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

[Margo/Mom]

This one really burns me up.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/33251577-story

Someone went to the trouble of finding out where the kids go to school and then flew a banner overhead that read: Mommy loves you - be strong - #free the kids. Someone snapped a picture of the kids watching it.

The claim is that Mom wasn't behind it.

I don't know it that makes it better or worse. On the one hand, Mom going to great lengths (again, one more time) to sabotage a therapeutically indicated protocol (and frankly I no longer care whether the person who conducted the 5 day workshop has any mental health credentials--so long as she is working in concert with some folks who do). Reminds me of the Wicked Witch of the West flying overhead on her broom to spell out "Surrender Dorothy." On the other hand, the possibility of random strangers essentially stalking some kids and interfering with a lawfully arrived at custody situation just totally creeps me out.

A mom who is capable of caring about her kids and putting their needs ahead of her own would have already (to my mind) put out a statement asking well-meaning folks to stay their distance and reassure them that all is for the best, she is cooperating with her own counseling requirements in order to be able to return to a position of presence in her children's lives and to let this be a family matter worked out between the parents and children, with the assistance of the courts.

The camp the kids were at this summer reportedly received threats while the kids were there. That should have been enough of a caution to the well-meaning folks who think that making every detail of the court action public is somehow helpful. These are kids, not adults, and they didn't ask for any of this. They deserve some privacy.

 

[jjenny]

I have no doubt that if mother were to talk to her supporters (even if to tell them to respect the "process") some people would start screaming that mother was breaking the gag order.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I have no doubt that if mother were to talk to her supporters (even if to tell them to respect the "process") some people would start screaming that mother was breaking the gag order.

Who do you have in mind? The only folks I have observed complaining that anyone was violating the gag order are Mom's supporters--and they claim that someone supporting Dad was violating it.

I notice, however, that none of the pro-Mom gang has stepped up either to condemn the action. Most are completely silent, but one tweeted a picture of the banner. Wonder who called Fox News? I really don't think this sort of action is contributing to the health and well-being of those kids.

 

[Hope4More]

This one really burns me up.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/33251577-story

Someone went to the trouble of finding out where the kids go to school and then flew a banner overhead that read: Mommy loves you - be strong - #free the kids. Someone snapped a picture of the kids watching it.

The claim is that Mom wasn't behind it.

I don't know it that makes it better or worse. On the one hand, Mom going to great lengths (again, one more time) to sabotage a therapeutically indicated protocol (and frankly I no longer care whether the person who conducted the 5 day workshop has any mental health credentials--so long as she is working in concert with some folks who do). Reminds me of the Wicked Witch of the West flying overhead on her broom to spell out "Surrender Dorothy." On the other hand, the possibility of random strangers essentially stalking some kids and interfering with a lawfully arrived at custody situation just totally creeps me out.

A mom who is capable of caring about her kids and putting their needs ahead of her own would have already (to my mind) put out a statement asking well-meaning folks to stay their distance and reassure them that all is for the best, she is cooperating with her own counseling requirements in order to be able to return to a position of presence in her children's lives and to let this be a family matter worked out between the parents and children, with the assistance of the courts.

The camp the kids were at this summer reportedly received threats while the kids were there. That should have been enough of a caution to the well-meaning folks who think that making every detail of the court action public is somehow helpful. These are kids, not adults, and they didn't ask for any of this. They deserve some privacy.

Disgusting. What is wrong with these people???!

Those kids are REAL. Their pain and confusion and sadness and fear are REAL. The public should never have heard anything at all about the ongoing warfare between this mom and dad, much less about their kids, and what happens in that courtroom is none of anyone's business to know about, much less to try to influence.

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM. I agree-- I think the best plan with these cases is NOT to try to define a new "syndrome". Thinking about all of the successfully prosecuted "Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome" criminal cases, the most effective approach seems to be to avoid giving the behaviors a diagnostic title. Often when there is a "syndrome" invoked in charging language, the defense is easily able to get that thrown out because the accused hasn't been "officially" diagnosed with MBPS, therefore there can "be" no MBPS. Insisting on using a diagnosis like MBPS also puts the emphasis in court on the pathology of the parent, and not the EFFECT of the behaviors on the child-- which is child abuse (medical or otherwise).

I think PAS is kind of in the same boat-- if there is a rush to make these behaviors fit into a newly defined syndrome, then the court process (as Margo/ Mom points out with Daubert), will necessarily be on TESTING the criteria for the syndrome diagnosis, and again, NOT on the effect of the behaviors on the children.

