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

[jjenny]

He works for GM and is being transferred to Michigan.

Please provide a link for that.

 

[sorrell skye]

This was apparently the same incident in which Mom told the kids to call 911 and report that she was being pushed around. Now looking at the fact pattern, and considering the animosity between the parents, there are certainly multiple explanations possible. One of the kids (5 years ago the oldest would have been 10 years old) was on top of a piece of playground equipment, refusing to come down, allegedly for a time out. And the father by his admission physically removed him. The others locked themselves in the car--at mom's direction?--and were told to call 911. Maybe when police arrived they erred in the direction of the dad. Certainly they would look for injuries, and would listen to the accounts of all parties. And maybe they made the best call based on what they saw. Clearly these kids are acting in defiance of any authority on the part of their father--and this has carried over to defiance of the court. It still troubles me that the GAL has been unable to gain their confidence. It remains troubling that the two youngest preferred removal from their mother to a very carefully supervised lunch with their father. Clearly these are either pathologically defiant children, or they are convinced of some great loss tied to even speaking to their father.

BBM

I agree. Lansat has been their GAL for years. He either lost their confidence somewhere along the line, or he never gained it to begin with. Part of the early interview process includes a rapport-building phase. I can't help but wonder how much effort Lansat put into establishing rapport with the kids. If they were resistant, then it would have been his responsibility to try harder to gain their trust.

I'm also mystified why the attorneys for the children were appointed the same day as the June 24 hearing - which would have given them little to no time to familiarize themselves with the case or with their clients. Next thing you know, the judge is sending the children to a detention center - with no objections from any of the children's attorneys about how such a drastic action may affect the children psychologically/emotionally.

Even the parents were opposed to the children being sent to Children's Village.

THE COURT: "Dad, what do you think? What is your suggestion, dad? And I want you to know, I wanted to do this to you all many times, your dad said, "Don't, Judge Gorcyca, please don't do this, Judge Gorcyca." It was because of your dad that I didn't do it. Your mom didn't want me to either, but the ball is in your dad's court. Your dad is in charge. Unless you want to live in Children's Village. It's up to you. I have put other children in Children's Village. You guys can all hang out together."

http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/detnews/2015/pdf/showcausehearing_gorcyca.pdf

IMO, this judge was using the bench as a bully pulpit from which to verbally abuse the kids. She took out her obvious frustration with the mother and shoved her judicial weight around just because she could, despite both parents (especially the father, whom the judge apparently considers above reproach) begging her not to place their children in the juvenile facility.

I don't know what the deal is with these two parents - but it's clear the children have been tragically caught in the middle of their ongoing war with one another.

 

[sorrell skye]

A previous judge found neither parent to be credible.

From the following link:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2015/07/09/jailed-kids/29944037/

In a separate case argued in federal court in Detroit over whether the children should be returned to Israel, U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland wrote in an order that after watching both parents testify, he struggled to believe either one.

"The court ultimately cannot find either party fully credible or fully persuasive," Cleland wrote. "There are inconsistencies in earlier statements made by each party that are sufficient to raise reasonable concern about each party's credibility."

But Cleland ultimately ruled the "children were not present in Israel long enough to establish it as their habitual residence."

From the same article:

She also accused her husband of closing a door of the house on her fingers, noting she works as an eye surgeon and needs healthy hands to operate. Her husband has "threatened to fix things so I never work as a surgeon again," she said in the complaint.

In December 2010, Gorcyca denied the request for a personal protection order, noting that "Petitioner failed to complete the process."

 

[jjenny]

Here is how previous judge described the kids. I think Judge Gorcyca needs to excuse herself from the case. She is comparing the children to members of Manson's cult, she is rude to them, she made disparaging comments about their mother and brother. And they need a new GAL as well. This one thinks they are communicating in Morse code when they tap their fit.

"U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland in 2010 described all three kids as "intelligent, sociable, and pleasant." He said the oldest had a “shy, reserved and polite personality.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a-juvenile-detention_559e25f5e4b0967291557f38

 

[LinasK]

Could it be that his second wife is just like the defendant and his first wife and she's also a citizen of Israel? All these plates of spaghetti the mother keeps throwing at the wall do not seem to be sticking. Perhaps her attorney should retreat and change the key message points because her client is really lookin' looney.

