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

[Margo/Mom]

Have you noticed similar information patterns from the professional PR organization working for the Father?

A lot of allegations, but not much actual that I can see. There is a website that had initially posted some of the court papers. They haven't continued to do so, and their website was always a bit clunky (the pro-mom folks have kept up with posting all current documents, and they are much easier to access). I believe there was one later update, but nothing recent. Early on (prior to the gag order) Dad gave one interview and it was followed up by the journalist who had written the original article essentially responding to the blow-back he (she?) had gotten from the original article.

There is a pro-Gorcyca FB page, that I believe is run by a Michigan group (originally a custody for fathers group that has morphed into a custody for all group). It doesn't get nearly the attention in terms of updates that the two (that I am aware of) pro-mom FB groups.

When I post in response to articles I am frequently accused of being affiliated with Dad, a paid troll (and those are the nicer things that are said) and whatnot. As I am not, I am pretty deeply suspicious when others are similarly accused. In short, if Dad is still paying anything for PR, either it isn't much or he isn't getting his money's worth.

I think the reality is that Mom is playing to the crowd because 1) it is within her personality to seek attention; and 2) her current attorneys are not seeing that she has much of a case in terms of what she seems to want--which is a return to the conditions of the previous 4-5 years. I am only guessing at the contents of a number of documents under seal, but my supposition is that the CPS investigation from last spring concluded that Mom made a malicious allegation; that the Hayes report, referred to in court documents as being "scathing" as regards Mom, not only used the words alienation but was able to provide specific examples of Mom influencing what the kids said/thought from their time together; and that the conclusions of current therapists will continue along those same lines--and probably, owing to having a longer timeframe of exposure, provide additional insight into ways in which the children have suffered long-term harm.

BTW--I see from the court website that a new Judge has been appointed. Gotta wait for the documentation to appear elsewhere to see who it is.

 

[KaaBoom]

Interesting, it doesn’t look like Judge Gorcyca wanted to sign the reassignment order.:thinking:

[URL="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4jy2q37q3axx62a/AAC5EXC8qZHVXd72VKnpaY0ja/2016/2016-01-12?dl=0”]Source[/URL]

 

[Margo/Mom]

Or was unavailable.

 

[Margo/Mom]

In my quick google review of Judge Joan Young, she seems to be a wise choice on multiple counts. First, she seems to have a good many years experience in Family Court and elsewhere. But second, she has announced her upcoming retirement--which may make her somewhat less of a target.

 

[CHICANA]

In my quick google review of Judge Joan Young, she seems to be a wise choice on multiple counts. First, she seems to have a good many years experience in Family Court and elsewhere. But second, she has announced her upcoming retirement--which may make her somewhat less of a target.

Or she'll be willing to take one for the team since she doesn't have much to lose.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Or she'll be willing to take one for the team since she doesn't have much to lose.

Yeah, I cannot imagine that there were a lot of volunteers lined up to take this one on. I do agree with the statement of the attorneys who signed on in support of Gorcyca--essentially that Family Court is a tough place to work. Lotta folks walk in the door angry and unhappy, and leave the same way.

 

[wendiesan]

Yeah, I cannot imagine that there were a lot of volunteers lined up to take this one on. I do agree with the statement of the attorneys who signed on in support of Gorcyca--essentially that Family Court is a tough place to work. Lotta folks walk in the door angry and unhappy, and leave the same way.

And that anger can lead to extreme physical violence. The following excerpt was taken from an article published shortly after a Manitoba family court lawyer was injured when she opened a booby-trapped package sent by the angry ex-husband of one of her clients.

While it’s also a contentious area, the situation in criminal law appears to be different. Leo Adler, of Adler Bytensky Prutschi Shikhman, says that in his roughly 40 years of practice in that area, he has never once felt that his personal safety was under threat. He’s sure it’s a different story for family lawyers, however.

“My experience is that certainly criminal defence counsel are very rarely the subject of any type of attack,” says Adler. “Family law generates usually much more angst, much more emotion than criminal cases. The parties have a tendency to blame the lawyers.”

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201507134806/headline-news/family-law-can-be-a-dangerous-job

 

[Margo/Mom]

And that anger can lead to extreme physical violence. The following excerpt was taken from an article published shortly after a Manitoba family court lawyer was injured when she opened a booby-trapped package sent by the angry ex-husband of one of her clients.


http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201507134806/headline-news/family-law-can-be-a-dangerous-job

Hell hath no fury . . .

 

[Margo/Mom]

A court date has been scheduled. According to the hearing notice it is to hear the Plaintiff's (that would be Mom)request to remove the Guardian Ad Litem.

I haven't seen the actual filing--doesn't show up as a document on the court website.

