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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #841

Read through the information. Emancipation requires a demonstration that the child is self-supporting, typically must be agreed to by the parent (unless the child is able to demonstrate that the parent has not contributed to their financial upkeep). Not something that a kid can do just because they don't happen to like who they were born to. And for good reason. Emancipating a child who is not truly capable of being independent simply transfers their dependence--sometimes to the state, but sadly also opens the possibility of being vulnerable to exploitation from others willing to provide (traffickers and the like).

Frankly I find the whole notion--being articulated by a few--that children should be empowered to dump their parents at will speaks to a shockingly permissive view of child-rearing. Makes me wonder if such advocates have children and are raising their own children in such a permissive atmosphere, or are simply applying such views to other people's children.
 
  • #842
Life is not fair. No matter how this situation is handled, it will seem "unfair" to some of those involved.

A number of things can happen:

Mother retains full custody.

Father gets full custody and children and other family members adjust well.

Father gets custody and blended family fails to function well.

Father gets custody and takes all children to Israel with him.

Father keeps youngest ( she's helpful with baby) and fosters out

middle child; sends oldest to wilderness camp or other juvenile restriction situation.

Parents share custody; it's successfully maintained and kids are happy.

Parents share custody and kids are unhappy.

The feelings of the 'second family' need also to be considered.

Someone-perhaps everyone- may be very unhappy with what is decided.
 
  • #843
Life is not fair. No matter how this situation is handled, it will seem "unfair" to some of those involved.

A number of things can happen:

Mother retains full custody.

Father gets full custody and children and other family members adjust well.

Father gets custody and blended family fails to function well.

Father gets custody and takes all children to Israel with him.

Father keeps youngest ( she's helpful with baby) and fosters out

middle child; sends oldest to wilderness camp or other juvenile restriction situation.

Parents share custody; it's successfully maintained and kids are happy.

Parents share custody and kids are unhappy.

The feelings of the 'second family' need also to be considered.

Someone-perhaps everyone- may be very unhappy with what is decided.


I agree.

Leaving aside everything that did or did not happen and all fault finding, what is happening now with those kids is incredibly sad, and however it turns out they will not suddenly magically be OK because the legal battle is over.


I don't believe Mom will retain full custody,,but if she does the kids will be deprived (IMO) of a loving father for at least as long as the remainder of what's left of their childhood.

If dad gets full custody and she is denied all visitation rights (equally unlikely), the kids will be deprived of the mother who, at least in their own minds, loves them absolutely. Can't imagine how they wouldn't hate their father for that for a very long time, no matter what the realities, and no matter if they eventually adjust.

( Fact is, there is no way in that arrangement that the kids could be prevented from being in contact with their mom online or by phone anyway, which means endless cruel tugs of war).

I imagine the enormous difficulty facing the judge is deciding if and how the kids can have both parents in their lives without the continuation of all this corrosive, unhealthy and psychologically damaging drama.

It seems like she's convinced (right or wrong) that dad is not abusive, that mom can't be trusted to play by the rules, and that mom needs help and isn't getting it.

If that's her take, I imagine dad will get full custody and she will have a step program of visitation rights, beginning with limited monitored visits outside her home, and opening up based on her abiding by conditions that she's in counseling and checks that the kids aren't damaged by her visits.
 
  • #844
I agree.

Leaving aside everything that did or did not happen and all fault finding, what is happening now with those kids is incredibly sad, and however it turns out they will not suddenly magically be OK because the legal battle is over.


I don't believe Mom will retain full custody,,but if she does the kids will be deprived (IMO) of a loving father for at least as long as the remainder of what's left of their childhood.

If dad gets full custody and she is denied all visitation rights (equally unlikely), the kids will be deprived of the mother who, at least in their own minds, loves them absolutely. Can't imagine how they wouldn't hate their father for that for a very long time, no matter what the realities, and no matter if they eventually adjust.

( Fact is, there is no way in that arrangement that the kids could be prevented from being in contact with their mom online or by phone anyway, which means endless cruel tugs of war).

I imagine the enormous difficulty facing the judge is deciding if and how the kids can have both parents in their lives without the continuation of all this corrosive, unhealthy and psychologically damaging drama.