JMO

Yeah, why wasn't she seen as the flight risk for moving them out of Israel, when the father still lived there??? I think the PR campaign with all the little kids holding protest signs is a sham.

 

[LinasK]

Really? With a 15 foot fence and the "students" locked in cells? The fact is they are locked in, and that makes it a jail. Even the judge called it a jail.

The chain-link fence only looked like it was high enough to prevent balls from leaving the yard. Do you have pictures of the interior? Because I have yet to see a photo of a "jail". It sure looked like a playground on a school yard, complete with basketball courts.

 

[LinasK]

Neighbors described children as well behaved. When they were 'incarcerated" they were described as well behaved. Seems like "bad" behavior only comes out when they are being forced to meet with their father.
In my opinion, father needs to let them be. It's not good for them to be dragged into court and to be forced to do something they don't want to do. Maybe he can try communicate with them through letters. I don't think children being removed from their mother and put in juvenile detention is going to help them to feel better about their father.
Father has a new wife and a new child. If you ask me, father needs to concentrate on that family so the same thing doesn't happen again.
It's like Solomon story about two parents claiming the child belongs to them, and Solomon saying he will split the baby in two.

BBM. Not likely, IMO. The new wife is Not the same person as his former wife, and probably not as whacko I'm guessing.

 

[wendiesan]

Here is how previous judge described the kids. I think Judge Gorcyca needs to excuse herself from the case. She is comparing the children to members of Manson's cult, she is rude to them, she made disparaging comments about their mother and brother. And they need a new GAL as well. This one thinks they are communicating in Morse code when they tap their fit.

"U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland in 2010 described all three kids as "intelligent, sociable, and pleasant." He said the oldest had a “shy, reserved and polite personality."" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a-juvenile-detention_559e25f5e4b0967291557f38

IIRC, JLG appointed WL to serve as GAL. His role was defined by MI laws which clarify the GAL's responsibilities and limitations.

A few follow with my bolds.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0o...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-712A-17d

PROBATE CODE OF 1939 (EXCERPT)
Act 288 of 1939

712A.17d Lawyer-guardian ad litem; powers and duties.
Sec. 17d.

(1) A lawyer-guardian ad litem's duty is to the child, and not the court. The lawyer-guardian ad litem's powers and duties include at least all of the following:

(a) The obligations of the attorney-client privilege.

(b) To serve as the independent representative for the child's best interests, and be entitled to full and active participation in all aspects of the litigation and access to all relevant information regarding the child....


(2) If, after discussion between the child and his or her lawyer-guardian ad litem, the lawyer-guardian ad litem determines that the child's interests as identified by the child are inconsistent with the lawyer-guardian ad litem's determination of the child's best interests, the lawyer-guardian ad litem shall communicate the child's position to the court. If the court considers the appointment appropriate considering the child's age and maturity and the nature of the inconsistency between the child's and the lawyer-guardian ad litem's identification of the child's interests, the court may appoint an attorney for the child. An attorney appointed under this subsection serves in addition to the child's lawyer-guardian ad litem.

(3) The court or another party to the case shall not call a lawyer-guardian ad litem as a witness to testify regarding matters related to the case. The lawyer-guardian ad litem's file of the case is not discoverable.

IMO, WL is no longer an independent advocate for the children and is behaving as though he is part of OT's legal team. At the very least, his beliefs about the best interests of the children vary considerably from the beliefs of the children. It should be noted, re point 2, that on the day of the children's incarceration, JLG appointed lawyers for the children.

I think that any adult who remembers the horrors of Charles Manson's "family" will probably note a distinct difference in the behaviours of Natalie and Squeaky. JMO, but I find it very strange that the only alternative WL has presented to JLG is juvenile detention. I find it hard to accept that he could find no relative or teacher or foster family willing to look after three well behaved children who are doing well in school, who have friends in their neighbourhood, and who need to be given space away from their parents?

