They're American citizens and they weren't residents of Israel.
MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
- Status
They're American citizens and they weren't residents of Israel.
Losing your children can make you "wacko". And what's the concern, there have been no accusations of physical abuse by the mom and the kids seem well adjusted before the court intervened.
Not clear exactly how that is pertinent. But, in fact, at the time they were residing in Israel.
I was responding to a post on international kidnappings, but apparently (according to a judge) they weren't there long enough to establish residency.
Mom was wacko prior to losing the children. Most reasonably well-adjusted adults manage to work out custody on their own without requiring court enforcement of agreements. There were over a dozen show-cause filings (by both Dad and the GAL) over non-compliance with custody/visitation agreements before the requirement that the children be brought into court to enforce visitation. This was the genesis of the "court intervention." Courts don't go looking for cases--people bring cases before the court.
Not all abuse is physical--it can also be emotional. One might also point out that until this year there were no accusations of physical abuse on Dad's part either--and while the CPS investigation is not a public document, there are multiple indicators that no physical abuse was substantiated. Which would lead to the conclusion that not only was Mom making a false accusation, but that she involved the child in backing her up. Personally, I call that kind of behavior delusional at the very least--and clearly an overt act of emotional manipulation.
However, the notion that the children were "well-adjusted" simply does not stand up to examination. We have multiple accounts of the children clinging to the mother in father's presence, refusing to eat in the father's presence, refusing to leave the waiting room when taken to see a counselor, clinging to each other and refusing to make eye contact or speak in multiple situations involving not only their father, but also various persons associated with the court. These are pathological behaviors. Further, despite a good many claims that their behaviors at school and elsewhere have never raised any question, I have never seen any statements from teachers or others attesting to this.
Some kids grow up without one, or sometimes both, of their biological parents. Sometimes this is unavoidable. Sometimes it is better for them for a variety of reasons. However, the loss, or denial of a biological parent is a primary wound and ought never be taken lightly. Even children who are adopted at birth must at some point deal with the loss of the parent who gave them away, or abandoned them, or was removed from their life.
In the case of these particular children, it was their mother who removed them--for reasons that are unclear to the public. And she chose to do so well before there were any allegations of abuse, or violence. The park incident--when she instructed the children to call the police--has never been presented as one piece of a continuing pattern. And while CPS substantiated that a threat was made, overall, it has always appeared to be a fairly ambiguous set of circumstances. Frankly, the recent allegation is far less ambiguous--owing to the presence of a parenting supervisor--and it points in the direction of Mom making a false accusation.
Healthy adults don't make their children into shuttle
or prizes in some parenting competition with one's former spouse. They simply do not. Frankly, if she were honestly concerned with keeping a relationship with her children, and maintaining custody, and raising mentally and emotionally healthy children, she would have put away her desires long ago and gone to the ends of the earth to support these children having a healthy relationship with their father. And in every instance, whether it is working through counseling, or facilitating contact with Dad, she has chosen not to do so.I don't think the question had to do with residency, as that was pretty much settled owing to the parents (both of them) having established an intent to stay through such actions as selling their US home, cars, etc, and moving all of their household belongings to Israel. The question that the Hague court looked at is whether the children had become habituated to life there--which is a trickier determination, based less on time and more on the degree to which they established friends, school roles and so forth. But again--I don't think that citizenship enters in.
I know that in his motion he referenced the banner incident and "rumblings" about a protest at the kids' school. These things concern me as well. Even if Mom had nothing to do with them, they are intrusive into the kids' lives and certainly non-supportive of any reintegration efforts. And if they are truly being carried out by random strangers (as opposed to Mom's friends and acquaintances), then it's just plain creepy.
But, there are also some apparent disagreements over counseling--as in who should be providing it and who gets to decide, which is my undramatic reinterpretation of what was in Mom's response to the GAL request--which apparently WAS denied, and the document has now been logged with the court (I haven't actually seen it yet).
As far as whether the kids are doing well--I would fully expect this to be a difficult time for the family, regardless of the "success" of any therapies. Parenting a teenager is tough stuff. Parenting one who has spent five years believing you are evil--well certainly no walk in the park.
Parenting a teenager isn't easy. Especially the one who makes it clear they hate your guts.
Is that why father allegedly wants to split the kids and send one to foster care, one to wilderness camp, and leave one at home? I presume the younger one gets to stay at home and oldest ones get sent off to either foster care or wilderness camp?
I guess I've missed a huge development? That the dad wants to send one of his hard-fought for children to foster care? Is this a fact or to make a point??
Well, so far the only source for that belief is a filing by Mom's attorneys. Their proofs are all submitted "under seal" and many claims are made "by information and belief." So--it's a bit difficult to know exactly what is going on. Mom's side is notorious for cherry-picking and misinterpreting, IMO. Their most recent filing was in response to the GAL's request for an in camera (I think that means just the judge and parties? Mom's side had some concerns about creating a record for an appeals court) session for consideration of limited items without testimony. The filing in response was fairly lengthy and detailed--recounting a history of the case and objecting to any eventual testimony by any experts in Parental Alienation. In short--all over the map. Perhaps the reason that the GAL's request was denied. Whatever the GAL wanted to have considered wasn't likely to be resolved quickly. All just guesswork on my part.
Remember that the source for that information is Mom, through her attorneys. She has has also in the past made claims that a counselor wanted her to put the kids on punishment for year for not talking to their father; that the GAL told the children that it was their fault that their grandfather died; she told the camp director that she had the GAL's permission to take the kids for a picnic while they were at camp; she claims to have witnessed Dad holding the son's hands over his head while kneeing him in the chest and pinning him against the wall--in the presence of the parenting supervisor who saw something completely different.
