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

[jjenny]

BBM

GMAB

This father has had more than enough money since the estrangement in 2009 to win custody of his children. If he wasn't able to win primary physical custody 6 years ago, I have to question why.

He's been more than financially able to hire a stellar attorney. If he truly desired primary physical custody - why has he failed to secure it - if he is the parent who allegedly shares the primary emotional bond with his children, if he is the parent who has allegedly proven to have provided the daily ongoing physical needs for his children, if he is the parent who his children allegedly look to for their emotional, physical, and financial needs?

I'll speculate: because he hasn't provided any strong evidence of the above things - the very things the Court looks at when determining primary physical custody.

What bond does he share with the children? They rather be in juvenile detention than go to lunch with him. And it's not a recent development.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

Not true.

A parent CAN NOT leave the US with a minor child with only a passport. I know this from direct experience. A parent needs an affidavit from the other parent, granting permission to the other parent to take the minor child out of the country.

And you are wrong. Married parents do it all the time. btw, it's always helpful to use links when making statements of fact.

Adults traveling with children should also be aware that, while the U.S. does not require this documentation, many other countries do; failure to produce notarized permission letters and/or birth certificates could result in travelers being refused entry (Canada has very strict requirements in this regard).


JMO

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/de...-one-parent-or-someone-who-is-not-a-parent-or

 

[jjenny]

She didn't abuse her power as a family court judge. The 15-year-old son was defiant, refused her request to have lunch with his dad and smirked at her. That behavior would alarm any judge and she held him in contempt. The other two chose to join him. Their choice and she accommodated them.

The media had nothing to do with anything other than to piss her off more, imo. I do believe she acted on the father and GAL requests for the camp.



JMO

Up till now I didn't realize that they send people to jail for smirking. And as I recall the judge actually accused the 10 year old of smirking, not the 15 year old. Off with his head.

 

[sorrell skye]

While the court may have believed six years ago the mother was not a detrimental influence, it really is irrelevant today because she has proved herself to be a detrimental influence. The kids have paid the price and so has the dad.

JMO

I don't know for certain one way or the other whether or not the mother is a detrimental influence, since I haven't seen evidence to support that allegation. I will admit that it's highly possible, but at this point I won't hang my hat on it.

All I know is that this has been a contentious custody dispute. All I know is that the presiding judge has verbally abused the children, in my opinion, with her comments toward them.

I agree the kids have paid the price. That is what I have an issue with: the children should NEVER pay the price for their parents, let alone a judge's, mistakes.

 

[MyBelle]

The 14 yo and sibs did not break any laws to warrant placement in that type of facility until they all turn 18 yo. The judge abused her powers. Needs to be removed from family court cases

That's your opinion and I disagree. I think her job is safe.

JMO

 

[Lulu14]

I'm more than aware that the courts don't automatically favor the mother these days - which is why I brought up why primary physical custody was awarded to the mother.

As I stated before: if the father was the parent who had tended to the childrens' daily needs, if the father had been the parent who had shared the primary emotional bond with the children, if the father had provided evidence to the Court that it was in the childrens' best interest to remain in his care, and if the father had provided evidence to the Court that the mother was a detrimental influence on the children, why was primary physical custody awarded to the mother?

The above questions are the ones that Family Court require answers to.

The fact that primary physical custody had been awarded to the mother tells me that the Court must have believed that it was in the childrens' best interest to be primarily cared for by their mother, and the Court must have believed that the mother was not a detrimental influence on the children when primary physical custody was awarded to her.

But did the father ask for primary custody some time ago, or does he just want his right reinforced?

 

[sorrell skye]

And you are wrong. Married parents do it all the time. btw, it's always helpful to use links when making statements of fact.

Adults traveling with children should also be aware that, while the U.S. does not require this documentation, many other countries do; failure to produce notarized permission letters and/or birth certificates could result in travelers being refused entry (Canada has very strict requirements in this regard).


