MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
- Status
I am going by what is alleged in the article.
"The attorney alleges the children are suffering under the current situation and criticized a therapist’s “outrageous ‘cure,’ ” which proposes placing the oldest boy in a “wilderness camp,” the girl in foster care and leaving the youngest boy with his father “whom he fears and despises.”"
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...aring-bloomfield-hills-custody-case/76647130/
It was alleged by the mothers lawyer (in court filings) and published in msm. Do you have anything to contradict the allegation? It's my own personal observation from the original hearing that got a lot of publicity that the middle boy is the most malleable, since he was the only one who actually at first agreed to go to lunch with the father, and only refused after both older brother and the youngest sister refused.
I have a problem taking anything from Mom's attorney at face value. It is possible to cherry-pick statements and reproduce them out of context to construct a picture completely out of kilter with reality. The kind of strategy provided the basis for charging that the Judge is biased--which they lost on appeal. Now, either the attorneys are not very good, or they gambled on getting an appeals judge who wasn't too bright, or the whole flurry of motions and filings is about something else altogether. My bet is on the latter. First off, the disqualification request, and appeal, were about buying some time because Dad has requested full custody based on Mom's unfitness. Dad's team seems to have a strategy and they have been edging forward on it for some time--although I don't know that Dad's mind was completely made up until the events in June.
Mom's current team didn't even get here until August, with the custody hearing scheduled for October. Now, while their tactic bought them time to build their case, they gave Dad an advantage by asking for a stay on all issues before the court--which effectively extended the protective separation from Mom--as well as allowing more time for the kids to acclimate to life with Dad. I think courts are generally reluctant to move kids all other things being equal, creating somsthing of a home team advantage--which Dad now has. So they have a huge stake in building a belief that things aren't going well at Daddy's. Probably doesn't help that Mom is likely unable to follow through on any reintegration requirements that might open the door to her having a chance to demonstrate new co-parenting skills.
So--they would appear to be throwing almost random laundry lists of grievances into svery piece of paper they file. They are using the gag order and seal to their advantage by referring to documents and "offers of proof" that may or may not support their wild claims. So how does this help? Well, they have to be well aware of the social media gang--willing to take anything and run with it (talking about stuff like unconstitutional torture and the like). Now, that's not going to move the judge, and there's no jury pool to be poisoned. But the kids live in a world where their teachers, friends and others can read about their supposedly abusive father. There have been intrusions--like that airplane banner, and threats made against various adults involved. Creates a lot of chaos--which cannot be helpful for growth and development.
When it comes to any claims coming from Mom's team. Sorry, her last shred of credibility was gone when she made the phony assault claim--and drug her kid along into it.
To contradict? Yes. Please read my earlier post about this. We are not privy to most of the info in this case (thankfully & appropriately), but the next to last motion cleared up some disinformation being spread by "mom's camp."
Dad had no part in advocating or agreeing to any suggestion the kids be split up and put into foster care, etc., IF that suggestion was even being made by anyone at all.
The judge who ruled Judge G should not be removed said the kids are doing well. All of them. ALL are beginning to bond with their father.
Do you not believe the word of any of the judges involved in this mess?
There are five new documents showing up in Court Explorer for this case. One is a response to the grandmother's request for consideration as Next Friend (to select and hire attorneys for the kids). It was filed 11/30--which makes me wonder if timing had anything to do with nothing having been heard yesterday. Mom's team has been pretty faithful about ordering and posting all docs filed, so, I'll wait and see if these get posted. Hate to have to pay for them.
I really appreciate that you've kept up with court docs and have shared them here. Thanks.
View attachment 329406(25)_order-6.pdf
These are the redacted versions of attachments to Mom's recent filing. Some things to note:
The attached "medical report" is not new--just the same pt follow-up directions from the earlier ER visit. I believe the point was that the follow-up advice, which is generic in nature says that IF a sling has been ordered it may be used for pain relief. It has been pointed out that the pediatrician recommended to Mom no sling--but she got one anyway and took a pic of the kid wearing it for the court.
There are counselor affidavits, but they are pretty much limited to providing dates and times they saw Mom. One goes further to say that she was called in by the GAL and claims he told her that she--without working through attorneys--could determine when Mom could have contact with the kids. This is the one that apparently ended badly--although she may still be working with Mom.