IMO, WL has missed noting the strong possibility that these children are feeling abandoned by both parents on many different levels. That if gitana is right when she describes MET as crazy, then, IMO, MET may well have abandoned her role as mother emotionally. There are often feelings of abandonment in children of a first family when a parent physically is unavailable and the perception can exist that this has happened because of a preference for the second family. In effect, neither parent is meeting the needs of the three first family children. In addition to this abandonment, it seems to me that the children do not see the GAL as an advocate, but, instead, as an enemy. Instead of offering the help of competent therapy, WL insists on jail. Instead of seeing frightened children, he hears morse codes and sees murderous intent.

IMO, WL has utterly failed as a GAL in this case. Just as no teacher can suit all the needs of every student, I'm sure not every lawyer appointed as a GAL can meet all the needs of every client. WL probably has been successful many times in advocating for children during difficult divorces. However, this has been a very difficult and prolonged situation. Those of WL's statements which have been made public do not, IMO, cast him in a favourable light at this stage of this case.

As well, his perceived closeness to JLG, and OT's team, is not going to enhance the relationship of the children and OT, IMO.

 

[wendiesan]

The chain-link fence only looked like it was high enough to prevent balls from leaving the yard. Do you have pictures of the interior? Because I have yet to see a photo of a "jail". It sure looked like a playground on a school yard, complete with basketball courts.

I haven't found any photos of the interior.
However, these are some links that describe the purpose, the philosophy and the programs provided.
In light of JLG's threats to keep the children in Mandy's place for, in Natalie's case, nine years, it should be noted that the facility is not designed for that purpose and would be unsuitable housing for any human being for that length of time. It's not designed to be a used as a anything more than a short term holding facility.

Mandy's Place is short-term housing for children ages 0-18 who have been removed from their homes by the court due to neglect, abuse and status offenses. The children are waiting to return to their family, go to foster care, be placed in Children’s Village live-in program or to another agency. Our goal is to provide care, safety and security to the best of our ability until the Court or DHS has made a decision.

https://www.oakgov.com/village/Pages/about/shelter_care.aspx
https://www.oakgov.com/village/Pages/faq/FAQ.aspx
https://www.oakgov.com/village/Pages/program_service/default.aspx

I thought it was a very accessible site, and have included one Q&A as an example of the writing style used.

Q: Can I bring my child in to see what it's like at Oakland County Children's Village?

A: We are unable to provide tours of the facility for this purpose. If you are having difficulties with your child, you may want to contact Oakland County Youth Assistance (248-858-0055), Juvenile Intake (248-858-0033), or review the Circuit Court Programs & Services page.

​Very straight forward answers like this for all questions.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Neighbors described children as well behaved. When they were 'incarcerated" they were described as well behaved. Seems like "bad" behavior only comes out when they are being forced to meet with their father.In my opinion, father needs to let them be. It's not good for them to be dragged into court and to be forced to do something they don't want to do. Maybe he can try communicate with them through letters. I don't think children being removed from their mother and put in juvenile detention is going to help them to feel better about their father.
Father has a new wife and a new child. If you ask me, father needs to concentrate on that family so the same thing doesn't happen again.
It's like Solomon story about two parents claiming the child belongs to them, and Solomon saying he will split the baby in two.

BBM--it would appear that they very politely refused the court order.

The only reality that I am prepared to stand by to this point is that parents who have been using the court to settle custody disputes for over five years remain entangled in a highly dysfunctional relationship. And relationships are never one-sided. At this point, I would tend to hold that the mother has by far the greater influence over the children simply due to her contact and involvement.

The children have apparently refused cooperation with the GAL, and turned aside the best advice of court-appointed individual attorneys. While the judge could certainly benefit from some child psych courses, I agree with her on one thing. She has seen over the years a huge number of kids who have suffered abused at the hands of their parents. Their behavior does not fit with typical patterns. I do believe that the GAL and judge have it right in placing their behavior more into the category of Stockholm-syndrome-like over-identification with the custodian to the point of believing that the rest of the world stands against them. A break in maternal contact--however clumsily that may have been implemented--should bear that out.

 

[KaaBoom]

While I do think that the judge hoped that the threat of jail might put the fear of God into the kids--and therefore be preventative--the actual placement accomplished two things. One is that it removed contact with mom--who apparently has her own history of non-cooperation. The second is that it established the authority of the court. Sending the kids to camp accomplished something as well. It maintained both of the above, while bringing together the various adults in an alternative agreement. Of course--it is only 2 weeks, and something more permanent will have to be arranged.