It seems like she's convinced (right or wrong) that dad is not abusive, that mom can't be trusted to play by the rules, and that mom needs help and isn't getting it.

If that's her take, I imagine dad will get full custody and she will have a step program of visitation rights, beginning with limited monitored visits outside her home, and opening up based on her abiding by conditions that she's in counseling and checks that the kids aren't damaged by her visits.

BBM--nice summary.

Following some of the comments on the various news articles, there is a substantial--or at least very vocal--component that disagrees with each of those beliefs on the part of the judge.

Very sad, because I do believe that what is best for the kids will be a plan that includes contact and a role for each parent. But I do not see how that will be possible without some substantial help for Mom (not to mention a fair amount of support for Dad--let's face it his parenting challenges with a male teen who has been conditioned to reject his father are immense). And frankly the cheering squad (including stunts like that airplane banner) are not the least bit helpful.
 
  • #845
. But I do not see how that will be possible without some substantial help for Mom (not to mention a fair amount of support for Dad--let's face it his parenting challenges with a male teen who has been conditioned to reject his father are immense). And frankly the cheering squad (including stunts like that airplane banner) are not the least bit helpful.

BBM
The father would have parenting challenges regardless because he has chosen to spend most of their young lives living out of the country 90% of the time. Even if his 30 day visitations were all lollipops and roses, he hardly knows those kids, nor they him.
 
  • #846
BBM--nice summary.

Following some of the comments on the various news articles, there is a substantial--or at least very vocal--component that disagrees with each of those beliefs on the part of the judge.

Very sad, because I do believe that what is best for the kids will be a plan that includes contact and a role for each parent. But I do not see how that will be possible without some substantial help for Mom (not to mention a fair amount of support for Dad--let's face it his parenting challenges with a male teen who has been conditioned to reject his father are immense). And frankly the cheering squad (including stunts like that airplane banner) are not the least bit helpful.


The "cheering squad" needs to pipe down, or better yet, vamoose altogether. Their interference is beyond the pale. Almost all of them are strangers to the kids and the estranged parents, have no knowledge whatsoever of what's really going on, and are viewing and acting on the situation through the murk of their own baggage.

Maybe they need to be instructed this is real life, not an interactive reality show, and every single person in that splintered family is in a huge amount of pain. A modicum of compassion for each and all of them seems more in order than freak stunts and sneaky approaches that seem to be further undermining the kids' well being.
 
  • #847
Apparently they are on Gorcyca's docket this week (Dec 2), but I don't know on what issue. There was a request for peremptory reversal of the current custody arrangement that was turned down by the appeals court owing to a lack of evidence to support manifest error. I am not clear that the issue is dead, however. There was some language about permission to file appeals being included in other filings?

My guess is that the hearing this week might be a take stock opportunity--given the failure of appeals. I don't know if there are higher levels of appeal available.
 
  • #848
BBM
The father would have parenting challenges regardless because he has chosen to spend most of their young lives living out of the country 90% of the time. Even if his 30 day visitations were all lollipops and roses, he hardly knows those kids, nor they him.

And we know his visitations weren't all lollipops and roses.
Yet this guy apparently thinks he can raise the children full time. Or at least one of the children, the youngest one, I presume.
 
  • #849
And we know his visitations weren't all lollipops and roses.
Yet this guy apparently thinks he can raise the children full time. Or at least one of the children, the youngest one, I presume.

Mom and her cheerleading squad have done an incredible job of controlling the public narrative.

Reading carefully, Mom told police and CPS in 2009 and 2010 that Dad had no history of violence or abuse towards herself or the children. And we know that all contact since then has been supervised, with the overwhelming majority of contact being in public places. Yet, there is a prevailing opinion in some circles that Dad is a violent abuser with a history of rages and out of control behavior.

If we look honestly at the source for a good bit of what is commonly believed about Dad, it all (including the CPS involvement) tracks back to Mom. Even the narrative that says that the kids claim there has been abuse relies heavily on things (like Dad threatened them in Hebrew) that Mom has attributed to the kids. And yet Mom refused to allow open discussion of these things when meeting with the parenting time assessor.
 
  • #850
Mom and her cheerleading squad have done an incredible job of controlling the public narrative.

