I understand that. I don't understand the release of supporting documentation attached to the motion, especially since much of it relates to confidential communication by therapists and to a child's medical record.
MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
- Status
I understand that. I don't understand the release of supporting documentation attached to the motion, especially since much of it relates to confidential communication by therapists and to a child's medical record.
I don't quite know how to read this one. All of that documentation was originally submitted under seal (or requested to be submitted under seal). And then it appeared on the Court Explorer site as being redacted. So--I don't know if it is the Judge who made the call or someone else. In fact, it was primarily the names of counselors that were redacted--and apparently based on threats having been made (to whom? of what? don't know). I suspect that the allusion to various things (such as the medical record) under seal was stirring up more stuff than revealing the actual "record" (which was not so much the record as it was the patient care instructions--which are all pretty much canned and generic these days) which has already been public for some time. Speculation about some new injury/illness/condition was floating around before. And I suspect the attorneys knew that would happen and so did the judge.
But, sharing the conversation with the doc is probably over the top--what kid needs to have other kids able to read about how severely disturbed they are?
Boundaries.
There are none.
Not much new in terms of filings.
The whole gang is scheduled back in court on Wednesday--although I don't know on what issue. Since the Next Friend request was not heard as scheduled (and there may have been an issue with regard to whether Dad's counsel had adequate time to prepare a response--they received the filing late in the day on the day before Thanksgiving--after having closed offices for the weekend), or perhaps for the Judge to consider the response (there is one on file now--I forget whether it was there before or after the cancelled hearing).
I am eagerly awaiting a response from Dad's counsel to the most recent filing from Mom. As usual it is confusing, but essentially attempts to make a claim that the children are facing some crisis of Dad's making, and they are using that to justify a partial lift of the stay (in place at their request in order to provide time to appeal to the highest levels to get a new Judge appointed).
Biggest point of confusion has to do with the number of counselors who have been involved and what their specific roles are. There MAY have been an issue in which a counselor who was serving as case manager (my inference) tried to bring the whole family together, and Dad balked. The counselor seems to think that the GAL told her she could make such a decision. I suspect that the protective order in place might have precluded her ability to do so (in addition to any other considerations about whether or not it was a good idea).
The whole gang is scheduled back in court on Wednesday--although I don't know on what issue. Since the Next Friend request was not heard as scheduled (and there may have been an issue with regard to whether Dad's counsel had adequate time to prepare a response--they received the filing late in the day on the day before Thanksgiving--after having closed offices for the weekend), or perhaps for the Judge to consider the response (there is one on file now--I forget whether it was there before or after the cancelled hearing).
I am eagerly awaiting a response from Dad's counsel to the most recent filing from Mom. As usual it is confusing, but essentially attempts to make a claim that the children are facing some crisis of Dad's making, and they are using that to justify a partial lift of the stay (in place at their request in order to provide time to appeal to the highest levels to get a new Judge appointed).
Biggest point of confusion has to do with the number of counselors who have been involved and what their specific roles are. There MAY have been an issue in which a counselor who was serving as case manager (my inference) tried to bring the whole family together, and Dad balked. The counselor seems to think that the GAL told her she could make such a decision. I suspect that the protective order in place might have precluded her ability to do so (in addition to any other considerations about whether or not it was a good idea).
That was my take as well as to what was being alleged about Dad and the counselor. I don't believe he'd arbitrarily jeopardize his own good record of abiding by court orders, so imagine there's more to the story.
Thanks again for keeping up with the news and relaying it here.
Well, here's an interesting note. There has been a complaint lodged against Judge Gorcyca with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission. This is apparently not so unusual--according to stats on their web page, hundreds of complaints are received annually--with about a fourth of them coming from prisoners (no surprise there). Apparently many are turned down (lack of jurisdiction, etc). Apparently a good many more are handled with simple non-public rebukes. And a few merit the assignment of a special master. This one has been assigned a special master. The content is based exclusively on events in the courtroom on June 24--and in particular the judge's demeanor toward the children, etc.; as well as apparent dissatisfaction with the Judge's initial response to the commission (having to do with what she meant when twirling her finger while pointing at her head in describing the behavior of one of the children; as well as the basis for the contempt charges against the children).
