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

[MyBelle]

Great discussion and food for thought. A special shout out to Gitana1 for lending us her wisdom!

As I said in the opening post, I don't know which parent is in the right or if either is, really.

What I do have a problem with is holding the children in contempt. Either they are the victim of abuse from their father (hitting mom in front of them, threatening to kill them) or a victim of abuse from their mother (extreme parental alienation) or perhaps some combination thereof.

Why are the children being held at fault for the actions of the parents?

The judge was so angry and said some emotionally abusive things to those kids IMO, according to the transcript. Her decision to send them to juvie just seemed punitive. After all, if she wanted to get them away from the mom, why not just award full custody to dad?

The one bright side of juvie was the provision of counseling for the kids. But now instead they are going to go to camp?

I just can't reconcile the Judge's statements about court ordering and putting the onus on the kids to have a normal relationship with their Dad.

Isn't the onus on the court, if she believes this is alienation by mom, to hold mom in contempt? And to remove the kids from mom's custody and place them with either dad or a foster situation?

She held them in contempt because of defiance directed at the Judge by the children. The oldest was smirking at her and refused to go to lunch in the courthouse cafeteria. The Judge wasn't abusive, she was teaching them that their actions do have consequences. That's a lesson that a 15-year-old should have learned a long time ago. Unfortunately, his younger siblings seem to just parrot whatever he does.

With the epidemic of very real domestic violence these days, I personally have little tolerance for feuding parents in custody cases who use their kids as pawns. Doing so is far more emotionally traumatizing than anything the Judge said.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

...and made national headlines. See my new post. Those poor children

If it didn't make the headlines, "those poor children" would still be sitting in juvenile detention.

 

[jjenny]

Great discussion and food for thought. A special shout out to Gitana1 for lending us her wisdom!

As I said in the opening post, I don't know which parent is in the right or if either is, really.

What I do have a problem with is holding the children in contempt. Either they are the victim of abuse from their father (hitting mom in front of them, threatening to kill them) or a victim of abuse from their mother (extreme parental alienation) or perhaps some combination thereof.

Why are the children being held at fault for the actions of the parents?

The judge was so angry and said some emotionally abusive things to those kids IMO, according to the transcript. Her decision to send them to juvie just seemed punitive. After all, if she wanted to get them away from the mom, why not just award full custody to dad?

The one bright side of juvie was the provision of counseling for the kids. But now instead they are going to go to camp?

I just can't reconcile the Judge's statements about court ordering and putting the onus on the kids to have a normal relationship with their Dad.

Isn't the onus on the court, if she believes this is alienation by mom, to hold mom in contempt? And to remove the kids from mom's custody and place them with either dad or a foster situation?

Mother wasn't telling the children not to go have lunch with the father. I am not sure what the judge would hold her in contempt for. Seems to me the children at this point do not want to spend any time with the father. We can debate what the reason for that is, but none of us know what goes beyond close doors. Somebody could appear charming in public but not so much in private.

 

[MyBelle]

Mother wasn't telling the children not to go have lunch with the father. I am not sure what the judge would hold her in contempt for. Seems to me the children at this point do not want to spend any time with the father. We can debate what the reason for that is, but none of us know what goes beyond close doors. Somebody could appear charming in public but not so much in private.

Indeed but the private is what is made public.
The mother seemed to beg the children to have lunch with the father and it back-fired.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't know who's right or wrong about the parents but the judge seems totally unprofessional to me. I think it was more about her ego and inability to keep her cool than what's good for the kids.

 

[jjenny]

I find it interesting that children are described as well behaved by neighbors. They behaved well in the detention facility also.
Their supposed "bad" behavior only seem to happen when they are ordered to visit their father.

 

[jjenny]

Have you read the literature? Have you experienced these cases? I have. Including what I posted above regarding a lawyer I worked with. You absolutely can force these kids to interact with a parent they dislike and if you get them away from the brainwashing parent, it typically fixes things rapidly.

