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

[CHICANA]

Literally all I know about the Elizabeth Fry society is their strong support of Karla Homolka upon her legal, but morally corrupt and, IMO, premature release from "prison."

Yikes.

The only crazy behavior I'm aware of in this particular case is on the part of the mom.

A biased judge making life altering decisions for my children would make me crazy too.

 

[CHICANA]

I don't believe it was Gorcyca's actions that drew the press. I believe it was Mom's actions in informing the press--and presenting a very limited view of the case. Further, I think that the manner is which she addressed the children was very likely consistent with the way in which unruly children are frequently addressed by the court. If these kids were poor and black and turning up their noses at the reasonable attempts by their father to be involved in their lives and further treating members of the court with disrespect, if it made the press at all, the public would be cheering the judge for taking a firm hand and nipping behaviors in the bud.

But this isn't a juvenile proceeding, it's a custody hearing.

 

[CHICANA]

possibly. Although i think it's equally possible that a white judge who
tells a black child with a stellar academic performance and a scholarship to a math summer school course at a prestigious university that he's mentally messed up;
who draws circles around her ear to mock him like a schoolyard bully;
who tells him he's unintelligent;
who equates his rejection of an allegedly abusive father with training people to become stone cold murderers;
who implies to his little sister that he is rejected by god;
and who throws him for an undetermined time into what she refers to as jail
would be called a racist and pilloried in the press.

nailed it

 

[wendiesan]

FWIW

In spite of international headlines this summer, Judge Gorcyca was allowed to preside over the Tsimhoni case until her December 23rd decision to disqualify herself pursuant to judicial code MCR 2.003(C)(1)(b) which prohibits impropriety. In her Opinion and Order, Judge Gorcyca denied plaintiff Maya Tsimhoni's motion to disqualify her from the case and then proceeded to disqualify herself as if to say, "You can't fire me; I quit!"

Judge Gorcyca's disqualification comes shortly after a formal complaint filed by The Judicial Tenure Commission. The Judicial Tenure Commission is the independent investigating body with the authority to allege judicial misconduct and submit recommendations for disciplinary action to The Michigan Supreme Court. The committee's complaint, filed on December 14th, alleges two counts of misconduct. The first count accuses Gorcyca of improper demeanor, failure to act in a dignified manner, laughing at the children, raising her voice, and misrepresenting law and fact during the children's June 24th sentencing hearing. The second count alleges that Gorcyca lied to investigators.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hope-loudon/judge-gorcyca-disqualifie_b_8887004.html

The author mentions that the lawyers who represented the children at that hearing didn't know their names and gives her opinions about the subsequent treatment of the children.

 

[Hoosgirl]

Link to judicial complaint. Very enlightening.

http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/newsdetail_T2_R15.php

 

[Margo/Mom]

FWIW


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hope-loudon/judge-gorcyca-disqualifie_b_8887004.html

The author mentions that the lawyers who represented the children at that hearing didn't know their names and gives her opinions about the subsequent treatment of the children.

Actually, if you read the transcript, the lawyer who didn't know her client's name didn't know her name because the kid wouldn't tell her. One of the attorneys actually did a very good job of helping the middle kid understand what was required (eye contact, communication) and that son wrote a letter to his dad telling him things that he liked. However, when the sister decided to go along with the oldest and refuse a fairly reasonable request to go to lunch and act like a human being, her brother folded as well.

 

[Margo/Mom]

FWIW


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hope-loudon/judge-gorcyca-disqualifie_b_8887004.html

The author mentions that the lawyers who represented the children at that hearing didn't know their names and gives her opinions about the subsequent treatment of the children.

BTW--The author of that article has an interesting history. She and a sister were in the custody of their father in high school when the refused to go home with him after school. Apparently they thought they could force a custody change. I don't know how Mom lost custody, but apparently there was no abuse finding against Dad. She and her sister wound up in juvenile detention. Now she is dedicated to refighting that battle through this family.

 

[Margo/Mom]

That's not going to happen with a corrupt and biased judge. I was really disturbed by the report on the judge's misconduct.

The JTC complaint does not address bias. The original disqualification request did. It was turned down by the judge and her decision was upheld on appeal.

What I find interesting is that the complaint's charges are fairly thin. The first is primarily a fairly subjective assertion having to do with a lack of patience, raising her voice at the children, being sarcastic and so forth. The second accuses her of being untruthful in her response to the first.

I will be interested to see how it plays out.

But more interested to see the change of custody finally go to court. I don't think the uncertainty can be at all good for the children.