Reading carefully, Mom told police and CPS in 2009 and 2010 that Dad had no history of violence or abuse towards herself or the children. And we know that all contact since then has been supervised, with the overwhelming majority of contact being in public places. Yet, there is a prevailing opinion in some circles that Dad is a violent abuser with a history of rages and out of control behavior.

If we look honestly at the source for a good bit of what is commonly believed about Dad, it all (including the CPS involvement) tracks back to Mom. Even the narrative that says that the kids claim there has been abuse relies heavily on things (like Dad threatened them in Hebrew) that Mom has attributed to the kids. And yet Mom refused to allow open discussion of these things when meeting with the parenting time assessor.

Awesome post!

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk
 
  • #851
View attachment 2015-11-24-JUDGE-DENY-DISQUAL-MOTION.pdf

Here is the complete text of the ruling on the appeal of Mom's request for disqualification of Judge Gorcyca.

Pretty much echoed Gorcyca's legal argument. Turned down based on two things: lack of evidence of bias; and lack of timeliness with regard to filing. Seems to be something like about a 14-day window for filings of bias, and in relationship to a particular ruling. So far as I can tell, Mom's filing included a laundry list of this, that and the other going back over the years of the case. Even setting aside the timeliness issue and focusing on the July removal of the children to Mandy's Place (and statements made at that time), the Judge found that events and comments, considered in context, while extreme, were not out of line.

Also commented that the measures taken have produced progress. Mentioned as well Mom's difficulty in maintaining representation over time.

Wednesday's hearing should be interesting.
 
  • #852
View attachment 85040

Here is the complete text of the ruling on the appeal of Mom's request for disqualification of Judge Gorcyca.

Pretty much echoed Gorcyca's legal argument. Turned down based on two things: lack of evidence of bias; and lack of timeliness with regard to filing. Seems to be something like about a 14-day window for filings of bias, and in relationship to a particular ruling. So far as I can tell, Mom's filing included a laundry list of this, that and the other going back over the years of the case. Even setting aside the timeliness issue and focusing on the July removal of the children to Mandy's Place (and statements made at that time), the Judge found that events and comments, considered in context, while extreme, were not out of line.

Also commented that the measures taken have produced progress. Mentioned as well Mom's difficulty in maintaining representation over time.

Wednesday's hearing should be interesting.



Great news!!! that the ruling says the kids are beginning to bond with their father, have been doing well, and are on the way to doing even better. The kids are in dire shape and deteroriating ? I'll trust the judge's word over that assessment by mom.

the ruling also made clear that mom is accountable for the process taking as long as it has. Her own non- compliance with the court has been the issue, and the ruling strongly suggests mom is unstable, needs help, and that she must get that help or risk losing custody.

As a bonus, the ruling also says mom's attempt to remove Judge G is blatant judge- shopping, didn't happen til mom thought she'd lose custody ruling, and hey...Judge G is doing a perfectly fine job and yah, its understandable she 's frustrated.

If mom loves those kids she'll be thrilled to hear they are OK. Somehow.....doubt that's how she'll feel.
 
  • #853
Great news!!! that the ruling says the kids are beginning to bond with their father, have been doing well, and are on the way to doing even better. The kids are in dire shape and deteroriating ? I'll trust the judge's word over that assessment by mom.

the ruling also made clear that mom is accountable for the process taking as long as it has. Her own non- compliance with the court has been the issue, and the ruling strongly suggests mom is unstable, needs help, and that she must get that help or risk losing custody.

As a bonus, the ruling also says mom's attempt to remove Judge G is blatant judge- shopping, didn't happen til mom thought she'd lose custody ruling, and hey...Judge G is doing a perfectly fine job and yah, its understandable she 's frustrated.

If mom loves those kids she'll be thrilled to hear they are OK. Somehow.....doubt that's how she'll feel.

My experience with people both in real life and on the interwebs is that very few folks who lose custody see the light, rejoice that someone was there to take care of their kids and resolve to do better. And those who do in fact see the light are typically addicts who end up in treatment and recovery, where owning up to past behavior is part of the path to getting better.

It strikes me that a number of the more strident voices in Mom's choir have their own stories and are refighting lost battles vicariously. If they can "prove" that it was a bad/corrupt system, or an evil ex-spouse who done 'em wrong (or a malicious neighbor or hateful teacher who turned them in), then they don't have to face up to their own role.