I'm fine with PAS being defined as a colloquial term, but I don't think it's beneficial to work to have it added to the DSM or something. Abuse is abuse, manipulation is manipulation-- the focus (especially in family courts) should always be on the EFFECT of the parental behavior on the child-- not on the pathology of the parent.

The role of the court is to make decisions about the best interests of the child-- not to diagnose pathology in a parent. They can DESCRIBE the pathological behaviors without putting a label on them-- I just think that ultimately that strategy would be a whole lot more effective than battling out a new diagnostic syndrome. :twocents:

BBM

I think that most practitioners that I have read would be in agreement with you on that. I think that the field has moved on from Gardner--who first proposed the syndrome--to a broader and deeper understanding that looks at issues like "enmeshment," the overall mental health of the pathological parent (another current term--as opposed to "alienator"), and attachment difficulties.

And we know that mental health diagnoses and the requirements of a court of law are often two very different things ("insane" for instance is legal term, not a diagnostic one). Mom's cheerleaders seem to rely on two things. One is a lot of old responses to Gardner (and in research, 5 years is generally old and 10 pretty much out of date). The other is "prove that she did it." There are times when it is necessary to protect children without an eye witness to the abuse. A kid with bruised and bleeding buttocks--if discovered by a mandated reporter--is likely to be removed immediately, even if they are too young to provide their own account of the injury. Even in instances where the child protects their abuser (happens all the time, folks) with a story of a school bully or falling down the stairs.

As I see it, these kids, under different circumstances and given their particular behaviors and the observed behavior of their mom over time, would have been headed off to foster care. As I see it, the judge acted in such a way as to avoid a state removal because they have a father available who has shown a consistent interest in parenting them. It looks to me like the Children's Village placement--and summer camp--were about giving Dad sufficient time to get permanently established in Michigan in a residence with sufficient bedrooms and so forth to bring them home--and to file for the permanent change in custody.

According to transcripts, the prosecuting attorney (who apparently just happened to be around on the day that the kids were refusing to enter the courtroom) wanted to file neglect charges on the mom, who was apparently acting like an uninvolved bystander while her kids acted out their terror. Not a word of reassurance that neither the court, nor their father, were entities to be feared--or that they are strong kids and they can handle this, or in any way addressing their emotional state.

 

[Margo/Mom]

View attachment 20151014_BRIEF_FLD_AMD_IN_SUPPT_OF_PLF_MTN_DISQUALIFICATION_064450371.pdf

This is the filing in support of appeal (of the judge's decision not to recuse herself). I am not an attorney and I have not had time to consider it thoroughly. However, my quick assessment is that it is simply a rehash of the original request to recuse--with all of the original weaknesses (vague references to "the record" without specific documentation provided). Not sure if any of the original weaknesses were responded to--there may be more specifics provided, not sure without a side-by-side reading.

My question--of any who actually are attorneys--has to do with whether or not an appeal has to have some grounds, beyond simply not liking the original ruling? oughtn't there be some flaws in the ruling itself pointed out? And wouldn't the appeal be limited to that?

Or maybe this is just an addendum and there is a request for appeal that I have missed.

 

[Margo/Mom]

View attachment 82979

This is the filing in support of appeal (of the judge's decision not to recuse herself). I am not an attorney and I have not had time to consider it thoroughly. However, my quick assessment is that it is simply a rehash of the original request to recuse--with all of the original weaknesses (vague references to "the record" without specific documentation provided). Not sure if any of the original weaknesses were responded to--there may be more specifics provided, not sure without a side-by-side reading.

My question--of any who actually are attorneys--has to do with whether or not an appeal has to have some grounds, beyond simply not liking the original ruling? oughtn't there be some flaws in the ruling itself pointed out? And wouldn't the appeal be limited to that?

Or maybe this is just an addendum and there is a request for appeal that I have missed.

I did find the earlier request. View attachment 20151006_MOTION_FLD_EMRG-TO_DISQUALIFY_TRIAL_JUDGE-PLF_064420815-1.pdf

It is long.

However, yet another update. The appeals judge (Nanci Grant) has asked for a reassignment. Apparently she is friends with Judge Gorcyca. No point in providing grounds for further appeals.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I don't know if there is already a thread somewhere on this one, but it has similarities. An alienation case in which the Judge granted custody to the Dad--with some additional comments about the Mom's mental health issues. The two oldest ran away/disappeared shortly after placement and following a Fox News (ain't it always) interview in which they claimed abuse at the hands of their dad.