 

[Morag]

The JTC complaint does not address bias. The original disqualification request did. It was turned down by the judge and her decision was upheld on appeal.

What I find interesting is that the complaint's charges are fairly thin. The first is primarily a fairly subjective assertion having to do with a lack of patience, raising her voice at the children, being sarcastic and so forth. The second accuses her of being untruthful in her response to the first.

I will be interested to see how it plays out.

But more interested to see the change of custody finally go to court. I don't think the uncertainty can be at all good for the children.

It's obvious that this judge shows a lack of judicial temperament.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It's obvious that this judge shows a lack of judicial temperament.

I have read a number of the transcripts from this case, and I wouldn't be comfortable making such a judgment--one way or the other. I don't think I would have personally said some of the things she said. But temperament--I would want a whole lot more info than what I have.

I think it is very difficult to respond to an uncooperative gatekeeper parent who persists in messing around with access to the kids. I think that is why a lot of non-custodial parents just give up.

 

[epiphany]

BTW--The author of that article has an interesting history. She and a sister were in the custody of their father in high school when the refused to go home with him after school. Apparently they thought they could force a custody change. I don't know how Mom lost custody, but apparently there was no abuse finding against Dad. She and her sister wound up in juvenile detention. Now she is dedicated to refighting that battle through this family.

Snipped from an article by the sisters you mention:

We were 14 years old when a police officer led us out of our school in handcuffs. We hadn’t committed a crime, and were dedicated students who maintained clean disciplinary records. But we could no longer abide by the shared-custody agreement our parents had signed in their divorce nine years earlier. It mandated we spend half our time with our father...

<snip>

It was dinner time on our third day in detention when our mom arrived with a court order for our release. The judge gave her temporary physical custody and required a psychological evaluation of us. The evaluator determined it was better for us to live with our mom than in a jail facility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...tention-for-refusing-to-live-with-our-father/

 

[KaaBoom]

Snipped from an article by the sisters you mention:

We were 14 years old when a police officer led us out of our school in handcuffs. We hadn’t committed a crime, and were dedicated students who maintained clean disciplinary records. But we could no longer abide by the shared-custody agreement our parents had signed in their divorce nine years earlier. It mandated we spend half our time with our father...

<snip>

It was dinner time on our third day in detention when our mom arrived with a court order for our release. The judge gave her temporary physical custody and required a psychological evaluation of us. The evaluator determined it was better for us to live with our mom than in a jail facility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...tention-for-refusing-to-live-with-our-father/

This whole problem could be solved with a simple law leaving it up to the children, which parent they want to live with. Even a five year old is capable of answering a simple question like “Do you want to live with your mom, or with your dad?”. Whatever the answer is, is the parent that should get the custody. The other parent should arrange with that parent for any visitation.

Children are not property, and should not be treated as such. They should make their own decisions.

 

[Laughing]

This whole problem could be solved with a simple law leaving it up to the children, which parent they want to live with. Even a five year old is capable of answering a simple question like &#8220;Do you want to live with your mom, or with your dad?&#8221;. Whatever the answer is, is the parent that should get the custody. The other parent should arrange with that parent for any visitation.

Children are not property, and should not be treated as such. They should make their own decisions.

possibly, if the school personnel and the doctor's office staff agree.

Remember that in many cases, the abused clings to the abuser....

 

[Margo/Mom]

This whole problem could be solved with a simple law leaving it up to the children, which parent they want to live with. Even a five year old is capable of answering a simple question like “Do you want to live with your mom, or with your dad?”. Whatever the answer is, is the parent that should get the custody. The other parent should arrange with that parent for any visitation.

Children are not property, and should not be treated as such. They should make their own decisions.

Bad idea. Not only are children not developmentally competent to make such choices, but to expect that ofbthem puts them in an unfair position of declaring a preferred parent.

 

[flourish]

Bad idea. Not only are children not developmentally competent to make such choices, but to expect that ofbthem puts them in an unfair position of declaring a preferred parent.

I chose to believe that wasn't a sincere suggestion. Otherwise my decades of experience and child development education made me cringe so hard it was literally painful.

 

[Laughing]

I chose to believe that wasn't a sincere suggestion. Otherwise my decades of experience and child development education made me cringe so hard it was literally painful.

I read it as a sincere suggestion from someone with limited background in human development.

Someone who hasn't waited patiently (or impatiently) on that courthouse bench until their turn to tell about the relationship observed between a child & each parent....