JMO

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/de...-one-parent-or-someone-who-is-not-a-parent-or

You can accuse me of being wrong all you wish. I will tell you of my direct experience, regardless of what you've read on a website. When my brother-in-law tried to travel out of the country with my minor niece, he was required to produce an affidavit from my sister (my minor niece's mother) that gave him permission to leave the country with his daughter. Make of it what you will.

 

[Lulu14]

You can accuse me of being wrong all you wish. I will tell you of my direct experience, regardless of what you've read on a website. When my brother-in-law tried to travel out of the country with my minor niece, he was required to produce an affidavit from my sister (my minor niece's mother) that gave him permission to leave the country with his daughter. Make of it what you will.

Yep. They are trying to curb parental abductions. You have to have an affidavit from the other parent.

 

[MyBelle]

You can accuse me of being wrong all you wish. I will tell you of my direct experience, regardless of what you've read on a website. When my brother-in-law tried to travel out of the country with my minor niece, he was required to produce an affidavit from my sister (my minor niece's mother) that gave him permission to leave the country with his daughter. Make of it what you will.

I make nothing of it. I do trust what the government website says over anonymous claims on message boards.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Yep. They are trying to curb parental abductions. You have to have an affidavit from the other parent.

Unfortunately, there are large loopholes which is why these International parental kidnapping cases are still happening.

Parents still married don't need to provide the govt with an affidavit. The mother got away with kidnapping her children in Israel, brought them to the United States, filed for divorce and got custody in the U.S. She then defied the custody order and denied the father access to the children, which is his U. S. parental right.

Here's the case of Sean Goldman. His dad took years of lawyers and intervention by President Obama to finally get him back from Brazil:

In 2004, David Goldman's Brazilian-born wife, Bruna Bianchi, said she was taking their son for a two weeks vacation to Brazil. She never returned. Once in the country, she was given a divorce by a Brazilian court and married a prominent Brazilian lawyer.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tle-mother-abducted-Brazil.html#ixzz3fe9BuElp

Here's a case where the child was on the plane to China with his Chinese mother and the plane was turned around because the American father had a custody order and she told him she was leaving:

A mother whose plane was turned around after she tried to take her 4-year-old son to China was convicted Friday of attempted international parental kidnapping.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...arental-Kidnapping-From-Dulles-295384751.html

 

[Lulu14]

What passports were those kids traveling on? Because I have a feeling their were foreign. Therefore, it was assumed that permission was given when exiting the other country.

 

[wendiesan]

I believe the kids were traveling on US passports. I'll try to find the correct reference and post it tomorrow afternoon.

 

[MyBelle]

What passports were those kids traveling on? Because I have a feeling their were foreign. Therefore, it was assumed that permission was given when exiting the other country.

They did exit Israel and the father didn't know about it. It is a clear-cut case of parental alienation which is child abuse and should be prosecuted as such.

I'm glad to see this Judge recognized it for what it is. The Judge in Kelly Rutherford's case also recognized it and acted:

Her best option is to stop appearing in the media, keep a low profile, show contrition, demonstrate that she’s a loving, caring mom and stop knocking her ex on TV. The TV audience doesn’t have a vote,” he points out.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/09/18/kelly-rutherford-custody-battle-kids-lost-why-lose-children/

 

[Morag]

....I'll bet every single one of us knows at least one father who never sees his children despite having visitation rights. He can just walk right out of his child's life without ever fearing being put in jail for refusing to have lunch with them. (And the same goes for mothers who totally refuse to have a relationship with their children.) How about jail time for self-alienated parents?

 

[MyBelle]

....I'll bet every single one of us knows at least one father who never sees his children despite having visitation rights. He can just walk right out of his child's life without ever fearing being put in jail for refusing to have lunch with them. (And the same goes for mothers who totally refuse to have a relationship with their children.) How about jail time for self-alienated parents?

As long as they pay court-ordered child support having nothing to do with a child is perfectly legal but I personally don't know any parent, male or female, who wants nothing to do with their child.

JMO

 

[wendiesan]

Based on the mom's relentless alienating conduct, it likely is baseless. Can't be sure though. But a woman who does what she's done can also convince her kids they saw something they didn't.

