As I understand it, there was considerable discussion between Mom and Dad about his accepting the employment opportunity in Israel. Hard to know if that was the straw that broke the camel's back, or if the marriage was already in such deep trouble by then that things were unsalvageable. When Mom finally agreed to move with the kids--which seems to have been the original agreement--I think Dad saw this as an opportunity to fix things. Ultimately--based on court testimony--they had a fight and Mom took the kids and left while he was at work, filing for divorce as soon as she got back to the US. Hard to say who was more at fault, and I don't see the point. But also hard to claim that Dad left them.
MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
- Status
As I understand it, there was considerable discussion between Mom and Dad about his accepting the employment opportunity in Israel. Hard to know if that was the straw that broke the camel's back, or if the marriage was already in such deep trouble by then that things were unsalvageable. When Mom finally agreed to move with the kids--which seems to have been the original agreement--I think Dad saw this as an opportunity to fix things. Ultimately--based on court testimony--they had a fight and Mom took the kids and left while he was at work, filing for divorce as soon as she got back to the US. Hard to say who was more at fault, and I don't see the point. But also hard to claim that Dad left them.
Really--you know schools that run like that?
But the disturbing behaviors towards Dad didn't communicate fear. More arrogance and shunning, disrespect.
Your facts are confused. It is Mom's attorneys claiming that the kids are "deteriorating."
For another view, read the GAL's response to Mom's motion to have the GAL removed. He doesn't go into a lot of detail about the kids in the public document, but he certainly does not support the notion of deterioration. And in fact he rather bemoans Mom's unwillingness to participate in aftercare protocols in order to be able to regain contact with the kids.
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,807
Oh yeah... Free will... Isn't the concept of free will that you make choices then face the consequences? Did the judge physically remove the words from the mother's body? Both mom and dad have free will. But like everything, there's consequences.
I'm starting to think THESE children's needs MIGHT best be met by being removed completely from both bio parents.
Both sides have filed a lot of things and I have posted many. The information to which you refer--claiming deterioration--was from Mom's attorney, not Dad's.
No, I don't. I was giving my opinion. But common sense tells me - especially in these lawsuit happy times - if a child was freaked out by a teacher, or totally shut down in their presence, whether the school authorities felt the child was being "irrational" or not, the child would be placed in another classroom.
IMO - adults don't automatically without question demand respect. Kids should be taught to trust their gut instincts.
"Gut instincts" in children include normal bonding with a parent/caregiver. They are simply built that way. And in fact, those instincts are so strong that when parents are in fact abusive the children frequently protect the abuser or feel guilt and shame at being unable to stop the abuse. Even adopted children who are removed from a parent, or placed at birth tend to feel a connection to a parent they are unable to even remember. That is how strong this stuff is.
Children who display this type of open defiance and hatred for a parent do not simply arrive at that point unassisted--or even typically in response to abuse by the parent. Further, the behaviors (open defiance, "shutting down" being uncommunicative) generalized to a number of other adults--including authority figures such as the court deputies, the court social worker, prosecutor and so forth, as well as family members such as the biological half-sibling. They further displayed in these settings a lack of empathy. Not only was there no recognition of emotional pain being inflicted on their father, but also no such recognition of how their mother would be impacted by persisting in choices that were going to result in her going home without them.
Further, the total rejection of a parent as a person, and contributor of DNA, biological connection to one's lineage, personality traits and so forth and so on comes at a great price because it requires the rejection of one's self. Self-hatred is profoundly unhealthy stuff.
Children who display this type of open defiance and hatred for a parent do not simply arrive at that point unassisted--or even typically in response to abuse by the parent. Further, the behaviors (open defiance, "shutting down" being uncommunicative) generalized to a number of other adults--including authority figures such as the court deputies, the court social worker, prosecutor and so forth, as well as family members such as the biological half-sibling. They further displayed in these settings a lack of empathy. Not only was there no recognition of emotional pain being inflicted on their father, but also no such recognition of how their mother would be impacted by persisting in choices that were going to result in her going home without them.