No, it didn't accomplish any of that. This was an epic FAIL. She gave them an ultimatum. Have lunch with their dad, or go to jail until they turn 18. Then she let them out in two weeks. What message did that send to them? It sent the message that the court can't make them do anything they don't want to do. That will certainly make them less defiant, not.

The judge and the dad were in cohorts together, and they blundered it. The worst part is that they are both stupid enough, and probably won't give up. So the kids lives are pretty much wrecked at this point.

 

[Margo/Mom]

No, it didn't accomplish any of that. This was an epic FAIL. She gave them an ultimatum. Have lunch with their dad, or go to jail until they turn 18. Then she let them out in two weeks. What message did that send to them? It sent the message that the court can't make them do anything they don't want to do. That will certainly make them less defiant, not.

The judge and the dad were in cohorts together, and they blundered it. The worst part is that they are both stupid enough, and probably won't give up. So the kids lives are pretty much wrecked at this point.

Do you have some source to indicate collusion between the dad and the judge? That's a pretty serious charge.

In fact, the judge allowed the kids to go to camp after being presented with this as an option that met with the agreement of the adult parties, all involved attorneys and the GAL. She is still the primary decision-maker. And there have always been review dates set at which different possibilities might be considered, based on behavior/needs, etc. Based on reading through articles, and the comments made by Mom's attorney in the transcript, there is some history of Mom defying court orders--particularly having to do with denial of visitation and travel outside the country with the children, but also in refusing to inform the dad of the time, date and location of his son's bar mitzvah. Clearly her behavior has set an example demonstrating that the court is to be ignored at will--hardly a healthy and responsible environment for children, regardless how politely they may defer. Apparently an earlier court order (the article had no information on whether it was carried out) was for Mom to arrange a tour of Children's Villiage, so that they would be fully informed of the consequences of defying the court.

It is also troubling that a protective order was denied due to Mom's lack of follow-through to complete the process, suggesting to me that grounds were lacking (or that Mom is just disorganized and scattered--but this doesn't seem a good interpretation of a highly professional person with adequate legal representation).

 

[KaaBoom]

Do you have some source to indicate collusion between the dad and the judge? That's a pretty serious charge.

According to the judge, the mother is an awful evil woman, who has brainwashed her children like Charles Manson. Their father is a wonderful person loved by everybody, except his three ungrateful defiant children, and their mother. If you can't see the obvious bias there, there is nothing I can say.

 

[MyBelle]

According to the judge, the mother is an awful evil woman, who has brainwashed her children like Charles Manson. Their father is a wonderful person loved by everybody, except his three ungrateful defiant children, and their mother. If you can't see the obvious bias there, there is nothing I can say.

If you can't see the emotional abuse the mother has inflicted on her children there really isn't anything anybody here can say to you.

Parental alienation is a form of child abuse and the mother is guilty of it. The Judge has seen the evidence first-hand. The Judge's harsh, critical words had no effect on the children because they are used to it. Not sure why it is so difficult for some to figure that the children's reactions were a result of years of emotional abuse inflicted upon them.

I think abusive parents are evil and their children are better off in foster care where they can get the counseling and therapy they desperately need.
The Tsimhoni children are going to need years of counseling to unwind the damage their mother has inflicted.

JMO

 

[sorrell skye]

It is also troubling that a protective order was denied due to Mom's lack of follow-through to complete the process, suggesting to me that grounds were lacking (or that Mom is just disorganized and scattered--but this doesn't seem a good interpretation of a highly professional person with adequate legal representation).

snipped by me

I, too, was concerned when I read that she hadn't followed through with trying to obtain the order of protection.

But I reminded myself that there are multitudes of women (and men) who file for an emergency protection order, but then don't follow through at a subsequent hearing to extend the order. I reminded myself that there are many reasons why this happens - forgiveness toward the alleged abuser, fear of escalating the situation, denial of the seriousness of the situation, reconciliation with the alleged abuser, etc.