They sat in detention for 2 weeks and yet they still didn't want to go to have lunch with the father. How long do you think they would have to keep the kids locked up before they would agree to see the father?
Whatever caused the alienation (and I am not convinced it's the mother's fault), the kids seem to be very well alienated at this point.
I think it's very clear they do not want to be around the father.
Is forcing them to be around the father in their best interest, or is it causing them pain and suffering?
They seem to be well behaved and polite, unless they are forced to visit with the father.

 

[jjenny]

How would that have helped? The problem is once again they were refusing to visit with their father. Ordering them to go to a previously scheduled summer camp doesn't fix anything. It just maintains the status quo.

Children alleged father threatened to kill them. He denies it, but how do we know it's not true?
That would certainly explain why they don't want to see him. Their behavior seem to be very extreme when they are being forced to see the father, and normal otherwise. We can blame it all on parental alienation, but what if that is not the root of the problem?

 

[sorrell skye]

I find this judge's actions and statements reprehensible. During the hearing, she alleged that the children have been brainwashed against their father. She alleged that the mother has alienated the children. Yet, she treated the children as criminals. The judge point blank asked the children "Do you want to live in jail?" She threatened to hold the children in the juvenile detention center until they are eighteen years old.

Here's the thing for me: these children are NOT criminals and this judge had no business treating them as such, regardless of their refusal to obey her court order to have lunch with their father. If the children have been brainwashed and alienated, then they are victims - not criminals. If the mother has been using the children as pawns, then this judge is guilty of the same despicable behavior in the manner in which she berated the children. As far as I'm concerned, the judge took out her anger and frustration toward the mother and projected it onto the children in a most unprofessional manner unbecoming of an officer of the Court.

If the judge was fed up with this ongoing custody battle/parenting plan conflict, she had zero right to take it out on the children in the way she did - calling them a Manson-like cult! Unreal!

A few of the judge's statements:

"You are brainwashed."

"You are so mentally messed up right now and it's not because of your father."

"I won't say what I think about your mother."

These are innocent children, for crying out loud - not hardened juvenile delinquents! If this judge truly believes they have been brainwashed and alienated against their father, does she not also recognize that it's not their fault? She was quick to point out that it's not their father's fault - but at no time did she even attempt to let the children know that it wasn't their fault, either.

I'm appalled at how she verbally attacked these children, as if they have been willing participants in being allegedly brainwashed. The comment she made "I won't say what I think about your mother" is no better than anything the mother may have said to the kids over the years about their father. The judge was way out of line in trying to alienate them against their mother - and that's exactly what that comment was - an attempt to turn the kids against their mother so that they'd willingly go with their father.

I agree with everyone in this thread who has said the likely reason the judge eventually amended her ruling is because this case has gotten national attention after her previous ruling was made public.

I wholeheartedly believe that an intervention was necessary, but the manner in which this judge went about it was unprofessional and cruel.

 

[jjenny]

Judge was trying to alienate the younger ones against the older brother as well. I am not sure why she thinks it's o'key to sing praises to the father, while trashing mother and brother (whom younger ones clearly look up to).
I am not sure what intervention is necessary here. Children clearly don't want anything to do with the father. Forcing them to do so seems cruel to me. Children's behavior is described as polite, unless they are being forced to meet with the father.
Why are they so dead set against their father? I am far from convinced it's from brainwashing.

 

[freckles]

The one statement that stood out to me is -

Ms. Hoult echoes the sentiments and adds a particularly poignant detail about Liam.

“These kids are extraordinarily academically gifted. Good young citizens, polite, the best young people you can imagine and have never been in any trouble and now they are incarcerated until they turn 18 years old. And they don’t know that anyone on the outside is doing anything to help them. The oldest, Liam, is so mathematically gifted he was invited to attend an elite mathematics program at Stanford this summer. He is such a fine big brother that he asked for deferred admission until his younger siblings could come with him.”