Edited to correct my grammar!

 

[flourish]

I read it as a sincere suggestion from someone with limited background in human development.

Someone who hasn't waited patiently (or impatiently) on that courthouse bench until their turn to tell about the relationship observed between a child & each parent....

Edited to correct my grammar!

You're right I'm sorry I was being snotty. It's just children don't have the ability to see the big picture nor the maturity to make those kinds of decisions. That's not disrespecting children or their feelings it just is what it is and recognizing that DOES respect and protect children, by their very nature, are not fully developed, which is why we protect them. We don't allow our children to work in factories getting their little fingers cut off or view them as small adults like the Victorians did. Society has come a long way in its treatment of children. It took a long time. A lot of children died working in mines and other dangerous professions.

I took an awesome class at the University of Oregon years ago called the History of Childhood. I'm sure there is some good information online about child development. We don't let them make life changing decisions, generally, because, generally, children don't have the experience, perspective, and cognitive maturity to be able to make informed consent, hence their status of vulnerable population.

Children should absolutely have input and say in their lives. Zero argument there. Children are perceptive and wonderful little individuals. They are more than worthy of protection from exploitation, which is also why we need not put those kinds of responsibilities on their little shoulders.

 

[Margo/Mom]

But the natives are getting restless. Lotta posts on a lotta articles.

Apparently all awaits the appointment of a new Judge. Meanwhile, Judge Gorcyca was given an extension on the timeline in which to file a response to the Judicial Tenure Commission complaint. Not a surprise given the 14 day deadline fall across the holidays. However, roughly 50 Family Court attorneys have signed onto a letter of support for Gorcyca.

I was thinking that the first order of business with a new Judge would be getting Dad's request for a change of custody back on the docket. Because it seems as though most of Mom's filings would become moot with Gorcyca gone (such as the partial lifting of a stay that Mom had requested in order to appeal Gorcyca's refusal to disqualify herself).

But it just popped into my head that one of the recent filings before the court was Grandma (Mom's mom) petition to serve as Next Friend to the children, providing them with attorneys. Looks to me like a back channel for Mom to communicate with the kids without having to meet any of the reunification/protection requirements. But, I don't know what a Judge is likely to do with that one.

 

[Margo/Mom]

on appointing a new Judge in Gorcyca's place since her recusal.

I don't know if this is typical, but it would seem that if nothing else it is supportive of the children stabilizing in their current situation and having time to work through therapy.

My layperson's guess is that the first move by the court will be some sort of case assessment to see which filings are still live and need consideration. By my own count we have Dad's custody filing, Grandma's Next Friend request and whatever responses there have been to these. Still think that the emergency partial lifting of the stay, and the stay itself are now moot. I did a bit of poking, as I recall that somewhere Mom's attorney had started to lay the groundwork for a potential Daubert hearing on the admissibility of evidence relating to parental alienation. I couldn't find it by name in the list of filings since July, so I am thinking it must have been included in something else--I will keep looking.

However, the organized pro-mom forces posting on each and every article on the topic have recently taken to a renewed interest in Gardner (the doc who first used the terminology and researched alienation as a syndrome) bashing and dredging up bits from decades old-decisions finding alienation (or more specifically Parental Alienation Syndrome) as falling outside Daubert or Frye requirements.

Here is a link to a fairly comprehensive summary of case law relating to alienation, both as PAS, and simple PA. http://www.dvleap.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vCU_jqwlgAI=&tabid=935

From my lay perspective, I do not see a clear indication of how a court today in Michigan might rule. However, I do not personally see any cause to suspect a blanket elimination of five years of clinical findings, culminating in what is likely to be presented as current expert testimony.

At one point, I had hoped that the current situation might tip the balance for Mom in terms of engaging in therapy and making an honest attempt to be able to regain at least a shared custody situation (owing to Dad's change of residence which enables a more typical sharing of residences, time and so forth). More and more I suspect that any honest mental health appraisal of Mom will determine that she cannot be helped by counseling, in terms of her fitness as a parent. This must truly be very difficult for the children, who must be feeling this inability as an abandonment.

 

[wendiesan]

...However, the organized pro-mom forces posting on each and every article on the topic have recently taken to a renewed interest in Gardner (the doc who first used the terminology and researched alienation as a syndrome) bashing and dredging up bits from decades old-decisions finding alienation (or more specifically Parental Alienation Syndrome) as falling outside Daubert or Frye requirements...

Have you noticed similar information patterns from the professional PR organization working for the Father?