There are two docs cited in an affidavit from the attorneys. One was recounting a telephone conversation between attorneys and doc. The other was unclear with regard to how the information was obtained. Both stated that these children are among the most severely impacted that they have seen. The second one is the one suggesting separation of the kids from one anotherand the attorney's claim that therapy includes denigrating Mom yada yada yada.
I believe the intent of Mom's team is to suggest that the kids current condition is the result of having been removed from Mom. That may play well in the bleachers. But anyone considering their long history will have to acknowledge that these kids symptoms go back way before that--and that up until now there has been no meaningful therapeutic response possible.
These are the redacted versions of attachments to Mom's recent filing. Some things to note:
The attached "medical report" is not new--just the same pt follow-up directions from the earlier ER visit. I believe the point was that the follow-up advice, which is generic in nature says that IF a sling has been ordered it may be used for pain relief. It has been pointed out that the pediatrician recommended to Mom no sling--but she got one anyway and took a pic of the kid wearing it for the court.
There are counselor affidavits, but they are pretty much limited to providing dates and times they saw Mom. One goes further to say that she was called in by the GAL and claims he told her that she--without working through attorneys--could determine when Mom could have contact with the kids. This is the one that apparently ended badly--although she may still be working with Mom.
There are two docs cited in an affidavit from the attorneys. One was recounting a telephone conversation between attorneys and doc. The other was unclear with regard to how the information was obtained. Both stated that these children are among the most severely impacted that they have seen. The second one is the one suggesting separation of the kids from one anotherand the attorney's claim that therapy includes denigrating Mom yada yada yada.
I believe the intent of Mom's team is to suggest that the kids current condition is the result of having been removed from Mom. That may play well in the bleachers. But anyone considering their long history will have to acknowledge that these kids symptoms go back way before that--and that up until now there has been no meaningful therapeutic response possible.
I don't believe these judges at all. I think they are covering their behinds and each other's behinds. I also don't believe children are doing well.
I really hope that you are wrong, and respectfully, think you are.
Setting everything else aside, I can't imagine why multiple judges would essentially conspire to harm the mother and kids, or alternatively, to harm the mother, help the father and be completely indifferent to the kids being harmed.
For me, paying attention way out here on the sidelines and thank goodness, with no stake whatsoever in what happens next, all I care about is that those kids are given a chance to have emotionally healthy lives.
I don't give a patooie about the mother or father per se, but definitely have strong feelings that BOTH are morally obligated to put their children's interest before their own.
Judge LG said some outrageous things to the children during the hearing. These things are on-record. If another judge says LG isn't biased, I don't buy it. Children made their wishes clear that they didn't even want to have lunch with their father. And now they are living with this father full time-so I don't believe they are doing well at all. At least the oldest child at 14 is old enough that judge should be considering what he wants. Supposedly mother alienated them from their father (even though I fail to see any proof of that). Why is it o'key for the court system to alienate the children from their mother? When was the last time she even saw them? Months ago?
Read the thread of filings and the responses of the judges. Bias has a specific meaning and specific requirements under the law. Litigants don't get to judge-shop until they get one that they like. The question of how the children are doing is a relative one. Based on multiple indicators--pretty well documented through a chain of evaluations that included each of the family members over the years--the children were NOT doing well prior to their removal from Mom. They demonstrated unreasonable fear, hatred and rejection of their father, which also became generalized to include multiple therapists, the GAL, father's family members, and members of the court. As a result they showed selective defiance of authority, a lack of empathy--as well as some fairly bizarre group-think, secret language, lack of individuation behaviors as a group. This has been observed now not only by evaluating professionals, but also by the parenting supervisor, friend of court, prosecuting attorney and court deputies. Personally, I was hoping to see some enlightenment on Mom's part to enable easing into limited reintroduction of contact. Because kids bond strongly--even to a harmful parent. But, despite her documented time in counseling--her court filings display the same behaviors--in spades. She cannot consider the possibility of changing her behavior--or zccepting responsibility. She denies that the children suffered harm in her care. She cannot reconcile her words and actions she lacks the will to confront those who have intruded into her children's lives online and at school. And she is clearly aiming to keep the Dad out of the kids lives forever if she can.
View attachment 20151203_NOTICE_FLD_FILING_REDACTED_EXHIBITS_RE_PLF_MTN_06458708_wm0412151352018.pdf
Sorry--grabbed the wrong one.