Latest wrinkle is that Mom has just been arrested in Florida (the case started in Minnesota) for criminal interference with custody. Still no hint as to the location of the girls. Several interesting features. One, of course, is that not only is there any evidence of the claimed abuse by Dad, but there have been no reported instances of suspicion since the placement, and apparently there are younger children still in his care. The second is that the case was appeals all the way to the Supreme Court without any findings in Mom's favor. But then there is also the implication in the article that the girls were aided in their disappearance by "passionate" people who believe that there is corruption in the Family Court system. I have certainly seen evidence of that in the Michigan case--and particularly that daring airplane banner, thumbing the nose of the powers that be, and, to my mind, blatantly interfering with court-approved custody.
http://www.startribune.com/mother-s-arrest-brings-police-no-closer-to-children/334816641/

 

[Margo/Mom]

View attachment 329406(25)_order.pdf

The appeals court granted an immediate hearing and turned down the appeal, essentially citing a lack of grounds to overturn the original decision (in which Judge Gorcyca refused the request that she recuse herself).

Haven't heard any shouting from the Mom's group yet.

 

[Margo/Mom]

OK--trying again without a quote from the FB group.View attachment 20151102_PETITION_FLD_GAL-RE_ASSIGN_A_JUDGE_TO_RULE-ETC_064502325-1.pdf

Looks like there is some potential movement, along with concerns having to do with death threats and intrusion (such as the airplane banner) into the children's lives.

Looks like a request for the judge who passed on review of the recusal request/decision to appoint somebody for a one time in camera (which I think means not open to the public?) session to make some decisions of immediate importance.

 

[LinasK]

Because I have read every single post in this thread supporting the father, and they all seem to come down to father's rights. Which is fine, but that is empathizing with the father, not the children. The kids were happy and doing just fine with the mother. They just needed to be left alone.

I admit I'm not a supporter of father's rights. I'm almost 100% for mother's rights. But if this situation was reversed, and the kids had been living with their father for the last eight years, he was taking care of them, the kids were happy and doing well, I'd say the same thing. They are happy, leave them alone with the father. Why disrupt the kids lives with a custody change, when they are doing fine where they are at?

Kids are not property, and they shouldn't be treated as such by the courts. Parent's right's should not trump the children's rights, ever.

She kidnapped the children from Israel, that's why he wasn't in their lives for a long time. You fail to notice that point. I usually support the mother's rights, but not when this mother is as whacko and destructive as Linda Clooney- who got away with murdering her husband and still brainwashed her sons- even the one whom she attempted to murder- she got him to believe he attempted suicide!!!

 

[Margo/Mom]

She kidnapped the children from Israel, that's why he wasn't in their lives for a long time. You fail to notice that point. I usually support the mother's rights, but not when this mother is as whacko and destructive as Linda Clooney- who got away with murdering her husband and still brainwashed her sons- even the one whom she attempted to murder- she got him to believe he attempted suicide!!!

There are a couple of hopeful notes. One is that the GAL notes that the parties have been generally cooperative, although apparently at an impasse on some specifics. Another is that Mom has apparently made an initial foray into counseling--although her counselor has apparently not been in contact with the case manager or coordinating mental health person overseeing the reunification efforts. Further, the court has apparently (so far as standing orders at this time) made such cooperation a baseline requirement for initiating contact with the kids.

But I also see some hope in the stand that the leading FB group in support of Mom has taken, not only to distance itself from both the airplane banner incident and a rumored demonstration that was possibly being planned outside of the school, but also to point out to fans that this kind of thing is really dangerous to be playing around with. Pointed out that school was really a place of safety for the kids--and it had been intruded upon. Soooo--I don't know who got to them, if it was Mom reaching out and asking them to cool it, or if there were law enforcement types looking into their activities, or if somebody just woke up one day and realized that the whole banner things was decidedly creepy and that maybe they had best not be stirring the pot. But, I am glad for any glimmers of sanity.

 

[KaaBoom]

She kidnapped the children from Israel, that's why he wasn't in their lives for a long time. You fail to notice that point.

<modsnip>

First, by definition kidnaping is to take someone away illegally by force. She didn&#8217;t use any force. She took the children to Israel voluntarily and she brought them back voluntarily three months later. If that is kidnaping, then any parent who has ever taken their children on a vacation and returned is guilty of kidnaping. She also didn&#8217;t do anything illegal. The father already tried to argue that in court and lost. The court ruled that she had a legal right to bring the children back from Israel.