I am still sad to see Mom taking on the Judge and the court rather than diving into a plan for doing things differently. I don't honestly know if she is capable of the required level of introspection--still, one always hopes.
 
  • #854
My experience with people both in real life and on the interwebs is that very few folks who lose custody see the light, rejoice that someone was there to take care of their kids and resolve to do better. And those who do in fact see the light are typically addicts who end up in treatment and recovery, where owning up to past behavior is part of the path to getting better.

It strikes me that a number of the more strident voices in Mom's choir have their own stories and are refighting lost battles vicariously. If they can "prove" that it was a bad/corrupt system, or an evil ex-spouse who done 'em wrong (or a malicious neighbor or hateful teacher who turned them in), then they don't have to face up to their own role.

I am still sad to see Mom taking on the Judge and the court rather than diving into a plan for doing things differently. I don't honestly know if she is capable of the required level of introspection--still, one always hopes.



You are more generous than I am about this mother, as I don't believe "introspection" is what she's lacking, if we understand that word in the same way.

It seems that one or the other is true of this mom, though I suppose chicken and egg could apply as well:

1. She is so consumed by hatred of her husband that she's willing to destroy her own kid's sense of emotional reality and security in order to hurt him. (Get intensive counseling, mom, and hope your kids forgive you).

2. She's so damaged in some way that she actually believes what she's saying about her husband and has infected her children with those beliefs, causing them serious psychological damage. (Get intensive counseling, mom. And hope your kids forgive you).
 
  • #855
You are more generous than I am about this mother, as I don't believe "introspection" is what she's lacking, if we understand that word in the same way.

It seems that one or the other is true of this mom, though I suppose chicken and egg could apply as well:

1. She is so consumed by hatred of her husband that she's willing to destroy her own kid's sense of emotional reality and security in order to hurt him. (Get intensive counseling, mom, and hope your kids forgive you).

2. She's so damaged in some way that she actually believes what she's saying about her husband and has infected her children with those beliefs, causing them serious psychological damage. (Get intensive counseling, mom. And hope your kids forgive you).

I do tend to fall into the camp of viewing Mom as having been damaged--very likely quite early on in life and way before her marriage and becoming a parent. I know that even in many intact families--that look very normal on the outside--children can be subtly traumatized to the extent that without intervention of some form their adult relationships tend to be "disordered."

I have also been following the Grazzini-Rucki case, which has some similarities in my mind, although in that case the two older daughters disappeared just after a custodial change. They went on their local Fox News Station to say that they were fleeing abuse by their father. Mother was recently found and arrested, and the two girls (after 2-3 years underground) located on a horse farm. Mom was likely aided and abetted in hiding the girls by network of "protective parents," many of whom sound a lot like the Mom's cheerleaders--believe that all Family Courts are corrupt, that non-custodial fathers are all abusers and should stay non-custodial. Couple of other similarities. One is that the court had laid out for Grazzini-Rucki a path back into her children's lives, through counseling. She chose instead to kidnap (2 of the) kids.

Anyway--led me to look into some of the child abduction research--which would appear to be pretty extensive, and doesn't rely on a diagnosis of "alienation," but rather whether or not a criminal act of abduction has taken place. While high-conflict divorce (or separation in the case of the never-married) is a pretty common thread, researchers have also identified some distinct profiles. And abductors look to me like an extension of alienators.

Profile 3: When a Parent Is Paranoid Delusional
Although only a small percentage of parents fit this profile, these parents present the greatest risk of physical harm or death to the child, regardless of whether an abduction occurs. Parents who fit the paranoid profile hold markedly irrational or psychotic delusions that the other parent will definitely harm them and/or the child. Believing themselves to be betrayed and exploited by their former partner, these parents urgently take what they consider to be necessary measures to protect themselves and the child.

Psychotic parents do not perceive the child as a separate person. Rather, they perceive the child as part of themselves—that is, as a victim (in which case they take unilateral measures to rescue the child)—or they perceive the child as part of the hated other parent (in which case they may precipitously abandon or even kill the child). Marital separation and/or the instigation of the custody dispute generally triggers an acute phase of danger for these psychotic individuals. The result can be not only parental abduction, but also murder and suicide.