Reading through the most recent annual report on the website, this complaint stands out to me admidst others having to do with interference in the drunken driving charge against a court intern (with some innuendoes regarding how close the judge was to said intern--based on thousands of text messages); a pattern of multiple questioned rulings in criminal cases for another judge; a repeated pattern of tardiness (routinely about 2 hours late for scheduled hearings); and a judge apparently having psychiatric issues that interfered with duties and a refusal to cooperate with an investigation by having a psych exam.
Not to say that a judge's courtroom demeanor is unimportant, or that Judge Gorcyca might not have been better off expressing herself differently to the children, but simply that such things are devilishly difficult to substantiate (relying on things like "tone" and inflection, not to mention what twirling fingers was intended to communicate)--and reliance on not just a single case, but a single day related to that single case--looks unusual. Here is the link to the actual complaint: http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/formal_complaints_and_disciplined_judges/docs/FC98.Complaint.pdf
One additional detail, from the Commission's website about their limitations:
So, I would imagine that this would have no impact on the case at hand, at least not at this time.
Reading through the most recent annual report on the website, this complaint stands out to me admidst others having to do with interference in the drunken driving charge against a court intern (with some innuendoes regarding how close the judge was to said intern--based on thousands of text messages); a pattern of multiple questioned rulings in criminal cases for another judge; a repeated pattern of tardiness (routinely about 2 hours late for scheduled hearings); and a judge apparently having psychiatric issues that interfered with duties and a refusal to cooperate with an investigation by having a psych exam.
Not to say that a judge's courtroom demeanor is unimportant, or that Judge Gorcyca might not have been better off expressing herself differently to the children, but simply that such things are devilishly difficult to substantiate (relying on things like "tone" and inflection, not to mention what twirling fingers was intended to communicate)--and reliance on not just a single case, but a single day related to that single case--looks unusual. Here is the link to the actual complaint: http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/formal_complaints_and_disciplined_judges/docs/FC98.Complaint.pdf
One additional detail, from the Commission's website about their limitations:
So, I would imagine that this would have no impact on the case at hand, at least not at this time.
Delay, delay, or....try every last way to get Judge G dismissed from this case because Mom is certain Judge G is going to deny her custody.
An appellate judge has already said G's behavior that day was taken out of context , and that it was perfectly understandable. This complaint is going nowhere, IMO.
The only way I see that this could lead to getting G off the case would be if she were removed from the bench--or removed for a period of time that would include a scheduled hearing. The commission is pretty explicit about not being used as means of judge shopping or another avenue for appeal of a decision.
So--it does surprise me that this has gone through so narrowly tailored to this case.
Reading through other decisions, it is not unusual for recommendations to be contentious among the decision-makers. And at the end of the day, the Commission is only empowered to make a recommendation for the Supreme Court to act on.
Despite the clarity that the Commission cannot remove a Judge from a case, I wonder if Mom's attorneys might be able to tap dance around that by claiming that the case might unduly prejudice her.
I also tend to think that all of these delays are working in favor of changed custody (to Dad). The longer the kids stay put, the greater the disruption should they be moved.
New bit of info. Tomorrow's hearing is on Mom's motion to lift the stay in order to return kids to her custody and to allow discovery to begin regarding the custody hearing (on Dad's request for change of custody).
Gee I would love to be a fly on the wall.
Gee I would love to be a fly on the wall.
Unconfirmed info regarding today's hearing, but apparently the Judge intends to respond in writing. Wise move, I would say. Far more difficult to insert interpretations into the meaning of gestures and tone of voice.
Also at the rumor stage, there is a claim that Mom's attorney intends to use the current investigation as the basis for another attempt at recusal. The rumor suggest that he has some case law to back him up. The Commission, however, also has some language on its website to indicate that an investigation ought not provide justification for a recusal request--otherwise the complaint system could be misused by judge shoppers.
Also at the rumor stage, there is a claim that Mom's attorney intends to use the current investigation as the basis for another attempt at recusal. The rumor suggest that he has some case law to back him up. The Commission, however, also has some language on its website to indicate that an investigation ought not provide justification for a recusal request--otherwise the complaint system could be misused by judge shoppers.
Mom's attys did ask again for recusal, Judge G said she would take it under consideration.
IMO the odds of her having to recuse herself are now pretty high.
At least several zealous outside groups asked for the Commission to investigate. The Commission's review has already included viewing court video of the day she held the kids in contempt.