I don't know if any of the above apply to Dr. Tsimhoni, nor do I know if her allegations are true or false. I don't think her failure to follow through necessarily indicates that her allegations had no merit.

 

[Margo/Mom]

According to the judge, the mother is an awful evil woman, who has brainwashed her children like Charles Manson. Their father is a wonderful person loved by everybody, except his three ungrateful defiant children, and their mother. If you can't see the obvious bias there, there is nothing I can say.

Unless, of course the mother HAS in fact emotionally manipulated her children, and the father has in fact gone to great lengths to be a part of his children's lives.

I understood you to be suggesting something going even beyond bias, to the judge and father actually plotting and planning together.

I would imagine that is possible, stranger things have happened. But it is a serious allegation to make against someone without any more evidence than your own suspicion of bias.

 

[Margo/Mom]

snipped by me

I, too, was concerned when I read that she hadn't followed through with trying to obtain the order of protection.

But I reminded myself that there are multitudes of women (and men) who file for an emergency protection order, but then don't follow through at a subsequent hearing to extend the order. I reminded myself that there are many reasons why this happens - forgiveness toward the alleged abuser, fear of escalating the situation, denial of the seriousness of the situation, reconciliation with the alleged abuser, etc.

I don't know if any of the above apply to Dr. Tsimhoni, nor do I know if her allegations are true or false. I don't think her failure to follow through necessarily indicates that her allegations had no merit.

But it leaves Mom and kids without a legal leg to stand on when it comes to denying the father any and all access to his kids. Not to mention the judge.

But, again, these kids have been counseled, represented and Guardian Ad Litemed for five years now. How is it that in all that time there has been nothing to indicate to ANY of those professionals that these kids face any danger from their father--and in particularly any danger so severe as to preclude even lunch in the courthouse with their father? The GAL, and the judge, however have seen, and journalists have reported, some major attempts on the part of the mother to undermine any possible reconciliation between the children and their father.

 

[wendiesan]

I've been thinking about the incident in 2010 in which the children say the father threatened to kill them.

OT was a helicopter pilot in the Israeli air force, a very exacting position demanding a great deal of strength, endurance, nerves of steel and ultra-fast reflexes. (One of my nieces is married to a Navy officer who flew and participated in S&R missions and is now an instructor of military helicopter pilots.) http://media.gm.com/content/Pages/n...r/download_0/file.res/OmerTsimhoniProfile.pdf

So, if OT served during battles, or performing rescues in war zones, if he could well have developed symptoms of PTSD, even if symptoms did not appear for years after he separated from the air force. It's an aspect of military life that many people, including the veterans themselves, will not discuss. They may not seek treatment for it because it would be a sign of weakness. Or they may be denied treatment because higher-ups don't believe it exists. It's possible that if he had it, OT might not have recognized if for what it was.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...-stress-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20022540

Among the symptoms of PTSD listed by the Mayo Clinic are "irritability, angry outbursts or aggressive behaviour". I wonder whether there were incidents before the divorce and after the reconciliation that could have been affected by the disorder which would have frightened MET into acting the way she did. And, if there were, could it have been possible that an young Liam would have witnessed and remembered them?

When Liam spoke to JLG, he first said his father was violent, then he said he saw OT hit his mother. The order of the words makes me wonder if he saw his father reacting to something violently (especially from the perspective of an eight or nine year old) and became very frightened, not only for himself but for his siblings. This is not to say that OT would have hit the children, but a big man lashing out at something, especially if the cause isn't clear to the viewer, can be frightening. I think it's possible that Liam would now not trust his father because he remembers the emotional response he had to such a scene--if it happened.

Based on court documents, all of the rancor and animosity in the case appears to stem from an incident at a West Bloomfield park in August of 2010.
A scheduled visit with their father devolved into two of the children being locked in a car to protect themselves from him. The third child avoided him while perched atop a piece of playground equipment and later claimed that the father threatened to kill him if he did not get down. Police reports were filed after one of the children called 911 from inside the car and their mother claimed that the father struck her outside of the vehicle.
A West Bloomfield police report found no probable cause to make an arrest at the time, but the father later admitted that he took his son down by force in order to put him in a time-out.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/gene...ion-is-issue-in-bloomfield-hills-divorce-case