In short, it is kind to suggest that Mom is sufficiently off-balance as to reinterpret reality in her own special way. Or kindness aside, to regard her as a pathological liar who changes lawyers as soon as they are on to her.
KaaBoom
`·.¸¸ ><((((º> ...·´`·.¸¸ ><((((º>...·
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,957
- Reaction score
- 3,206
Surprise, surprise, surprise, you cant force children to have a "healthy relationship" with a parent, they dont want to be with. Youd think that most reasonably intelligent adults would be able to figure that out. Obviously the judge is not one of them.
Now, I dont see that there is any other solution other then to return the kids to their mother, with no contact with their father. Im pretty sure that he has blown any possible hope for reconciliation with his kids at this point.
Thanks. I had missed the link provided one page back. I read the entire motion.
Honestly, it sounded unhinged. It read more like a letter written by someone with extremely biased and wild notions than by an attorney with a legal and ethical obligation to present facts backed up with case law.
Taking it with mountains of grains of salt.
Mom was wacko prior to losing the children. Most reasonably well-adjusted adults manage to work out custody on their own without requiring court enforcement of agreements. There were over a dozen show-cause filings (by both Dad and the GAL) over non-compliance with custody/visitation agreements before the requirement that the children be brought into court to enforce visitation. This was the genesis of the "court intervention." Courts don't go looking for cases--people bring cases before the court.
Not all abuse is physical--it can also be emotional. One might also point out that until this year there were no accusations of physical abuse on Dad's part either--and while the CPS investigation is not a public document, there are multiple indicators that no physical abuse was substantiated. Which would lead to the conclusion that not only was Mom making a false accusation, but that she involved the child in backing her up. Personally, I call that kind of behavior delusional at the very least--and clearly an overt act of emotional manipulation.
However, the notion that the children were "well-adjusted" simply does not stand up to examination. We have multiple accounts of the children clinging to the mother in father's presence, refusing to eat in the father's presence, refusing to leave the waiting room when taken to see a counselor, clinging to each other and refusing to make eye contact or speak in multiple situations involving not only their father, but also various persons associated with the court. These are pathological behaviors. Further, despite a good many claims that their behaviors at school and elsewhere have never raised any question, I have never seen any statements from teachers or others attesting to this.
Some kids grow up without one, or sometimes both, of their biological parents. Sometimes this is unavoidable. Sometimes it is better for them for a variety of reasons. However, the loss, or denial of a biological parent is a primary wound and ought never be taken lightly. Even children who are adopted at birth must at some point deal with the loss of the parent who gave them away, or abandoned them, or was removed from their life.
In the case of these particular children, it was their mother who removed them--for reasons that are unclear to the public. And she chose to do so well before there were any allegations of abuse, or violence. The park incident--when she instructed the children to call the police--has never been presented as one piece of a continuing pattern. And while CPS substantiated that a threat was made, overall, it has always appeared to be a fairly ambiguous set of circumstances. Frankly, the recent allegation is far less ambiguous--owing to the presence of a parenting supervisor--and it points in the direction of Mom making a false accusation.
Healthy adults don't make their children into shuttle
What she has done to her children should be illegal. She's fortunate she can't be locked away for emotionally abusing her children, which IMO is exactly what she has done for years.
How typical of an abuser to then turn things upside down and to blame the dad for not being able to fix in a few months the damage she did over years.
Perhaps the stepmother is unwilling to deal with the two older children and wants to send them away and only keep the cute little one? The mother may or may not be a little wacky, but she has been there for the kids their entire lives. Many children are estranged from a parent who has abandoned them by moving away and moving on.
The father is giving off very distinct "dog in the manger" vibes. If he is willing to put one of them in foster care and to send another to a so- called wilderness camp, just to keep them away from the mother they love, he is a real lowlife.
The father is giving off very distinct "dog in the manger" vibes. If he is willing to put one of them in foster care and to send another to a so- called wilderness camp, just to keep them away from the mother they love, he is a real lowlife.
Begs a lot of questions, friend. Ought any child be empowered to throw off parental authority by telling a judge that they don't wanna?
As things stand, I believe that Dad's request for full custody is based on his belief that Mom is unfit. I do not know if he can pull that off, but if he can, are you willing to grant the kids the option of not going home with Dad? In short, are you advocating foster care at will? And should a kid the get second and third tries until they get a family that they like?
Both parents are Israelis. Are you aware that is not unusual at all for very successful Israeli citizens to move to the US for an extended period, with every intention of returning home after gathering up professional experience that makes them even more marketable in Israel?
It sounds to me like that was the original plan. Dad abided by it and returned home, fully expecting his wife was on the same page. She changed her mind and wanted to stay in the US and to keep their kids here too.
Divorce sucks. Growing in different directions while in a marriage sucks. Bottom line to those kids' citizenship, though, is it was a byproduct of an understanding gone sour, and not of importance otherwise.
The problem is that the sole source for a good bit of this information is Mom--through her lawyer. The reply to the GAL's request for a limited ruling was all over the map--full of accusations. On the one hand Mom claims she is being left out of the loop regarding the kids, decisions, etc. On the other hand she claims to know that the kids are deteriorating and that a counselor recommends splitting the kids up, and that the counselor is denigrating her to the kids. She is supposed to be prohibited from contacting the kids at school, yet she claims to know about their absences and what they are telling their teachers. All of these things cannot be true.
While I have concerns about some of the claims--knowing that even with full support Dad would be facing parenting challenges--I remain skeptical, very skeptical.
Kids citizenship was the product of them being born in the US, and not a byproduct of anything. I am also not aware of anyone claiming that the original plan was to live in US then return back to Israel. Father got a job here in US that required he be present in Israel for long periods of time.
- Status