Read more at http://observer.com/2015/07/lawyer-...inst-ludicrous-jailing-of-kids/#ixzz3fc7ofAPL


He was accepted into a program and turned it down until his siblings could come with him? There is a 4 & 5 year age gap. Why would he turn it down until his siblings could come? I know in some cases of divorce and parental alienation, the mother places the oldest male child into the "man of the house" position and from the details of her past actions, that seems possible here.

IMO, I think the best chances of any reconciliation with their father would be if dad had visits with the children individually.

I don't think the mother has acting in their best interests and I don't think the children acting as one unit is healthy. I'm not saying that the children should be completely isolated from one another, but I do believe some independent time is needed

 

[sorrell skye]

If, over the years since the parents' divorce, the father has had regular, positive interaction with the children, I'm dumbfounded as to how the mother has been able to create & maintain an alleged stranglehold on the childrens' attitude toward the father to the point that she's been able to allegedly turn the children against him.

Questions:

1. If the father had developed and nurtured a close & positive bond with his children, how was that bond so easily (allegedly) disrupted?

2. How often has the father spent quality time with his children since the separation/divorce?

3. Did the father have a positive, nurturing relationship with the children prior to the separation/divorce?

4. Has the father only attempted to have a relationship with the children AFTER he and his wife separated/divorced?

In my experience, if a parent has not established a bond/close relationship with their children prior to a separation/divorce and prior to primary physical custody being awarded to the other parent, it becomes much more difficult for the noncustodial parent to establish a close bond after that parent is out of the family home.

Why was primary physical custody awarded to the mother to begin with - if the father thought she was such a negative influence on the children? It appears the father could have afforded the best family law attorney money could buy, based on his occupation with General Motors.

IMO, if the father had truly desired/sought primary physical custody (because he believed he shared a closer emotional bond with the children and was able to better provide for their physical/financial needs) and if the father had truly believed the mother was a detrimental influence on the children, he should have petitioned the Court - with evidence demonstrating why he (and not his wife) should have been awarded primary physical custody - he would have done so years ago when the marriage dissolution and/or original parenting plan was filed in family court.

 

[LinasK]

Its way beyond that in this case. Therapists have been involved for a long time, apparently. The mother is crazy.

I saw an extremely messed up case recently on a crime show where the mother had killed the father and gotten away with it, then years later attempted to kill one of the sons, but after he lived, convinced him to testify that he attempted suicide. She was sent to prison for it, yet both sons are so brain-washed, and the other son is a cop, that they continue to visit her weekly and support her!!!

 

[jjenny]

I saw an extremely messed up case recently on a crime show where the mother had killed the father and gotten away with it, then years later attempted to kill one of the sons, but after he lived, convinced him to testify that he attempted suicide. She was sent to prison for it, yet both sons are so brain-washed, and the other son is a cop, that they continue to visit her weekly and support her!!!

Well, if we are talking about other cases, I can post links to where father got visitations then killed of the offspring. So apparently the courts that ordered visitations can't always figure out that visitations would put the kid in danger.

 

[jjenny]

If, over the years since the parents' divorce, the father has had regular, positive interaction with the children, I'm dumbfounded as to how the mother has been able to create & maintain an alleged stranglehold on the childrens' attitude toward the father to the point that she's been able to allegedly turn the children against him.

Questions:

1. If the father had developed and nurtured a close & positive bond with his children, how was that bond so easily (allegedly) disrupted?

2. How often has the father spent quality time with his children since the separation/divorce?

3. Did the father have a positive, nurturing relationship with the children prior to the separation/divorce?

4. Has the father only attempted to have a relationship with the children AFTER he and his wife separated/divorced?

In my experience, if a parent has not established a bond/close relationship with their children prior to a separation/divorce and prior to primary physical custody being awarded to the other parent, it becomes much more difficult for the noncustodial parent to establish a close bond after that parent is out of the family home.

Why was primary physical custody awarded to the mother to begin with - if the father thought she was such a negative influence on the children? It appears the father could have afforded the best family law attorney money could buy, based on his occupation with General Motors.

