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

[CHICANA]

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.

I can't believe a judge could force me to say something to my children that I might not even mean or risk consequences. Even God gives us free will. Just goes to show that family court has more power than God.

 

[CHICANA]

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.

There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to see their mother if they want to and it's the court that is preventing it, not the mother.

 

[CHICANA]

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.

They're definitely not going to learn any respect from that judge. If they were abused and she's forcing them to be with him, I could see how they wouldn't have any respect for her either. How can she know for a fact that dad wasn't abusive ? She wasn't there, they were.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I can't believe a judge could force me to say something to my children that I might not even mean or risk consequences. Even God gives us free will. Just goes to show that family court has more power than God.

I don't believe God grants unfettered free will to mess with our kids' heads. Parents do have certain responsibilities--including teaching their children respect for their parents.

 

[flourish]

I can't believe a judge could force me to say something to my children that I might not even mean or risk consequences. Even God gives us free will. Just goes to show that family court has more power than God.

Personally, I'm okay with real, actual humans, in this case in the form of a governmental agency that is meant to assist families, having more power than something that, respectfully, doesn't exist. I am very grateful for separation of church and state.

This case has clearly gotten out of control...a long time ago. But, I still haven't been convinced that the judge did anything wrong.

 

[Curiosum]

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.

Yes, I got that he was using the analogy to bring out the cult like influence and group think vibe he was getting from the children. He referenced the comment the family counselor made about their foot tapping like they were trying to communicate via Morse Code (and perhaps they were). My husband and I are happily married but should that ever change I will try to remember this as a perfect example of how not to handle attempting to coparent outside of marriage.

 

[Curiosum]

Personally, I'm okay with real, actual humans, in this case in the form of a governmental agency that is meant to assist families, having more power than something that, respectfully, doesn't exist. I am very grateful for separation of church and state.

This case has clearly gotten out of control...a long time ago. But, I still haven't been convinced that the judge did anything wrong.

I think the judge is a little blunt (but Family Court judges often are and perhaps in many cases they need to be) and I can imagine that she did get a little frustrated (perhaps with great reasons) with how this had all played out, and perhaps a little desperate to get through to this mom and these kids. I think all of these factors led to some comments which were not as diplomatic as she may usually strive for. Having said that, I'm not sure that any of her ruling was wrong.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I think the judge is a little blunt (but Family Court judges often are and perhaps in many cases they need to be) and I can imagine that she did get a little frustrated (perhaps with great reasons) with how this had all played out, and perhaps a little desperate to get through to this mom and these kids. I think all of these factors led to some comments which were not as diplomatic as she may usually strive for. Having said that, I'm not sure that any of her ruling was wrong.

I agree. And that has pretty much been born out in other rulings. Mom appealed the original denial of disqualification and this was upheld by the Court of Appeals. (apparently Mom still intends to appeal to a higher court--despite the Judge now having recused based on other grounds). Mom also appealed the August/September order that resulted in protective separation (a peremptory challenge) and this was turned down. I believe that this is also still on appeal somewhere.

Tomorrow should be interested as it would appear that there are a good many intertwined issues on the table. Officially the issues are to dump the GAL, approve a partial lifting of the stay on court decisions in order to rule on Mom's motions and return the kids to Mom.

As I understand it, the stay Mom requested and was granted was in order to allow appeal of disqualification to the highest available court. This is why things have been stuck. One way to move forward is to decide that the appeal of disqualification is now moot, which then would end the stay and either party is then free to bring issues (which would include Dad's custody request) before the court. What Mom is requesting to to keep appealing and to maintain the stay--except to hear her motions. According to Dad's filing, this is pretty much without legal precedent, and I tend to believe that this is the case.

I read a brief and reply (I don't know the difference or why there were two) to the request to dump the GAL. Pretty much underlined that the man has done his job--even if Dad hasn't always been in agreement. Also points out the previous attempts to bring in legal counsel for the kids under Mom's (or Mom's Mom's) control--and how this is simply an extension. Also challenged the story that Mom and her counsel were left out of the decision-making about the recent intervention--even though her counsel included a revolving door of folks, which has not served Mom well in terms of representation or continuity.

I rather trust that the new Judge--who would appear to have boatloads of experience--will stick to law rather than emotion, which is going to be hard on Mom's supporters. My hope is that she sees moving forward with the custody hearing as the best means of assuring ongoing stability for the children. I also hope that she requests an update on the children's current status as well as Mom's participation in the overall program goals before making any decisions to alter the current custody situation.