That Judge G got very cranky and lost all patience wouldn't be enough to have her disciplined, much less removed from the bench, imo. An appellate judge has already given her a pass on that, and apparently the legal community where she is has been sympathetic to her and supportive.
The Commission on average hears 600 complaints a year, and on average, submits only TWO for further review and action. Odds favor Judge G, but only if she didn't lie to the Commission.
She should and will be removed from the bench if she did lie. Meanwhile, the ongoing very serious Commission investigation may well be grounds enough for recusal.
This case isn't about Judge G. It's about those kids. If having Judge G on the bench is further complicating or delaying resolution, then I hope Judge G takes a deep breath and steps down. JMO.
IMO the odds of her having to recuse herself are now pretty high.
At least several zealous outside groups asked for the Commission to investigate. The Commission's review has already included viewing court video of the day she held the kids in contempt.
That Judge G got very cranky and lost all patience wouldn't be enough to have her disciplined, much less removed from the bench, imo. An appellate judge has already given her a pass on that, and apparently the legal community where she is has been sympathetic to her and supportive.
The Commission on average hears 600 complaints a year, and on average, submits only TWO for further review and action. Odds favor Judge G, but only if she didn't lie to the Commission.
She should and will be removed from the bench if she did lie. Meanwhile, the ongoing very serious Commission investigation may well be grounds enough for recusal.
This case isn't about Judge G. It's about those kids. If having Judge G on the bench is further complicating or delaying resolution, then I hope Judge G takes a deep breath and steps down. JMO.
I tend to agree that if a Gorcyca recusal is helpful to moving things forward she should do so. But, there are some considerations having to do with precedent. The commission, in its materials, tends to lean in the direction of protecting the bench from persons making complaints simply to force a recusal.
I do know that there was another judge who subbed on the case some time ago when Gorcyca was out on leave. And he was also not generally impressed with Mom and her excuses. And I would imagine that ANY judge would be clear about not revisiting all prior territory.
I am curious, however, about exactly what was contained in the Judge's response--and how she (or her counsel) will handle a hearing. It strikes me that the actual accusations are pretty thin stuff, compared to what MIGHT have been included. For instance, was the removal (and yes--it did look like it was for contempt to me) sort of an end-run around an actual neglect/abuse accusation being made against Mom which might well have put the kids into foster care.
Among the things that are not public is the Hayes report and recommendations, which were adopted and I believe included the original recommendation for re-unification through Family Bridges--which turned the family down. My guess about that has to do with Dad, at the time, still living out of the country. Bridges doesn't reunify with people who aren't going to be around. Now--I believe that the GAL was seriously advising Dad to relocate here, and the Judge was seriously making noises about her willingness to switch custody. But I'm not sure exactly when he got here on a complete and permanent basis. Apparently he had an apartment and wife and kid here in March. My theory about what happened while the kids were in CV is that he went back to Israel to finalize whatever he needed to in order to be in the US and file for custody. Sooooo- maybe the CV placement was for the purpose of moving Dad along? By the time the kids were being shifted to summer camp, apparently the High Road reunification program had come into the picture--and I believe that it specifies that kids spend a period of time (like 30 days) away from both parents. Which CV plus camp accomplished. I just don't know exactly how much consciousness there was about the way that things fell into place. Which is my long way around saying that perhaps the removal was a somewhat unorthodox way of launching the reunification process--which had already been adopted by the Court as a recommendation from Hayes.
But--I don't see a specific challenge to the unorthodoxy of the removal (or the mechanism)--and I wonder about that.
Also striking is that there is no challenge to the ongoing emergency order that has kept the kids with Dad--which I think could have been used as an issue.
If Gorcyca were to recuse herself, that would automatically lift the stay (I believe) and Dad's request for change of custody could be heard. Might not be a bad thing.
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
Definitely the custody case is not about LG. It was, in fact, the tone and content of LG's courtroom behaviour and demeanour that brought public attention to the case and caused her to be more closely scrutinized than she had been in the past. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/57577119-story
As part of the Oakland Circuit Court (Sixth Circuit), she is paid over $139,000 annually (http://www.lwvtroyarea.org/courts.html) to perform the duties of a judge. (LG is scheduled to complete her term in 2021.) A judge is supposed to be an impartial arbiter basing her opinion on the facts of the case. She should not be seen as performing the duties of an advocate, and some of her actions on the day in question were those of a party with personal knowledge regarding the father, and of someone who wanted to punish those who had a different opinion of the father's character. Her words were calculated to intimidate, demean and humiliate not the two adults in the case, but the children.