Second it was not the mother&#8217;s doings that separated the father from his kids. That was his decision and his decision alone when he decided to leave his family and move to Israel in November 2008, against the mother&#8217;s wishes. Because of that she filed for divorce in January 2009. Before that went through, he convinced her to reconcile and to bring the children to Israel and try to live there. So she reluctantly brought the children to Israel in September 2009. It didn&#8217;t work out. The children didn&#8217;t like the schools there. They were not happy, so the mother brought them back to the US three months later. She then again filed for divorce.

Again It was the fathers decision to move to Israel in 2008 that was the reason he was separated from his kids. The father was already out of their lives when she brought the kids there for that short visit a year later.

It&#8217;s all in the court documents linked below. But I know that your mind is already made up, so you are probably not even going to read them.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4jy2q37q...O_MTN_SHOW_CAUSE-🤬🤬🤬-DFT_054389541-1.pdf?dl=0

 

[LinasK]

There are a couple of hopeful notes. One is that the GAL notes that the parties have been generally cooperative, although apparently at an impasse on some specifics. Another is that Mom has apparently made an initial foray into counseling--although her counselor has apparently not been in contact with the case manager or coordinating mental health person overseeing the reunification efforts. Further, the court has apparently (so far as standing orders at this time) made such cooperation a baseline requirement for initiating contact with the kids.

But I also see some hope in the stand that the leading FB group in support of Mom has taken, not only to distance itself from both the airplane banner incident and a rumored demonstration that was possibly being planned outside of the school, but also to point out to fans that this kind of thing is really dangerous to be playing around with. Pointed out that school was really a place of safety for the kids--and it had been intruded upon. Soooo--I don't know who got to them, if it was Mom reaching out and asking them to cool it, or if there were law enforcement types looking into their activities, or if somebody just woke up one day and realized that the whole banner things was decidedly creepy and that maybe they had best not be stirring the pot. But, I am glad for any glimmers of sanity.

Somehow, I seriously doubt the mother had an epiphany and asked them not to fly the plane banner, in fact it sounds more to me like her kind of stunt.

 

[LinasK]

<modsnip>

First, by definition kidnaping is to take someone away illegally by force. She didn’t use any force. She took the children to Israel voluntarily and she brought them back voluntarily three months later. If that is kidnaping, then any parent who has ever taken their children on a vacation and returned is guilty of kidnaping. She also didn’t do anything illegal. The father already tried to argue that in court and lost. The court ruled that she had a legal right to bring the children back from Israel.

Second it was not the mother’s doings that separated the father from his kids. That was his decision and his decision alone when he decided to leave his family and move to Israel in November 2008, against the mother’s wishes. Because of that she filed for divorce in January 2009. Before that went through, he convinced her to reconcile and to bring the children to Israel and try to live there. So she reluctantly brought the children to Israel in September 2009. It didn’t work out. The children didn’t like the schools there. They were not happy, so the mother brought them back to the US three months later. She then again filed for divorce.

Again It was the fathers decision to move to Israel in 2008 that was the reason he was separated from his kids. The father was already out of their lives when she brought the kids there for that short visit a year later.

It’s all in the court documents linked below. But I know that your mind is already made up, so you are probably not even going to read them.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4jy2q37q...O_MTN_SHOW_CAUSE-🤬🤬🤬-DFT_054389541-1.pdf?dl=0

International parental kidnappings do not require force and she's not the first parent to do it. I just watched an old episode of either 48 hours or 20/20 last night- forget which, in which the father was Italian/mother American and he kidnapped without court permission his young daughter to Italy while the mother was living in the U.S. There have been many other cases like this including to Arabic countries... That's just one example that I can think of recently.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Somehow, I seriously doubt the mother had an epiphany and asked them not to fly the plane banner, in fact it sounds more to me like her kind of stunt.

The question in my mind for some time has been how much contact there has been between Mom and the FB groupies. One or two folks actually attend court hearings--and seem to have been present before the press was called in--so I suspect that there is some overlap. The plane incident disturbed me because it either was a demonstration of how far Mom is willing to go in terms of shooting herself in the foot in order to prove herself the winning parent, or a demonstration of how far some of the supposedly disconnected cheerleaders were willing to go to determine the schedule and location of the kids. Both options totally creep me out. But the issue of who hired the plane is certainly a knowable quantity, and whether it was Mom's credit card or somebody else's that paid for it, it would seem as though there could be some potential charges (stalking, perhaps).

Several of Mom's cheerleaders have semi-public personae now, either because of the case or because they were already headed in that direction. Shawna Shakespeare--who was using the family name in a twitter hashtag was contacted by Dad's attorney through yahoo and as a result "outed" herself as being the twitter owner, but also living in Minnesota. Hope Loudon--also from elsewhere in the country--claims a "similar" history to the children, that is she was placed with a (apparently non-abusive) father while she and her sister preferred living with Mom. They ended up in juvenile detention when they refused to leave school with Dad one day (apparently as high schoolers)--and claim victimhood at the hands of family court (their version of their own unruliness is that it was an act of civil disobediance). She has written several articles pro-mom/anti-family court for the Huffington Post.