JMO

 

[CHICANA]

I think the judge is a little blunt (but Family Court judges often are and perhaps in many cases they need to be) and I can imagine that she did get a little frustrated (perhaps with great reasons) with how this had all played out, and perhaps a little desperate to get through to this mom and these kids. I think all of these factors led to some comments which were not as diplomatic as she may usually strive for. Having said that, I'm not sure that any of her ruling was wrong.

Do you think the children are better off now ? Was this really in their best interests ?

 

[CHICANA]

Personally, I'm okay with real, actual humans, in this case in the form of a governmental agency that is meant to assist families, having more power than something that, respectfully, doesn't exist. I am very grateful for separation of church and state.

This case has clearly gotten out of control...a long time ago. But, I still haven't been convinced that the judge did anything wrong.

I'm not ok with a judge forcing the mother to read from a script written by the judge herself. What about justice and truth ? You're entitled to your opinion that God doesn't exist, but I believe children are given to us by God & not the state. There's plenty of evidence of His existence. In my lifetime, I've seen no evidence for evolution. Cats have stayed cats, dogs have stayed dogs and I've never seen an ape evolve into anything other than an ape.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I can't believe a judge could force me to say something to my children that I might not even mean or risk consequences. Even God gives us free will. Just goes to show that family court has more power than God.

There are several schools of thought regarding how alienation comes about, or came about in this case.

One school holds that the alienating parent becomes so caught up in their own stuff that the kids needs get shoved aside. A variation is that the alienating parent truly does not understand what is needed, or how they are not providing what is needed.

If/when that is the case, then it would not be inappropriate to work with the parent to script appropriately supportive words, or to provide suggestions about appropriate actions (such as the direction not to provide a replacement meal should they refuse to eat when out to dinner with Dad). These kinds of things are SOP in parenting education, family counseling and the like. Sometimes it takes the form of providing fill in the blank sentences: "what I need you to do is . . . ," "when you do that I feel . . ." and so forth. This Mom has consistently stated that she truly wants her kids to have a relationship with their dad, but she is simply powerless to change their behavior. Taking her at her word, such an approach is not at all out of line.

Frankly, I am not of a mind to believe that Mom falls into the trainable category, at least not at present. There have been times that I had truly hoped she had reached a "bottom" as the AA folks say--where her behavior had truly resulted in a consequence so great that she would be willing to explore doing things in another way. Frankly that was several attorneys and a score of filings back. It is wholly incongruous to me that on the one hand Mom claims to be chugging along with the program, participating in counseling, willing and ready to re-enter her children's lives while at the same time making horrific accusations in public (via counsel) towards their father, the GAL, the Judge, therapists and anyone else with potential to help.

 

[Vedder]

If the kids are truly frightened of their father, or honestly detest him, why do his rights trump theirs?

Personally, I can't imagine being forced by a court to have dinner, or much less live with someone I hate, parent or not.

 

[Margo/Mom]

View attachment 20160125_MEMORANDUM_FLD_IN_REPLY_TO_MTN_TO_REMOVE_GAL-GAL_06470672_wm2601160806019.pdf

I haven't yet finished this, but it provides some very interesting background, particularly regarding various claims made by Mom about how the GAL/Judge/Dad's counsel ganged up on her and her counsel.

I realize that it is not at all out of the ordinary for the various counsel in a case to have chats before being seen by the Judge about what each is going for, what they will be willing to go along with and so forth. IOW, it ain't Perry Mason and Judges don't just pluck "orders" from their air. Rather they are frequently called upon to "bless" agreements already reached between parties in the hallway.

We saw one such example when Mom now claims that the Judge would not allow an ER doc to testify about possible injuries. In fact, the doc was never called because the two parties reached an agreement regarding ongoing visitation--including sanctions for not following the agreement--and jointly presented it to the Judge. Hence the show-cause hearing (for which Mom had called the ER doc) never took place.

This GAL filing provides some more details particular to the July/August/September decision-making, including selection of a program (and as I had guessed, there were not a lot of options), how and why the change of therapist was made (GAL points out that very few were actually willing to work with the family), as well as revealing that when he had filed for an "emergency" hearing, the parties were actively involved in attempting to reach a resolution that could be presented jointly to the court. However--as that filing had stated--they had reached an impasse on one point.

 

[Margo/Mom]

If the kids are truly frightened of their father, or honestly detest him, why do his rights trump theirs?

Personally, I can't imagine being forced by a court to have dinner, or much less live with someone I hate, parent or not.