Despite the stress in our personal lives, most of us are able to work as professionals in our fields with the civility commensurate with our job descriptions. Many people have displayed grace under pressure in situations at least the equivalent of that LG was experiencing from the lawsuit regarding her husband.* It could also be that, at the time, LG was experiencing
(http://www.divorcesource.com/blog/judges-and-compassion-fatigue/)
No doubt this particular case had elements which triggered her tirade and it took a great deal of public response before LG took any steps to mitigate her actions. Whatever the reasons, LG's actions did nothing to make her look like an impartial arbiter of fact whose decisions could be trusted.
I agree that the ultimate judgement in this case should be made not in the interests of either parent, but in the interests of the children. Their education, their emotional well being, their physical needs are paramount. Being punished by separation from the stable relationships in their lives (with each other, with their teachers), or by disruption of their education (wilderness camps have a poor record on many fronts, http://www.astartforteens.org/dangers-of-teen-wilderness-programs), or by separation through foster care in an overloaded system, do not appear, IMO, to be in the best interests of any of these children. I think LG should step away from this case so that the ruling will be seen as credible by the children who, by now, IMO, will not believe that she is capable of considering their needs or of being fair.
* Did Gorcyca was held personally liable for his actions in maliciously prosecuting a family. Oakland County refused to cover the million dollar judgement against him.
http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/06/...ettles-with-wendrow-family-for-2-million.html)
In fact, that was the thrust of the claim of bias made against Gorcyca in the request for recusal. Her response provided what looked to me like a pretty solid legal grounding for drawing on the Judge's ongoing experience of the parties throughout her five years on the case. In short, a judge is not required to approach every decision between the parties with a clean slate--overlooking a history of response to other orders, compliance, pleadings, courtroom behavior and so on. And certainly the Judge has had ample experience of both parties at this point to be able to draw conclusions that are well within the law. Following a long history of decisions and orders aimed specifically at the benefit of the children--based on what we know about the conditions that generally support children's mental health and development vis a vis relationship with parents; based on various assessments (by Mom and others) concerned that the children experience separation from Dad as abandonment; and having seen multiple attempts at responding to the needs of those children fail owing to both subtle and overt sabotage (making it impossible to schedule therapist appointments in one case; refusal to confront the children when they refused to enter the therapist's office--instead saying in their presence that they do not need counseling); and having heard of Mom's incessant intrusion into the father's parenting time (most recent on that day when Mom refused to leave the courthouse when directly requested to do so by the Friend of the Court); as well as knowing both as an eye witness and through the reports of others who were there throughout the children's acting out behavior (and Mom's responding lack of affect and lack of verbal response) on the first occasion when they were brought to court--I think that the Judge had a fair amount of direct experience supported by numerous professional reports and assessments. Further, she has access to specifics of Dad's behavior, including his previous compliance with court orders, his record of child support payment, not to mention any such social assessments as were done on the court's behalf throughout.
As the Judge pointed out in her response--and was upheld on appeal--lack of bias is not demonstrated by some even distribution of findings between two parties. She had specific citations in the case law--which I cannot recall specifically, but I found impressive.
At this point, I cannot forecast whether Gorcyca might elect to recuse herself, out of concern for the children and a need to focus back on the family rather than the circus. I have concerns about whether any subsequent judge will be able to get the children away from the circus. There are some very single-minded folks committed to a single acceptable outcome--which is full return of the kids to Mom and removal of Dad from the picture, except perhaps to pay support. My experience of them is that they are particularly insulated from any facts that might lead in any other direction as well as being thoroughly convinced that any judge who does not comply with their agenda must be corrupt. I have seen similar choruses of true believers in some other cases lead up to the abduction of a child or children. Even when this is not the case, the obvious damage done by allowing ongoing immersion in a home environment which the GAL has termed "toxic," particularly in response to presssure from such folks, is something that I find to be abhorrant.
