating to PAS? It pops up on a Google search with the org's name plus "PAS."

I believe that is where I got to. It really wasn't a summary of case law, but rather a list of cases in which alienation was a factor. And they appeared to have been selected to support a notion that such consideration results in children being placed in the custody of abuser.
 
  • #756
I believe that is where I got to. It really wasn't a summary of case law, but rather a list of cases in which alienation was a factor. And they appeared to have been selected to support a notion that such consideration results in children being placed in the custody of abuser.



I see what you're saying...depends on definition of "case law." I don't know anything about the group who compiled the list of cases, or if they geared it to a specific agenda. What was of interest to me was how accurately Mom's lawyers presented the trial record. Not very, even looking at just this list.

Fuller breakdown below.


http://parentalalienationpass.blogspot.com/2011/12/pas-case-law.html

(36 page PDF file, click on second link (says “case law’ again) after first page linked to opens).


Title: Case law addressing PAS, Executive Summary, 2015.
(lists cases by category, including cites, discussion of each case follows after list).

Rejecting admissibility (6 cases)
Possibly ruling admissible (1)

Declining to address admissibility
A. Avoided on procedural grounds (18)
B. Avoided on factual grounds (15)

Discussing PAS unfavorably (8)
Discussing PAS favorably (9)
Accepting PA (non-syndrome) but not ruling on admissibility (32 cases)
Affirming PA without discussion of PAS (4)
Rejecting alienation without discussion of PAS (1)

PAS mentioned in facts (many cases, by category)
 
  • #757
I see what you're saying...depends on definition of "case law." I don't know anything about the group who compiled the list of cases, or if they geared it to a specific agenda. What was of interest to me was how accurately Mom's lawyers presented the trial record. Not very, even looking at just this list.

Fuller breakdown below.


http://parentalalienationpass.blogspot.com/2011/12/pas-case-law.html

(36 page PDF file, click on second link (says &#8220;case law&#8217; again) after first page linked to opens).


Title: Case law addressing PAS, Executive Summary, 2015.
(lists cases by category, including cites, discussion of each case follows after list).

Rejecting admissibility (6 cases)
Possibly ruling admissible (1)

Declining to address admissibility
A. Avoided on procedural grounds (18)
B. Avoided on factual grounds (15)

Discussing PAS unfavorably (8)
Discussing PAS favorably (9)
Accepting PA (non-syndrome) but not ruling on admissibility (32 cases)
Affirming PA without discussion of PAS (4)
Rejecting alienation without discussion of PAS (1)

PAS mentioned in facts (many cases, by category)

Thank you--that is indeed a summary--and not what I was looking at.
 
  • #758
BBM. I agree-- I think the best plan with these cases is NOT to try to define a new "syndrome". Thinking about all of the successfully prosecuted "Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome" criminal cases, the most effective approach seems to be to avoid giving the behaviors a diagnostic title. Often when there is a "syndrome" invoked in charging language, the defense is easily able to get that thrown out because the accused hasn't been "officially" diagnosed with MBPS, therefore there can "be" no MBPS. Insisting on using a diagnosis like MBPS also puts the emphasis in court on the pathology of the parent, and not the EFFECT of the behaviors on the child-- which is child abuse (medical or otherwise).

I think PAS is kind of in the same boat-- if there is a rush to make these behaviors fit into a newly defined syndrome, then the court process (as Margo/ Mom points out with Daubert), will necessarily be on TESTING the criteria for the syndrome diagnosis, and again, NOT on the effect of the behaviors on the children.

I'm fine with PAS being defined as a colloquial term, but I don't think it's beneficial to work to have it added to the DSM or something. Abuse is abuse, manipulation is manipulation-- the focus (especially in family courts) should always be on the EFFECT of the parental behavior on the child-- not on the pathology of the parent.

The role of the court is to make decisions about the best interests of the child-- not to diagnose pathology in a parent. They can DESCRIBE the pathological behaviors without putting a label on them-- I just think that ultimately that strategy would be a whole lot more effective than battling out a new diagnostic syndrome. :twocents:



Well said! I completely agree, as do the courts, if the PAS case law summary I read and posted is any indication.

From that and from a few other PAS & the law articles I've read, courts dealing with PA tend to award custody to the parent most likely to follow through on joint custody/visitation arrangements.

In this case that would certainly be dad, not mom.
 
  • #759
View attachment 82737

Well, court-watchers, a whole lot going on in this case (I try not to use the family name--kids should be able to grow up without trending on Google). I can't quite keep up with the flurry of filings. However, it looks as though in addition to a request to hold off on the scheduled custody hearing in order to allow Mom to appeal (and I think even to appeal beyond the local to a state court) there a multiple things going on--some of which were prep for the custody hearing that was just postponed. As I understand it, the kids will remain with Dad under the terms of the most recent court ruling until all appeals are exhausted--allowing for a new custody hearing.

But--the attached I find interested. Mom's side seems to be asking for a Daubert Hearing. As I understand it (from watching the Zimmerman trial) this is a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony based on whether or not their theories are generally accepted. The document names Parental Alienation Syndrome--which is probably inaccurate so far as anyone that Dad's side might be planning to bring to testify--there are other, accepted diagnoses, in use to describe the particular pathologies of these kids.

I think Mom has found herself some attorneys who are young, poor and inexperienced willing to take her case to try to make a name for themselves. I also think they may be in over their heads--as they seem to have really botched the request for recusal. And it doesn't look like they have done much better on the appeal--can't figure out what their grounds for appeal are, other than not liking Gorcyca's ruling.



Mom's attorneys are explicitly asking for a Daubert hearing. Giving Mom's attorneys the benefit of the doubt, their goal seems to be to either exclude testimony by the PAS coach altogether, or second best, to have her testify as a "lay witness," therefore undermining the credibility and authority of her testimony.


If Mom's attorneys are even somewhat competent they have to know this judge can circumvent all of their arguments about PAS. IMO, then, the attys aren't going after PAS as such. I think they're more likely extremely concerned about the PAS coach's testimony, specifically, her findings about what the kids have revealed (directly or indirectly) to her about their mother.
 
  • #760
Well said! I completely agree, as do the courts, if the PAS case law summary I read and posted is any indication.

From that and from a few other PAS & the law articles I've read, courts dealing with PA tend to award custody to the parent most likely to follow through on joint custody/visitation arrangements.

In this case that would certainly be dad, not mom.

I rather suspect that at this point there is enough record of Mom's loony behaviors--particularly interfering with counseling and assessment, but also willfully disregarding multiple court orders, giving an appearance of attempting to grab the kids and leave while they were at camp (or at the very least breaking some pretty clearly explained camp policies) and her delusional (or simply invented) version of Dad "abusing" one of the kids--in the presence of the parenting supervisor--which spurred a CPS investigation, all this certainly contributes to an appearance of being unfit--without anyone ever having to say the words parental alienation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
3,493
Total visitors
3,600

Forum statistics

Threads
633,405
Messages
18,641,558
Members
243,521
Latest member
bookmomma4
Back
Top