More stalling?

Be interesting to see the rationale, although it would seem as though there is an ongoing tendancy amongst the social media folks to go after just about anyone associated with the case in any way, shape or form. Although lately there has been some chatter to indicate that they through the GAL had come over to their side. That is, they have taken his request for an emergency hearing some time back as an indication that the kids needed to be back with Mom and pronto. In fact, that request (termed emergency owing to it asking to go around the stay that was put in place at Mom's request) was exceedingly vague. I have always suspected that he was going after some clarification about who could and could not provide counseling, as well as whether or not a counselor or case manager could bring the kids and Mom back together without some ruling by the court.

Astonishing that Mom's current legal team has managed to hold on as long as they have. I guess as long as they keep the focus aimed at getting rid of other people they are safe.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Aaaaaand, now I have read it--all 97 pages. Mom's latest attorney is fond of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

The stuff that seems actually pertinent to the GAL seems to have to do with his prior work being out of scope for a GAL. And then there are claims that he doesn't seem to be much of a champion for Mom--so he must be biased.

Then it goes on through a lot of prior decisions, more claims against PAS, against interventions in general and the one that was selected in particular. Yada, yada, yada. It will be interesting to see what the judge does with this, as well as responses sure to be forthcoming from Dad and the GAL.

 

[Margo/Mom]

The court website now has three additional motions assigned to the Judge, but not named and no date listed on the site.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Trying to sort things out. Looks like three motions on deck for next Wednesday:
1. Remove the GAL
2. Lift the stay
3. Return kids to mom

I may have missed one.

But it will be interesting to see where Judge Young goes with all of this. There's a lotta yada yada yada in all of the filings--by which I mean calling into question rulings that are already in place--and maybe using them as justification for returning kids to Mom. There is a pack of attachments submitted under seal. Last time that happened they appeared redacted some days later. A number of the attachments don't seem to be new (affidavits from counselors, child's medical record, etc), but there is also mention of the children's school records.

My preference would be for Judge Young to move forward based on what was laid out in August vis a vis criteria for Mom's resumed contact. I have only seen it referred to, but apparently there are some specified benchmarks that I would presume are more than just showing up for a counseling session. The court probably has to say yes or no to whoever is currently providing counseling for the kids as well since one issue seems to be that there was a change from who was specified in the Aug/Sept order. And then I would want to see a date set for the custody hearing ASAP. Because I believe that most of what keeps clogging up every single motion Mom's attorney files really concerns the custody issue and Mom's fitness as a parent. And these kids really deserve a level of stability that they cannot have at present, given the legal limbo in which they currently reside.

Regardless of any victories that may have been won via social media--and even the JTC complaint and Gorcyca's recusal--any legal challenges to the decisions (which would include appeal of the August/September order) have actually failed, and failed on legal grounds.

Perhaps there is a way that this Judge can point out to Mom that she's going to have to make a choice between demonstrating an ability to be a different kind of parent, or winning. Because I don't see how she can do both--at least based on what she seems to be focused on. But I honestly don't know if she is capable of change.

 

[Curiosum]

This whole saga is so disturbing and sad. I did a quick skim through the last few years and it seems that the Children's Village and transfer of custody to dad has been on the table for about six months to a year before it actually happened. While I am always hesitant to discount allegations of abuse (especially by children) it does seem that so many of the allegations are discounted by third party witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged abuse and state a very different accounting of events. I truly hope these children get the help they need.

ETA: Another thing I found interesting was that the Charles Manson cult reference that everyone has latched onto was actually introduced into a report by the GAL (and I think to an extent attributed to a conversation he had with the family services counselor regarding the children) about 6-9 months before Judge Gorcya mentioned it when she ordered the children removed to Children's Village.

 

[jjenny]

This whole saga is so disturbing and sad. I did a quick skim through the last few years and it seems that the Children's Village and transfer of custody to dad has been on the table for about six months to a year before it actually happened. While I am always hesitant to discount allegations of abuse (especially by children) it does seem that so many of the allegations are discounted by third party witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged abuse and state a very different accounting of events. I truly hope these children get the help they need.

ETA: Another thing I found interesting was that the Charles Manson cult reference that everyone has latched onto was actually introduced into a report by the GAL (and I think to an extent attributed to a conversation he had with the family services counselor regarding the children) about 6-9 months before Judge Gorcya mentioned it when she ordered the children removed to Children's Village.

What does it matter who introduced the term? Judge was using it. She was also apparently gesturing during the hearing (inappropriately). She was a judge acting like a big bully if you ask me.
A 14 year old knows which parent he wants to live with. These children are old enough that their wishes should be considered, and seems clear they want to live with their mother.