I wanted to respond to this because I share some of your concern. There are, in fact, many incredibly bad examples existing under the label of wilderness camps. So many in fact that just the label raises all kinds of red flags for me. However, this particular tidbit was introduced to the world--via social media--prior to the availability of the records as "Dad only wants to keep one of the children and he wants to send on to wilderness camp and put another into foster care." When the redacted attachments to Mom's request for an emergency hearing became available, it was apparent that this was neither or plan, nor is there any indication of sign on from Dad. Included in the "offers of proof" is an affidavit from the attorney, attesting to various things--some of which he apparently witnessed directly (appropriate to an affidavit), and others attributed vaguely to other sources (things reported orally to unnamed sources by the GAL, etc). There are two doctors cited. One is cited directly from a telephone conversation that included counsel for both sides and the GAL. The second doctor is the one quoted as having suggested? recommended? mentioned? brainstormed? the possibility of separating the children--and providing the possibility of wilderness camp and foster care. Both docs agree that the children are seriously disturbed (direct quote from the doc on the phone) and require serious intervention.
Now--given the vagueries of that citation, as well as Mom's previous penchant for exaggeration (example--she said in an interview that when the children were being removed she felt as if they were being taken away for execution--stated, btw, with something of a flat affect, possibly smiling a bit; example--her claim that one counselor recommended that the children be grounded for a year as punishment for their rejection of their father--a likely exaggeration); and her current attorney's apparent playing to the crowd--I am frankly waiting for more information on that one. For all we knew, based on the information available, the doc was recommending a year at someplace like Interlochen (a private residential school in Michigan for musically talented children).
Frankly, what worries me has more to do with precisely what is behind both the determination of serious disturbance and the recommendation to separate the children. On the one hand, anyone can see that these children have been moving in lock-step for some time, and there have been concerns from many parties about the degree to which the younger two seemed to be under the control of the oldest. Where my mind starts to go is in contemplating that these children have severe boundary issues--and I don't even like to think about what issues that might open up in terms of them harming one other, either psychologically or physically.
And while it is true that these children likely have greater options available to them than many similarly situated simply based on income (the summer camp alternative for instance, as opposed to time in Mandy's Place or a foster home), the options are still pretty limited. We have three kids who are deeply disturbed. We have a mother who must be regarded as have the greatest influence on their disturbance. We have a father with a wife and younger son. Apparently no other relatives in the US. The simple mechanics of protection of all parties can be incredibly complex, depending on individual behaviors. Protection combined with therapy becomes even more complex.
I know people who have worked for years to reunify families following incidents of children harming one another, acting out in ways likely to harm others, or even engaging in self-harmful behaviors. I have also known adoptive families who saw years of hard work and therapy washed down the drain when a bio parent surfaced--particularly during adolescence. This stuff is incredibly serious and complex.
Approach with caution, particularly when it comes to any thought of contact with Mom.
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
Thanks MM for your entire response. These sentences in particular stood out to me tonight. You're right. It is difficult to demonstrate even handedness in many situations, let alone one in which the futures of three children hang in the balance. I more and more come back to the concept of compassion fatigue being a factor in the way in which LG dealt with three confused, angry and frightened children who do not behave as they may be expected to be have.
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
Re Post #894. Thanks MM for your sharing your thoughts regarding wilderness camps and your experiences regarding family reunifications. Since there are unethical psychiatrists and lawyers operating within the court systems everywhere, I too am hesitant to put much value on a phoned in recommendation or suggestion or random thought. As well, I have been unimpressed with the GAL in this case, and with LG's determination to follow his lead, so I have a theory about the children which casts them in a much more positive light and the GAL not so much. Whatever the outcome, I think all those children are going to need years of supportive counselling before they will have even the slightest possibility of establishing a good working relationship with their parents, their step mother and half brother, and their future half-siblings. And then there is the work and time it will take for them to establish trusting and loving adult relationships with their future spouses and children.
However, I think the problem LG has coming up will not solely be looked at from the perspective of legal requirements. It is, IMO, going to be considered more from a political point of view. I think LG's situation will be considered according to the optics involved, and the impact those optics have already had on the public's perception of the judiciary. From the public's reaction to LG's now rather infamous belittling of each child, (which I found unjustifiably offensive especially when telling the little girl she would never get out of Mandy's place, never go to the bathroom alone again) I think the impact was much higher than LG and her staff realized.