Profile 4: When a Parent Is Severely Sociopathic
Sociopathic parents are characterized by a long history of flagrant violations of the law and contempt for any authority—including that of the legal system. Their relationships with other people are self-serving, exploitive, and highly manipulative. These people are also likely to hold exaggerated beliefs about their own superiority and entitlement and are highly gratified by their ability to exert power and control over others. As with paranoid and delusional parents, sociopathic parents are unable to perceive their children as having separate needs or rights. Consequently, they often use their children as instruments of revenge or punishment or as trophies in their fight with the former partner. Sociopathic parents have no qualms about continuing coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior or abducting their child, nor do they believe that they should be punished for their actions. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of severe sociopathy is rare.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2001_3_1/page1.html

Now, looking from a distance, I wouldn't pretend to be able to diagnose this particular Mom--and psychosis and sociopathy are some pretty heavy labels to lay on a person. But, I think we clearly see some flashes of one or both.

One of the other profiles involved parents with a history of abducting the children. I would suggest that regardless of any legal finding with regard to her packing up the kids and leaving Israel (and apparently abduction is a much more difficult charge to make stick pre-custody arrangements--which make clear who can be with the kids when and under what circumstances)--this was indeed an abduction. Mom also seems to have connection with a ready network of folks who are of the appropriate mindset to assist in an abduction (and clearly felt OK about infringing on the protective order with that banner over the school).

Sooooo--yeah, I think it's pretty serious. There apparently is some history of success with interventions that include counseling, mediation, case management and the like. But, given Mom's slipperiness (avoidance of introspection, or any ability to examine her behaviors/fears/beliefs), I would say that there needs to be some pretty heavy supervision before trusting this Mom with those kids.
 
  • #856
View attachment 20151125_MOTION_FLD_LIFT_STAY_PENDING_APPEAL-BRF-PLF_06457232_wm0112151350041.pdfView attachment 20151125_NOTICE_OF_HEARING_FLD_06457232_wm0112151350059.pdf

Two new documents (of four just posted).

According to one, the hearing tomorrow will consider an amended request from the maternal grandmother to be appointed as "next friend" with the ability to hire legal representation for the children.

The other one I attached I haven't fully read yet, but it appears to be a rehash of what was earlier filed in (partial) support of the GAL request for a judge to be appointed for a limited hearing (which was denied owing to the case still being officially in Gorcyca's court). Wild accusations all over the place (the children are deteriorating, wilderness camp, foster care, etc, etc, etc.) Multiple exhibits are named, including a CPS report (sorta implying that there is a new one--although that might not be the case--could be another recycling of the 2010 report) and in another document there is a request that they all be admitted under seal. Officially this is a request to lift the stay pending appeals--which was originally requested by Mom's team--but only with regard to the current temporary custody situation. It still requests that Dad's request for a change in custody remain in place.

I really hope that Dad's counsel filed, or will file a response, as I imagine that the exhibits will remain under seal (as they should), so it's hard to evaluate how much of this is hysterical exaggeration (IMHO), how much is made up of whole cloth, and how much may have germs of truth.

It's interesting that all this originally came up from the GAL's request that was rather non-specific, but nonetheless gave me the impression that Mom was only partially in compliance with the reunification aftercare requirements, but that he was really concerned about the banner incident, and possibly something else (at one point he had mentioned "rumblings" about a protest outside of the school).
 
  • #857
Having read through a good bit of these filings, I am overwhelmed with sadness. Despite some claims that Mom has complied with the reunification protocol, it is clear that her energies have rather been ivested in refighting all of the same fights that courts have already settled. I see no way that this woman is prepared to support her children in having a relationship with their father. She apparently intends to continue with her appeals to have the judge removed--and wants Dad's change in custody hearing postponed while she does so. Oh, and declare the intervention a failure and send kids back to Mom in the meantime.

She's going to lose custody--if there is any justice to be had.
 
  • #858
  • #859
  • #860
So it's the middle kid (a boy) the father apparently wants to keep. He did appear to be the most malleable in previous court hearing about them having lunch with the father.


JJenny. That assertion is simply not based on fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
8,876
Total visitors
8,990

Forum statistics

Threads
633,367
Messages
18,640,746
Members
243,508
Latest member
user314159
Back
Top