Sorry--grabbed the wrong one.
Alienation involves suppression of normal attachment. It is not simply the result of not seeing someone for awhile. Attachment--as I understand it--is instinctual. To suppress it, and to suppress it as completely as would appear to be the case with these children requires a fairly extreme set of circumstances. As an example: being snuck out of a country; being advised to call 911 to report Dad; requiring Dad to turn over his passport to Mom in order to see the kids. Those are all actions that we have seen and are aware of. In addition we have Mom's described lack of affect when the kids were expressing terror at having to enter the courtroom. We also have the false allegation of assault (while we haven't seen the result of the CPS investigation, I firmly believe, along with the GAL and the parenting supervisor, that there was no assault, not any abuse). Those are known actions. What we cannot know at this point is what she told the children when she was putting them on a plane back to the US, how she explained to them why their father was not seeing/talking to them (she would not allow it--prior to court orders). We don't know--but I can guess--where they first heard the words "violent and unpredictable" (now attributed to each of the children on multiple occasions, as if scripted) applied to their father. We don't know--but I can guess--how they came to believe that "he will never change" (again now articulated in those same words to multiple professionals).
There is pretty much one obvious inference here--and that is that Mom has actively worked (albeit perhaps unconsciously--which doesn't make it less harmful) to alienate these children from their father. To believe otherwise requires the construction of conspiracies involving not only the judge, but also the GAL, multiple professionals and now a court of appeals.
Thanks. I'm appalled that medical records relating to the children are being made public, especially with a gag order in place. WTH.
I don't understand how there can be any dispute about whether or not the mother is in therapy. Either she is or she isn't. Another WTH.
I also don't understand why the GAL would report concern for the children's well being (if he did) if there wasn't reason to be concerned.
Soooooo confusing. And disturbing.
Well, clearly there have been some personnel changes vis a vis the counselors.
I suspect that back in August Mom selected someone as a therapist who was not at all conversant with family/therapy/alienation, etc. Such people are not hard to find--and many counselors who lack such specific expertise are unaware of how much harm they can do by taking things at face value. So, if Mom picked someone, approached them from her victim perspective and was generally charming, they could be working on any number of issues that fall far short of a basic acceptance that Mom bears any responsibility for the way that things have played out.
Further--I am not at all certain yet who is driving this bus--but there have been references (by the GAL) to a case manager and Mom's counselor not having been in contact with same. One of Dad's filings also suggested that Mom had not yet signed a release--so any of Mom's professionals would be prohibited from sharing information with anyone else working on the case. Now--I would imagine that when the GAL approached the originally assigned counselor about bringing Mom into the loop, he may not have been up to speed on Mom's therapy, or on Dad's switch (which may very well have been for good reason--just don't know yet). It also looks like most of Mom's meetings with the appointed person (still not clear exactly her role--may very well be the case manager rather than an actual therapist) may have taken place AFTER the banner incident--which I would imagine really set Dad on edge. Regardless of whether Mom pulled that one on her own, or just opened Pandora's Box when she went public back in June, it was the kids who were the target and Dad who had to clean up afterwards.
The things that the GAL cited when requesting a limited hearing were the banner incident and some talk about a demonstration at the kids' school. It was Mom's response to that request that threw in everything but the kitchen sink about "deterioration" and missing school and so forth. Nothing in the GAL request pointed in that direction. And perhaps the point on which he was seeking clarification had to do with specific criteria by which some visitation with Mom might be possible. Mom clearly wants to make the case that she has earned it by showing up for counseling. If I were Dad, or any of the kids' therapists for that matter, I would be going for something heftier, such as an assurance from a therapist that Mom is ready to follow a script that would include giving the children permission to love and have a relationship with their Dad. This might include writing a letter to them, reading/rehearsing it with the therapist in advance and articulating a readiness to let go of earlier behaviors. I would suggest that ANY contact with Mom at this point should be totally predicated on the needs of the children--in terms of their healing and progress through therapy.
Now--I would imagine that somewhere in that brain-trust there are protocols that outline something similar. I would also imagine that Mom is in no way ready to carry out such a task--even insincerely.
But--I am still waiting to hear from the other parties. This may all be moot if the request to lift the stay temporarily gets denied.
- Status
