Disagree.
If the parents divorced, I see no reason to believe that Mom's alienating strategies would have been any different simply due to geography.
MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015
- Thread starter Hoosgirl
- Start date
-
WI WI - Corrine Danielle Johansen, Superior, 40, 5 Aug 2025
- Latest: truthfinder2019
- Status
Disagree.
If the parents divorced, I see no reason to believe that Mom's alienating strategies would have been any different simply due to geography.
If the judge didn't have jurisdiction to make the decision to remove the kids from mom's custody, shouldn't that order be invalid ?
She never wanted them in foster care and she's been consistent in their lives - that's one up on dad.
Geography wouldn't change the fact that dad is only wanting one of the kids to live with him (great parenting) and the others to be with strangers instead of their mother. The damage being done to these kids that USED TO BE HAPPY makes me sick.
In my area the school gets to do their own investigation (which I don't agree with). When my son was in 5th grade a teacher grabbed a student by the arm so hard that there were bruises left by her fingers digging into his arm. She stayed in the classroom. I'm assuming there are unions, attorneys, etc to protect teachers. That's why a lot of the bad ones keep their jobs.
There is NO factual basis for asserting dad wants any of his kids to go to foster care. None. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so.
As for mom being consistent in their lives... well, if she's consistently tried to make her kids afraid of their own father - as seems to be the case- that's not gonna be a point in her favor I'd want to reward.
Complicated, isn't it? If there is no legal divorce she probably doesn't have legal custody of the kids. And won't get custody of them any time soon, if ever.
Would be interesting, though, to see if given the chance she chooses to try to destroy or damage him in the ways you are suggesting, rather than virtuously asserting her "right" to custody.
You have made a really huge assumption based on very limited information.
In my district, as well as most that I am familiar with, teachers can be reassigned to non-contact positions (the book warehouse, for instance) at the drop of a hat while an investigation is undertaken. NYC is famous for the number of teachers on "rubber room" assignment. These are teachers who will not be put in a classroom, but are still working through due process prior to being let go.
Unions protect teachers, but there are lots of laws to protect children as well. Just about any professional within a school is considered a mandated reporter in any state. Some states have weaker laws than others (example, Pennsylvania allowed reporting to a superior rather than LE or CPS--allowing Jerry Sandusky to fly under the radar for such a long time), but districts face considerable liability if they have a report of abuse and do not intervene immediately to protect the children.
I look for the parties to arrive at some major points of agreement as to wanting Oakland County to remain the appropriate jurisdiction.
I am liking this judge. She seems to have studied the case pretty thoroughly, and is setting a good tone going forward. Clean and neat.
I especially liked the page limit and the deadline.
Interesting tidbit from Detroit:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...16/01/27/halloran-complaint-dropped/79413980/
Apparently another Judge was just cleared of being too lax on looking into jurisdiction on divorce cases. And in Tsimhoni case there was an admission that residency requirements were not met--with an apparent agreement not to pursue the issue. Apparently, however, such an agreement is not legal.
Would love to hear from some lawyers about possible ramifications. I've poked around a bit, but I cannot figure out if there's a risk of the whole divorce (and Dad's second marriage?) being tossed? Or if this might just bump jurisdiction up to a state court that bats clean-up for cases in which there is no local jurisdiction? It's pretty clear--Mom had not been in Oakland County for 10 days before filing, nor in the State of Michigan for 180 days immediately prior. No residence was maintained when she moved back to Israel--and the federal court has already ruled that the clear intent was to live in Israel.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...16/01/27/halloran-complaint-dropped/79413980/
Apparently another Judge was just cleared of being too lax on looking into jurisdiction on divorce cases. And in Tsimhoni case there was an admission that residency requirements were not met--with an apparent agreement not to pursue the issue. Apparently, however, such an agreement is not legal.
Would love to hear from some lawyers about possible ramifications. I've poked around a bit, but I cannot figure out if there's a risk of the whole divorce (and Dad's second marriage?) being tossed? Or if this might just bump jurisdiction up to a state court that bats clean-up for cases in which there is no local jurisdiction? It's pretty clear--Mom had not been in Oakland County for 10 days before filing, nor in the State of Michigan for 180 days immediately prior. No residence was maintained when she moved back to Israel--and the federal court has already ruled that the clear intent was to live in Israel.
If there was no legal divorce then they are still legally married. So why wouldn't she have custody of the kids?
Lansat is the one who started the process because he was concerned with the kids. Yes mom gave more details about what the report said. I would have too. Lansat was ordered that if the five days didn't work, he was to tell the court so they could find something else. He did not do that. The kids were supposed to go back to mom after the five days if it wasn't a success and it wasn't. Lansat's words in his recent motion where, "excuse me, they are with dad." Dad's motion is they will eat his food. Mom has done the aftercare protocol. Dr. B diagnosed her without ever seeing her. She wasn't ordered to see D. B. They were ordered with Dr. V. IfLansat had no right to change therapist. He can reference years old court hearings, but the judge was pretty clear on who they go too. It's interesting that both the GAL and Dad are asking her to drop her appeal for the judge in order to get the kids back. This seems like blackmail.
Have you ever thought it was interesting that he believed she had an affair when mom was pregnant with NT? Have you missed the statements where dad just wanted to take the boys back to Israel? Have you not noticed that D. B who fyi isn't allowed to diagnosis someone they have never seen, wants to put NT in foster care?
At this point there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about why there was not another hearing on Sept 5. However, it would appear that Mom's attorney never requested one.
However the assertion that the five day intervention "didn't work" would seem to depend a good deal on the definition of "work." What were the expectations from those five days? As this was not a therapy session, it would have been unreasonable for certain kinds of resolutions to appear as outcomes. What does seem to be reasonable is that there was a restorations of some key elements--such as the children speaking to and engaging with their father. And reports are that this did in fact occur.
As common sense and the GAL both would dictate, however, this represents merely a beginning point. And Mom's ability to cooperate with a specific set of care practices (not as she sees fit, but as required) is "the lynchpin" in Lansat's words in being able to move forward in re-establishing that relationship.
I don't believe there has ever been any plan to return to the previous state at the end of 5 days. That would indeed have been foolish.
What I find interesting is a handful of such accusations that have newly cropped up on discussions over the weekend.
Margo-
Thanks for consistently taking the time to read the actual court docs available and for posting them here.
It helps in weeding out subjective opinions and flat out rumors from what is actually on record.
Many peeps obviously have strong emotions about this case, but then there are the rest of us. Like me. I don't.
I'm following it- somewhat- because I'm entirely unfamiliar with family law, and wow, I' m getting a sense of how extraordinarily difficult it must be as a practice.
Thanks for helping to explain some of those most intractable difficulties.
KaaBoom
`·.¸¸ ><((((º> ...·´`·.¸¸ ><((((º>...·
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,957
- Reaction score
- 3,206
- Status