Further, the total rejection of a parent as a person, and contributor of DNA, biological connection to one's lineage, personality traits and so forth and so on comes at a great price because it requires the rejection of one's self. Self-hatred is profoundly unhealthy stuff.
If a child was totally freaked out by a teacher, you had better believe that there would be some adults tracking down a cause, and the cure would not be simply to move the kid into a different classroom. Certainly there would be a need to rule out anything the teacher might have contributed. But the district would most assuredly be looking into a variety of meaningful interventions--including in all likelihood some examination of what goes on at home. But, the behavior that has been described has nothing to do with "freaking out." It has been described as a refusal to speak, acknowledge or make eye contact with the father. At a restaurant the children refused to eat if the father was the one who ordered. If the father asked the waittress to refill a water glass they would refuse to drink from it. If the father handed the bread basket the child would not touch it nor eat from it.
The GAL said it best. He said, the father has set a very low bar. If the children even address him with the courtesy they would give to the ice cream man he is delighted. And, by the way, if you read through the June 24 transcript, that was really all that was being required in going to eat lunch with Dad in the courthouse cafeteria. The fact that the children could not agree to do so--even facing the reality of being removed from their mother's home--raises all kinds of questions about what their fears truly are.
RSBM Thanks for your response. I have to respectfully disagree with the paragraph quoted above. From my actual experience, the parent I "rejected" - wanted nothing to do with up to and including the day he died - was not rejecting myself. In fact, it was saving myself.
So, my opinions on this subject and this case are colored by my experience.
In this hypothetical situation, I wasn't suggesting the removal from the classroom as the solution but as a way to remove the child from the situation as it's investigated.
The kids told the court what their dad did, just because the court doesn't "find" it to be true it doesn't mean it isn't. Maybe they would have found it to be true if the ER doc would have testified. I think an agreement was reached because the dad & the gal didn't want the ER doc to testify... then there'd be evidence of the abuse. I also don't buy that there were very few therapist willing to work with the family unless they were paid by the state to say that. So, I'd need to know if the therapists were funded by the state, mom or dad before I'll drink that kool-aid.
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
Regarding credibility...
This judge misrepresented the law and fact and lied to investigators. Maybe the 'false allegation' by mom was one of the things the judge lied about. Did the mom confess to making false allegations ?
OMG.. He wants them in foster care ? Why not with their mother ?
It should be and since I haven't seen evolution, I'll assume it doesn't exist. The father chose to move to another country and not see his children, this is a result of his decisions. The whole free will thing, the judge has decided to be biased and imo unethical and immoral. Follow the $$
In our schools they'd move the kid to another classroom. What's wrong with shunning someone who has abused you ?
Again--the behavior that is at issue is not "freaking out." It is refusal to speak to, make eye contact with or extend basic conventions of courtesy to. A child who elects to treat a teacher in such a way would not be removed to another setting where they might choose to act (in the words of Judge Gorcyca) like a human being. Might be removed to the social worker, principal, detention supervisor, etc. And should the parent, on being notified, either defend the behavior as being the teacher's fault or simply beyond his/her capability to influence, then the likelihood is that there would be ramifications.
I cannot even begin to imagine the behavior being written off or treated in any of the ways these children's behavior has been responded to (see if they will act right if the dog is there, try a different location, cancel classes, change the activity).
Twelve steppers always begin with Step One: admitting that there is a problem. Mom doesn't seem to be there yet.
In your schools the allow abusive teachers?
I would suggest that had the ER doc testified there would have been no difference whatsoever. The ER doc wasn't there and merely recorded what he was told by Mom and the kid. There was no physical evidence of any injuries--only the report of assault and the patient's report of pain. If he had been able to provide the slam dunk so many think he could have, Mom's attorney would never have allowed her to agree to the alternate plan that was presented jointly to the judge. The plan essentially gave Mom yet another chance at compliance by scheduling visitation at the courthouse--and reiterating the previously agreed upon consequences of jail time for failure to comply. Further--even if Dad and the GAL were in collusion (pretty serious charge BTW), CPS operates independently, and we can pretty well believe that they would be taking steps or making recommendations for the protection of the children if the had any reason to believe that an assault took place.
- Status