But, there are also several Michiganders (yes, they call themselves that), with more apparent first hand knowledge. Given the near-religious adherence to a party line that believes that family courts are universally corrupt, fathers seeking custody are universally abusive, and that mothers in divorce situations are universally disadvantaged, I worry for the safety of these kids--particularly in light of the banner (invasion of privacy)--but also discussions (rumblings according to the GAL) of protests at the school.

So--I hope that perhaps somebody put the fear of God into them. But, I fear that they are simply putting up a front while making other plans.

 

[LinasK]

International parental kidnappings do not require force and she's not the first parent to do it. I just watched an old episode of either 48 hours or 20/20 last night- forget which, in which the father was Italian/mother American and he kidnapped without court permission his young daughter to Italy while the mother was living in the U.S. There have been many other cases like this including to Arabic countries... That's just one example that I can think of recently.

Another big parental kidnapping was just in the news in the last couple of days- a toddler from Alabama was kidnapper by his father and raised in Ohio with a false name. The boy is now 18 and when he went to apply for college, they discovered his Social Security number was fake and his high school counselor discovered he was registered with NCMEC as a missing child! The father is now facing charges.

 

[jjenny]

Another big parental kidnapping was just in the news in the last couple of days- a toddler from Alabama was kidnapper by his father and raised in Ohio with a false name. The boy is now 18 and when he went to apply for college, they discovered his Social Security number was fake and his high school counselor discovered he was registered with NCMEC as a missing child! The father is now facing charges.

And what does that have to do with a price of tea in China? That father was arrested because it appears he took child without mother's permission and never told the mother where the child was.
In the case we are discussing, mother was neither arrested nor charged with anything. Children are US citizens and were born in US. In fact father failed to convince a judge that children established residence in Israel. There was no kidnapping here.

 

[Margo/Mom]

And what does that have to do with a price of tea in China? That father was arrested because it appears he took child without mother's permission and never told the mother where the child was.
In the case we are discussing, mother was neither arrested nor charged with anything. Children are US citizens and were born in US. In fact father failed to convince a judge that children established residence in Israel. There was no kidnapping here.

What worries me is that we have a wacko Mom with a wacko following, apparently willing to intrude into these kids' school lives. A number of them are quite well insulated from facts and evidence and completely unwilling to place any trust in the courts, CPS, or anyone else when it comes to making decisions regarding these or any other kids. There have been cases of parental abduction and there are organizations of folks willing to help them go underground to evade the basic forces of law and order. According to the GAL there have been death threats--against whom I do not know specifically, but there are certainly a lot of weirdos tossing a lot of venum in the direction of Dad, the Judge, the GAL, social workers, etc, etc, etc. I would say that concern is not off base.

 

[Margo/Mom]

View attachment 20151109_RESPONSE_FLD_SUPPT-OPPOSE_GAL_PTN-🤬🤬🤬-PLF_064529251.pdf

A lot going on, apparently. The attached is nominally Mom's response to the GAL's request for a limited in camera hearing. It (the GAL's request) may have been denied (unconfirmed, according to a tweet). However, the response here seems to be covering the waterfront and doing more to either lay the groundwork for opposition to Dad's request for change in custody, or else just playing to the internet.

There's a bunch of stuff opposing the concept of parental alienation--presumably aimed at requesting a Daubert hearing to discount any mental health folks who might testify to what has been going on with the kids.

There are also some inflammatory statements about the "dire" state of the kids, alleging that their physical and mental health are "deteriorating." According to whom is difficult to tell as all documentation has been submitted under seal (appropriate, still frustrating to observers).

There does seem to be some haggling over mental health counseling--which may have been the GAL's initial concern. Mom's filing makes claims of "unilateral" replacement of counselors--claiming that Dad fired a counselor who was going to bring Mom, Dad and kids all together. Also a claim that whoever is currently counseling (referred to as the "unauthorized" counselor) has suggested separating the kids by putting one in foster care and another being sent to a wilderness camp. If true, this would raise red flags for me. However, based on prior history, I am skeptical. I would, however, be extremely leery of any return to Mom's care without considerable evidence of intensive mental health services and evidence of change on her part. And I simply do not see anything in any filings that convince me that Mom is even thinking about complying with that sort of thing.