IMO, there are many fathers who would lose patience with a kid who climbs up on playground equipment and refuses to come down. Losing one's temper and yelling might not do much good, but I can see it happening. I can also see a nine-year old who thinks his father has abandoned him (and abandonment unsurprisingly has been identified as a prominent issue in this case) will punish him the only way he thinks he can. By withholding affection and obedience. My guess is obedience and discipline would be a big part of this household given the background and careers of the parents. However, given the dynamics already at play within this family group, an angry outburst by OT, followed by any physical contact with Liam, seems to have had the effect of terrifying all three children and their mother. Seemingly unreasonable, unless you blame the mother or you consider the possibility that the children had seen first hand something in the past that made them fear something terrible would happen now. When a big, strong man is angry, possibly yelling things he does not mean (like saying, "I could kill for for doing this.") what an adult will shrug off as of little or no consequence, a young child would take very, very seriously. The situation would have changed by the time the cops got there, so they would have missed any emotional display by OT, probably would not have seen him take Liam off the equipment, and would have seen nothing of worth with which to charge OT.

In fact, JLG made reference to everything being safe for the forced lunch, so she already knows the children are worried about their safety. But, she is dismissive of Liam's attempt to have her acknowledge that he has a valid fear. Instead JLG tells him there is no credible evidence of his father ever doing anything wrong (which Liam probably hears as "You are not a credible witness.") and goes into a tirade. She dismisses him as being anything but chattel.

Interestingly, JLG does not say that OT did not hit MET, nor does she say OT was not violent. I think that's an interesting omission.

 

[jjenny]

After the incident on the playground in 2010, children seem to be refusing to have anything to do with the father. They were 9, 5, and 4 then. If father lost his temper (considering he has admitted to forcefully removing his child from a top of playground equipment), I am not surprised that child thinks his father is violent.
Judge LG seems to think that unless fathers abuse the crap out of their children (she claims she saw children who have been raped by their fathers still wanting to talk with these fathers), it's all well and good.
Has she tried to look it from Tsimhoni children's prospective. First of all, father accepted a job in Israel and moved to Israel when his wife didn't want to move. So children feel abandoned by him.
Then there is an incident on the playground.
Then father spends most of his time in Israel, shows in the states in June, and apparently expects that children should be happy to see him.
Well, they aren't.
And I don't think that dragging them to court is helping them in any way.

 

[sorrell skye]

A couple of the judge's comments:

"There is no reason why you do not have a relationship with your father".

"I think your father is a great man who has gone through hoops for you to have a relationship with you."

http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/detnews/2015/pdf/showcausehearing_gorcyca.pdf

Question: How is living in Israel most of the year and only returning in June to visit his kids when school is out going "through hoops" to have a relationship with his children?

I'd say that living abroad the majority of these past five years (during the kids' most formative years) and only coming to the U.S. in the summer could be a very glaring reason why the kids don't have a "healthy" relationship with their father.

It was the father's decision to accept a job in Israel, despite his then-wife's wishes and reluctance/refusal to uproot her life/career and accompany him. He went anyway - which tells me a lot about who comes first in his mind and what his priorities were/are.

He basically abandoned his wife and children when he relocated overseas in November 2008. Apparently, he has only come to visit his children in the summer when school was out, according to the father's attorney in this Detroit Free Press article:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2015/07/09/jailed-kids/29944037/

Oh, but he claims to want a relationship with them? Can he not see how his own actions since 2008 have more than likely greatly contributed to his lack of relationship with his kids?

One cannot foster a bond with small children via phone calls, texts, e-mails, from thousands of miles away, anymore than one can force a child to have a "healthy relationship" with a parent after that child has been abandoned and has had little to no contact with the absentee parent for over 5 years.

The mother has been accused of alienating the children and a lot of blame has been heaped upon her because the kids no longer wish to have contact with their father, but, from I've read, it seems that the father only wants to see his kids when it's convenient to him and when it doesn't interfere with his career aspirations.

One cannot have a long-distance relationship with one's children. It just doesn't work that way. Parenting is an up close and personal endeavor - not a once a year event.

I think this father needs to take inventory and needs to examine his own life/career choices, rather than blaming his ex-wife for his problems.