 

[KaaBoom]

What does it matter who introduced the term? Judge was using it. She was also apparently gesturing during the hearing (inappropriately). She was a judge acting like a big bully if you ask me.
A 14 year old knows which parent he wants to live with. These children are old enough that their wishes should be considered, and seems clear they want to live with their mother.

I agree, that's the way it should happen. But unfortunately it seems to be a popular opinion these days, in this forum, in society, and in the legal community, that children are the property of their fathers, and that as such, the father’s rights to access to his property is more important then the child’s wishes, or even more important then what’s best for the child.

 

[flourish]

I agree, that's the way it should happen. But unfortunately it seems to be a popular opinion these days, in this forum, in society, and in the legal community, that children are the property of their fathers, and that as such, the father’s rights to access to his property is more important then the child’s wishes, or even more important then what’s best for the child.

You're right I'm sorry I was being snotty. It's just children don't have the ability to see the big picture nor the maturity to make those kinds of decisions. That's not disrespecting children or their feelings it just is what it is and recognizing that DOES respect and protect children, by their very nature, are not fully developed, which is why we protect them. We don't allow our children to work in factories getting their little fingers cut off or view them as small adults like the Victorians did. Society has come a long way in its treatment of children. It took a long time. A lot of children died working in mines and other dangerous professions.

I took an awesome class at the University of Oregon years ago called the History of Childhood. I'm sure there is some good information online about child development. We don't let them make life changing decisions, generally, because, generally, children don't have the experience, perspective, and cognitive maturity to be able to make informed consent, hence their status of vulnerable population.

Children should absolutely have input and say in their lives. Zero argument there. Children are perceptive and wonderful little individuals. They are more than worthy of protection from exploitation, which is also why we need not put those kinds of responsibilities on their little shoulders.

Children are vulnerable. Not possessions. But also not adults.

 

[Margo/Mom]

This whole saga is so disturbing and sad. I did a quick skim through the last few years and it seems that the Children's Village and transfer of custody to dad has been on the table for about six months to a year before it actually happened. While I am always hesitant to discount allegations of abuse (especially by children) it does seem that so many of the allegations are discounted by third party witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged abuse and state a very different accounting of events. I truly hope these children get the help they need.

ETA: Another thing I found interesting was that the Charles Manson cult reference that everyone has latched onto was actually introduced into a report by the GAL (and I think to an extent attributed to a conversation he had with the family services counselor regarding the children) about 6-9 months before Judge Gorcya mentioned it when she ordered the children removed to Children's Village.

Children are vulnerable. Not possessions. But also not adults.

What does it matter who introduced the term? Judge was using it. She was also apparently gesturing during the hearing (inappropriately). She was a judge acting like a big bully if you ask me.
A 14 year old knows which parent he wants to live with. These children are old enough that their wishes should be considered, and seems clear they want to live with their mother.

In fact there are a couple of documents you should look at for beginners. One is the Judge's response to the JTC complaint, which just came out last week. Another is the actual transcript from July 24 when she made that statement. My reading is that the remark was actually addressed to the Mom--accusing her of creating the cult-like behavior. And the reference was not to mass murder, but to the inability of cult members to individuate--or think for themselves.BTW, the Judge's response adds a new detail to the events of that day. The Judge directed Mom in a scripted set of directions, telling them that their father loves them and that she was in no danger from him. This part we knew. The new piece is that she also addressed them in Hebrew. So did she reinforce, or contradict the message? Good question. Particularly given a circulating claim that Dad threatened the kids in Hebrew--so the supervisor wouldn't know.

I think Mom has a pattern of projecting he impulses onto Dad. After all, shs was the one who secretly removed the kids from home in Israel--refusing Dad knowledge of where they were living in the US--but later claimed that Dad was a "flight risk" in order to attempt to deny him contact.

 

[Margo/Mom]

This whole saga is so disturbing and sad. I did a quick skim through the last few years and it seems that the Children's Village and transfer of custody to dad has been on the table for about six months to a year before it actually happened. While I am always hesitant to discount allegations of abuse (especially by children) it does seem that so many of the allegations are discounted by third party witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged abuse and state a very different accounting of events. I truly hope these children get the help they need.

ETA: Another thing I found interesting was that the Charles Manson cult reference that everyone has latched onto was actually introduced into a report by the GAL (and I think to an extent attributed to a conversation he had with the family services counselor regarding the children) about 6-9 months before Judge Gorcya mentioned it when she ordered the children removed to Children's Village.

Children are vulnerable. Not possessions. But also not adults.

What does it matter who introduced the term? Judge was using it. She was also apparently gesturing during the hearing (inappropriately). She was a judge acting like a big bully if you ask me.
A 14 year old knows which parent he wants to live with. These children are old enough that their wishes should be considered, and seems clear they want to live with their mother.