If the optics are such that people wonder how many of LG's decisions are based on emotion, or intimidation rather than logic and application of the law, then her presence in family court may well give credence to the many horror stories that abound about fathers/mothers/children being badly treated or ignored or toyed with by capricious judges. LG's behaviour has, I think, shaken the public's confidence in the court system as a whole. The question becomes not "why did she do this" but, rather, "how often does she do this". It's not so much about "how could she talk to a child like this in open court" but, rather, "if she talks like this in open court, what is she saying to children behind closed doors where no one can hear". It doesn't matter, when dealing with appearances, if what LG did could be considered legally correct. Her tone, her vocabulary, her choice of victim (it seems to me that on that day she saw the father as victim and the children as his abusers), her references to a serial killer, have, IMO, have strongly placed LG in a position of menacing authority. I wouldn't want her sitting in judgement on any adult, let alone a child I loved.
The optics here are, IMO, devastating.
However, I think the problem LG has coming up will not solely be looked at from the perspective of legal requirements. It is, IMO, going to be considered more from a political point of view. I think LG's situation will be considered according to the optics involved, and the impact those optics have already had on the public's perception of the judiciary. From the public's reaction to LG's now rather infamous belittling of each child, (which I found unjustifiably offensive especially when telling the little girl she would never get out of Mandy's place, never go to the bathroom alone again) I think the impact was much higher than LG and her staff realized.
If the optics are such that people wonder how many of LG's decisions are based on emotion, or intimidation rather than logic and application of the law, then her presence in family court may well give credence to the many horror stories that abound about fathers/mothers/children being badly treated or ignored or toyed with by capricious judges. LG's behaviour has, I think, shaken the public's confidence in the court system as a whole. The question becomes not "why did she do this" but, rather, "how often does she do this". It's not so much about "how could she talk to a child like this in open court" but, rather, "if she talks like this in open court, what is she saying to children behind closed doors where no one can hear". It doesn't matter, when dealing with appearances, if what LG did could be considered legally correct. Her tone, her vocabulary, her choice of victim (it seems to me that on that day she saw the father as victim and the children as his abusers), her references to a serial killer, have, IMO, have strongly placed LG in a position of menacing authority. I wouldn't want her sitting in judgement on any adult, let alone a child I loved.
The optics here are, IMO, devastating.
In reading the transcript, I do not see the children as confused or frightened. Their behavior continued a long history of defiance which has sadly been reinforced over time by their Mother's refusal to set appropriate limits--including basic civilty and respect for their father. She has chosen to see parenting as a competition--and one that she has intended to win at all costs.
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
Fair enough. I don't disagree with your interpretation of the mother's behaviour at all, I just see the siblings behaviour coming from different reactions and additional sources. I am just taking a different perspectives from which to view an incident.
That said, LG is still going to have to explain her own lack of decorum. Her diatribe happened not long after other judges in Michigan had been reprimanded, or thrown off the bench, or forced to retire in December of 2014. So, I think, it's possible that those people considering what, if any, actions to take in her case may not be as lenient as might otherwise be expected. Although I find what LG said and did to be repugnant, I don't think it was necessarily illegal. Certainly not even close to the outright crimes perpetrated by those thrown off the bench last year. (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...ndants-ones-trouble-michigan-courts/20068937/)
I can, however, see the suggestion being made that she step away from this case so that the public will trust that the decision in this particular custody case was a fair one. FWIW, I found this description of the process interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/07/when-judges-need-disciplining/20053455/
It looks as though Gorcyca has stepped down--although the actual document confused me. I think she responded first to the grounds on which the recusal was requested and denied as insufficient grounds--but then chose to recuse based on the appearance of impropriety. At any rate one news channel has reported that she has recused.
The cheerleaders are delighted and think they can force recusal of all the judges in Oakland County. I don't think it has sunk in yet that there isn't likely to be a do over of any earlier decisions. And so far as I can tell, this renders all of Mom's current filings moot and sets the stage to move forward with Dad's motion to change custody.
I rather suspect that any judge walking in the door is going to be very careful to get up to speed on the case. I don't think many judges enjoy holding a circus in their courtroom. And this one certainly has that potential.
KaaBoom
`·.¸¸ ><((((º> ...·´`·.¸¸ ><((((º>...·
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,957
- Reaction score
- 3,206
Hopefully now the kids will be able to get back with their mother, and get their lives back together.
Judge withdraws from custody battle after complaint
Judge withdraws from custody battle after complaint
- Status