Its interesting that she apparently never had any accusations of violence against the dad until the divorce. Then suddenly, he starts hitting her? I've seen this nonsense before. I have not seen instances of a couple married that long when one party is violent only once.

Apparently, during one of the dad's rare times with the kids-five hours at a park- the mother kept circling the park the whole time they were there. After two hours, she got them in her car. He tried to stop her from taking the kids and she started screaming- "He pushed me! Call 911! You kids saw that!" The police came and he wasn't arrested.

Judges don't get to the point she was without cause.

In any event, the kids have been released and are going directly to (recreational) camp. And dad apparently has relocated back to MI and is remarried with a two year old. Custody should be given to him.

I usually agree with you, but not in this.

I don't believe the father has the best interests of the children of his first family at heart. I think that instead, his actions show that he wants to control his children and punish them through manipulating a judge and her appointee (GAL). The judge made it clear in her court order that the father can free his children when he thinks they are being submissive to him, so she's made sure that he holds the power. But that's JMO after seeing how quickly he deserted the children from his first family and left them in what the judge repeatedly called jail. I don't think that will bring the siblings any closer to the father. Neither will sending those children to a war zone in the care of two people whom they don't trust.

I think this was the "only option" to the judge because she doesn't want to help those children. She wants to prove that she can break them and she threw them in jail not for the crime of despising the man they believe abused their mother, but for the crime of not obeying her unreasonable demands. One of which was that a teenager build a healthy relationship with his father. Most teenage boys are butting heads with their fathers at fourteen and fifteen. To put the onus on a child to repair a relationship with an absent parent is not reasonable, IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

I usually agree with you, but not in this.

I don't believe the father has the best interests of the children of his first family at heart. I think that instead, his actions show that he wants to control his children and punish them through manipulating a judge and her appointee (GAL). The judge made it clear in her court order that the father can free his children when he thinks they are being submissive to him, so she's made sure that he holds the power. But that's JMO after seeing how quickly he deserted the children from his first family and left them in what the judge repeatedly called jail. I don't think that will bring the siblings any closer to the father. Neither will sending those children to a war zone in the care of two people whom they don't trust.

I think this was the "only option" to the judge because she doesn't want to help those children. She wants to prove that she can break them and she threw them in jail not for the crime of despising the man they believe abused their mother, but for the crime of not obeying her unreasonable demands. One of which was that a teenager build a healthy relationship with his father. Most teenage boys are butting heads with their fathers at fourteen and fifteen. To put the onus on a child to repair a relationship with an absent parent is not reasonable, IMO.

BBM. I have no clue where you even get this impression. The father does not have the ability to manipulate a judge or the GAL. Both of the two younger children preferred "jail" with their older brother to returning to their home with their mother. A significant detail you seem to conveniently overlook.

JMO

 

[Morag]

As long as they pay court-ordered child support having nothing to do with a child is perfectly legal but I personally don't know any parent, male or female, who wants nothing to do with their child.

JMO

Yes, and it's not unusual for a parent to fail to pay child support. But a child may be jailed for ignoring his father, yet the father who ignores his child is not punished.

 

[jjenny]

....I'll bet every single one of us knows at least one father who never sees his children despite having visitation rights. He can just walk right out of his child's life without ever fearing being put in jail for refusing to have lunch with them. (And the same goes for mothers who totally refuse to have a relationship with their children.) How about jail time for self-alienated parents?

You can't force someone to have a healthy relationship. And if you have to jail a man in order for him to go visit his child, would you want for this man to actually be in child's life?

 

[jjenny]

An interesting article on the supposed parental alienation syndrome.

“It really is Gardner’s PAS that laid the groundwork for what is happening in family courts across the country,” says Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University. “When a mother alleges abuse or children allege abuse or fear or hostility to a parent who is alleged to have been abusive, it tends to be very quickly attributed to the mother’s vendetta.”


http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...ialdiagnosishelpfathersdodgeabusecharges.html