IMO, if the father had truly desired/sought primary physical custody (because he believed he shared a closer emotional bond with the children and was able to better provide for their physical/financial needs) and if the father had truly believed the mother was a detrimental influence on the children, he should have petitioned the Court - with evidence demonstrating why he (and not his wife) should have been awarded primary physical custody - he would have done so years ago when the marriage dissolution and/or original parenting plan was filed in family court.

He did try get custody. His problem is that he seems to work in Israel and spend a lot of time there. Actually I've seen articles that state he lives in Israel (while some others claim he lives in US). Regardless, he seems to spend a lot of time in Israel. So he wanted kids to be moved to Israel but was denied. I don't know what kind of relationship he had with the children before the divorce, but I think the relationship since the divorce wasn't good. The kids have been "alienated" for many years now.

 

[LinasK]

Well, if we are talking about other cases, I can post links to where father got visitations then killed of the offspring. So apparently the courts that ordered visitations can't always figure out that visitations would put the kid in danger.

Yeah, but the point I was making- not that abuse doesn't occur- is that there are parents so crazy/selfish about custody that they do brainwash their children. This woman who tried to kill her son (that had witnessed her kill his father)convinced him that he had attempted suicide!!! When he woke from his coma, he initially told authorities that she shot him and was terrified of her, then that changed. I think she got to him. Found it!: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/palm-beach-socialite-shot-husband-son-20-years-apart/

 

[jjenny]

Yeah, but the point I was making- not that abuse doesn't occur- is that there are parents so crazy/selfish about custody that they do brainwash their children. This woman who tried to kill her son (that had witnessed her kill his father)convinced him that he had attempted suicide!!! When he woke from his coma, he initially told authorities that she shot him and was terrified of her, then that changed. I think she got to him.

And my point is, cases also occur where father convinced the courts he can have children visit, that doesn't always end well.
And obviously in the case we are discussing, wife didn't kill the husband. So not exactly a close parallel to that case.

 

[LinasK]

And my point is, cases also occur where father convinced the courts he can have children visit, that doesn't always end well.
And obviously in the case we are discussing, wife didn't kill the husband. So not exactly a close parallel to that case.

But it sounds like the mother in this case brainwashed her children nearly as badly as Linda Cooney did.

 

[jjenny]

Doesn't sound like that to me. In any way, she denies it. And what evidence have been provided that she did it?

 

[sorrell skye]

He did try get custody. His problem is that he seems to work in Israel and spend a lot of time there. Actually I've seen articles that state he lives in Israel (while some others claim he lives in US). Regardless, he seems to spend a lot of time in Israel. So he wanted kids to be moved to Israel but was denied. I don't know what kind of relationship he had with the children before the divorce, but I think the relationship since the divorce wasn't good. The kids have been "alienated" for many years now.

Yes - I also read that he tried to get custody. My point is:

If he had provided the Court with strong evidence that he was the parent who was able to better provide for his children financially, and if he had provided strong evidence to the Court that he was the parent that shared a closer emotional bond with his children, as well as evidence that he had been the primary caregiver for his childrens' daily needs, and that his children would suffer emotionally/financially/physically if he was not awarded primary physical custody, and if he would have convinced the Court that his estranged wife was a detrimental influence on his children, he would have stood a damn good chance to have been awarded primary physical custody.

The Family Court of today tends to be heavily invested in the best interest of the minor children. The mother in this case was awarded primary physical custody for a reason - I think some may be overlooking that fact.

If the Court was looking out for the best interest of the children, why did the Court award primary physical custody to the mother and not the father during the marriage dissolution/original parenting plan? If the father believed he was the best parent to be awarded primary physical custody, why did he not present sufficient evidence to the Court years ago so that he could have been awarded custody?

It seems to me that after his original petition was denied (allegedly due to his residence overseas) the father then sought, IMO, to paint the mother as unreasonable and has accused her of alienating the children against him. IME, this is a common tactic used by estranged husbands/partners when it's apparent they're losing ground. It's also a common tactic used by abusive husbands/partners when they realize they're losing control of the situation - they cast the blame on the ex in an effort to regain control.