I agree, that's the way it should happen. But unfortunately it seems to be a popular opinion these days, in this forum, in society, and in the legal community, that children are the property of their fathers, and that as such, the father’s rights to access to his property is more important then the child’s wishes, or even more important then what’s best for the child.

I couldn't disagree more that this is about property rights. In fact if any rights are involved, they have to do with the rights of children to have ongoing relationships with two parents. This is an inclusion in the International Rights of the Child--which the US refuses to sign onto--despite it being merely a conceptual agreement, with no legal commitment to anything.

We really do know that children are better off not being denied a relationship barring actual dangers. And even in the case where contact is dangerous, they are entitled to a contextual understanding of that parent--and any positive contributions they have made to the life of that child.

In this case--and others involving alienation--there is ongoing evidence of not only attempts to deny actual contact, but to write a parent out of the children's life through immersion in a set of beliefs that the parent is dangerous, malevolent, unloving, and poses a major threat to the children, and likely also their Mother as well as their relationship to Mom.

While we are not privy to what happens behind closed doors, we do have a running record of Mom's more public actions. We know that she began denying contact before the move to Israel. She exhibited an extreme level of paranoia about what Dad could do to her if they went to Israel--presenting him with a document to sign guaranteeing that he would not file for divorce there (she had already filed for divorce in the US). She made the children secretly pack up and leave Israel--and refused them not only contact with Dad, but refused to provide him an address or phone number. What do you think a 4 year old understands from this? We know that she directed the kids to call 911 to report that they were frightened when they were in the park with them. We have miltiple reports of Mom not being directive as the kids clung to her when they were supposed to go with Dad. We have the records of her accusations of therapist bias, of saying in the children's presence that they don't need therapy, of her claim in front of the children that father was abusive. We can see that she frequently either intentionally arranged the children's schedules to conflict with opportunities to be with Dad, or prioritzed such opportunities below things that might easily be re-arranged. All of these things are sending damaging messages to the children about who their father is, but also by extension about who they are. This is not healthy.

The greatest sorrow I see in this case is not that the kids were finally removed from Mom, but that stronger interventions were not possible far earlier.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Amen flourish! There are a whole host of decisions we don't allow fourteen year olds to make. However, until recently this case wasn't even about which parent anyone was going to live with. It had to do with the children's participation in time with their father. Most rational adults would agree that minimum levels of respect toward adults in general should be taught to children, more so towards parents, and particularly a parent who has maintained not only a financial level of support, but also an ongoing interest in support. Any child who treated a teacher in the way that these children have routinely treated their father--overtly shunning him--would be labelled, intervened with and possibly brought into court with their parent accused of educational neglect.

These children have exhibited a shockingly disrespectful level of learned behavior towards a parent. The last thing they need is a return to the same environment that produced that behavior.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Yet, you don’t have any problem supporting the lunatic judge, who has denied the children of a relationship with their mother for the last seven months. Which shows that you only care about the children’s relationship with one parent. Or more specifically the father’s property rights of his children.

There a number of points to consider. One is the numerous less intrusive interventions that have been attempted over the years--and the active sabotage of all of them by Mom. She has claimed that various therapists were biased against her, thrown up barriers to scheduling appointments, told one therapist in the children's presence that they did not need therapy, claimed to be in need of an interpreter, etc.

That's history.

But in the present situation, despite a good deal of public spin, Mom has been very active in prolonging the separation. The original plan, as I understand it from filings by the GAL and Dad, included a return to contact with Mom, under specifications to prevent encouraging relapse. Despite affidavits from two couselors that Mom has met with them and been "cooperative" there is some considerable doubt about her actual willingness to "get with the program" by meeting witnh the counselor who is working with the children, or to sign a release of information to allow cooperation of the various counselors. There also seems to be some disagreement about which counselor is actually in charge and whether any of them have been empowered by the court to grant Mom contact. Normally the parties could go to court and sort this stuff out. Or the custody hearing scheduled in October would have provided clarity. The barrier has been that Mom, through counsel decided to go after the Judge. And once the Judge had considered and turned down the request for recusal, they asked for a stay until this could be appealed to the highest level possible. Granting the stay not only postponed indefinitely the custody hearing, but also cost the parties access to the court for any other purposes.

Mom's counsel recently asked for a partial lifting of the stay. I doubt that would have gone anywhere. But with a new judge they have now asked for a complete end to the stay they also want to get rid of the GAL and send the kids back to Mom. Wednesday should be interesting. I would imagine that Dad's counsel spent the weekend on a response to the 97 page motion to dump the GAL.