Imagine that instead of their father, they behaved in this way towards a teacher, despite no finding that the teacher had in any way provoked such behavior. I think we would be very interested in figuring out the cause of their irrational behavior, would we not?

 

[CHICANA]

There are several schools of thought regarding how alienation comes about, or came about in this case.

One school holds that the alienating parent becomes so caught up in their own stuff that the kids needs get shoved aside. A variation is that the alienating parent truly does not understand what is needed, or how they are not providing what is needed.

If/when that is the case, then it would not be inappropriate to work with the parent to script appropriately supportive words, or to provide suggestions about appropriate actions (such as the direction not to provide a replacement meal should they refuse to eat when out to dinner with Dad). These kinds of things are SOP in parenting education, family counseling and the like. Sometimes it takes the form of providing fill in the blank sentences: "what I need you to do is . . . ," "when you do that I feel . . ." and so forth. This Mom has consistently stated that she truly wants her kids to have a relationship with their dad, but she is simply powerless to change their behavior. Taking her at her word, such an approach is not at all out of line.

Frankly, I am not of a mind to believe that Mom falls into the trainable category, at least not at present. There have been times that I had truly hoped she had reached a "bottom" as the AA folks say--where her behavior had truly resulted in a consequence so great that she would be willing to explore doing things in another way. Frankly that was several attorneys and a score of filings back. It is wholly incongruous to me that on the one hand Mom claims to be chugging along with the program, participating in counseling, willing and ready to re-enter her children's lives while at the same time making horrific accusations in public (via counsel) towards their father, the GAL, the Judge, therapists and anyone else with potential to help.

Didn't he spend long periods of time away from them by his own choice ? Maybe he's the reason for the alienation. What child feels stable with someone coming in and out of their life ?

 

[Vedder]

Imagine that instead of their father, they behaved in this way towards a teacher, despite no finding that the teacher had in any way provoked such behavior. I think we would be very interested in figuring out the cause of their irrational behavior, would we not?

Yes, of course. But I would hope the children wouldn't be left with the teacher, or forced to interact with the teacher against their will.

 

[KaaBoom]

If the kids are truly frightened of their father, or honestly detest him, why do his rights trump theirs?

Personally, I can't imagine being forced by a court to have dinner, or much less live with someone I hate, parent or not.

The reports are that the reunification with their father has been an epic failure. Even the father’s own lawyers have acknowledged that the children's situation has deteriorated since the children were returned to him, and he now wants at least two of the children put in foster-care.

Of course most reasonable people could have predicted that would happen. Taking children away from their mother, with whom they had a good relationship, putting them in juvenile detention until their father who had abandoned them years ago, and whom they claim was abusive to them could return to the US and take custody of them, and then deprive the mother of any visitation with them, was not going to have a positive effect on the children’t lives.

Unfortunately there are a lot of fathers rights advocates (including the judge who made the decision), who believe that children are the property of their fathers, and as such, their property rights over their children, are more important then what is in the best interest of the children.

I find it very interesting that the fathers rights advocates cry about how mothers are alienating their children from their fathers. But they have no problem using the legal system to gain custody of their children and then deny them visitation with their mothers. Who is really trying to alienate the children?:thinking:

 

[jjenny]

Didn't he spend long periods of time away from them by his own choice ? Maybe he's the reason for the alienation. What child feels stable with someone coming in and out of their life ?

He moved to Israel where he spend most of his time.

 

[flourish]

I'm not ok with a judge forcing the mother to read from a script written by the judge herself. What about justice and truth ? You're entitled to your opinion that God doesn't exist, but I believe children are given to us by God & not the state. There's plenty of evidence of His existence. In my lifetime, I've seen no evidence for evolution. Cats have stayed cats, dogs have stayed dogs and I've never seen an ape evolve into anything other than an ape.

lol evolution doesn't work that quick or that way so I'd be shocked if you had seen it right before your very eyes.

So... How do you go about getting god to make some dang statutes to take care of this. Hell, why not just get rid of pain and suffering and misery while he or she is at it?!?!!

So... What... god can take away the children he or she gave to this father but not the mom?

God doesn't get to make this call. It's not his jurisdiction.

 

[flourish]

If the kids are truly frightened of their father, or honestly detest him, why do his rights trump theirs?

Personally, I can't imagine being forced by a court to have dinner, or much less live with someone I hate, parent or not.

The children have the right to be free from emotional and mental abuse. In this case that's what seems to have happened... Imo the children are acting the way that's been modeled by then by mom.

I doubt any fear is a reflection of their mom and are behaviors she has reinforced to a sickening degree.