# Kids Locked Up for Refusing to Have Lunch With Dad



## MarriedDude

Just read this article...kind of a WTF...there must be much much more to this story
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/kids-locked-up-for-refusing-to-have-lunch-with-dad-123579270182.html

“After more than five years in court and dozens of court appearances, Dr. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni is continuing to demonstrate her disregard for the well-being of the children and disrespect for the law and due process,” Omer Tsimhoni’s lawyer, Keri Middleditch, wrote in a statement to Yahoo Parenting. “This situation is traumatic for everyone involved, and it is unfortunate that the children are in shelter care due to the actions of their mother. [She] has continued to endorse the children’s behavior that she successfully instilled in them, effectively alienating them from their father. The court took severe action to attempt to remedy a heart-wrenching situation.”


----------



## Lloyd Dobler

MarriedDude said:


> Just read this article...kind of a WTF...there must be much much more to this story
> https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/kids-locked-up-for-refusing-to-have-lunch-with-dad-123579270182.html
> 
> “After more than five years in court and dozens of court appearances, Dr. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni is continuing to demonstrate her disregard for the well-being of the children and disrespect for the law and due process,” Omer Tsimhoni’s lawyer, Keri Middleditch, wrote in a statement to Yahoo Parenting. “This situation is traumatic for everyone involved, and it is unfortunate that the children are in shelter care due to the actions of their mother. [She] has continued to endorse the children’s behavior that she successfully instilled in them, effectively alienating them from their father. The court took severe action to attempt to remedy a heart-wrenching situation.”


This story has a little more background on the situation:

Siblings thrown in juvie hall for refusing to see dad

I'm sure there are still some details missing, but I can't understand how the judge could disregard the "in the best interests of the children" part of the divorce process.


----------



## MarriedDude

That one had some more info. 

There must be some seriously weird $hit going on for this to happen. 

Then again, I am thinking that the judge must be considering the best interest of the children, so from that point of view the circumstances that could make detention in their interest must be severe. 

or maybe the judge is just off her rocker


----------



## Constable Odo

If my kids were thrown in jail every time they refused to have lunch with me, they'd be serving life sentences


----------



## ConanHub

Extremely bizarre. The judge could place the children in protective custody to keep them safe from their mother if she was harming them but you can't imprison people because they don't want to associate with another person.

She has very clearly exceeded her authority. She could just as easily order a woman to date someone she hates or go to jail.

Any lawyer worth a pile of beans can get this ruling thrown out and file a successful suit against whatever jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to have this judge on one of their benches.

This is actually a pretty astounding ruling with outrageous implications.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MarriedDude

ConanHub said:


> Extremely bizarre. The judge could place the children in protective custody to keep them safe from their mother if she was harming them but you can't imprison people because they don't want to associate with another person.
> 
> She has very clearly exceeded her authority. She could just as easily order a woman to date someone she hates or go to jail.
> 
> Any lawyer worth a pile of beans can get this ruling thrown out and file a successful suit against whatever jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to have this judge on one of their benches.
> 
> This is actually a pretty astounding ruling with outrageous implications.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Interesting though -each of the children has their own legal counsel...and none of them objected.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

ConanHub said:


> Any lawyer worth a pile of beans can get this ruling thrown out


She jailed them under contempt, which is a very crazy and legal way to detain someone until they comply. I hope it turns out you are correct.


----------



## ConanHub

MarriedDude said:


> Interesting though -each of the children has their own legal counsel...and none of them objected.


There very well could be brainwashing involved with the children but her ruling exceeded her powers. You can't order someone to eat with someone else.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

phillybeffandswiss said:


> She jailed them under contempt, which is a very crazy and legal way to detain someone until they comply. I hope it turns out you are correct.


That's just it. The judge ordered them to eat with someone. That is not in her power to order.

She could order my wife to have dinner with one of her exes because she determined that I brainwashed her against him and she could tell my wife that he is a nice guy and then throw her in jail if she didn't comply with her order. It is on the same magnitude.

A judge cannot order you to enter in to a social activity, like eating with them, and then imprison you if you don't comply.

Pretty out there stuff.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

ConanHub said:


> That's just it. The judge ordered them to eat with someone. That is not in her power to order.
> 
> A judge cannot order you to enter in to a social activity, like eating with them,


A judge can force children to engage in court ordered visitation. They also have the power to dictate when, where and how long. So, yes, she has that power. 





ConanHub said:


> and then imprison you if you don't comply.
> 
> Pretty out there stuff.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, they normally fine or imprison the parental figure. 


What makes this strange, "out there" and wrong is she jailed the kids.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

phillybeffandswiss said:


> A judge can force children to engage in court ordered visitation. They also have the power to dictate when, where and how long. So, yes, she has that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they normally fine or imprison the parental figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes this strange, "out there" and wrong is she jailed the kids.



Agreed. It's the mother who should be jailed.


----------



## naiveonedave

just my opinion, but I think the judge did this to get the kids away from the mother, legally, and not give them to the father. The goal is so that any harm done by the mother poisoning the opinions of the children to their father start getting resolved. I actually think it is a smart move, getting the kids out of an environment where the mother is purposefully driving a wedge in the relationship between kids and father.


----------



## MarriedDude

naiveonedave said:


> just my opinion, but I think the *judge did this to get the kids away from the mother, legally, and not give them to the father. * The goal is so that any harm done by the mother poisoning the opinions of the children to their father start getting resolved. I actually think it is a smart move, getting the kids out of an environment where the mother is purposefully driving a wedge in the relationship between kids and father.


It sure does look that way. 

makes me wonder exactly what the mother (and father) have been coaching/teaching/bribing/convincing these children to do and/or say to the other parent. 

could be the best option would be to place the children in the care of a grandparent or some neutral family member if one exists. 

i think the implications for these children, and later, their children is going to be negative and far reaching. 

what a mess.


----------



## Married but Happy

It sounds like the mother poisoned the children's attitude towards their father to get back at him for whatever perceived issues they had, which in my mind is child abuse. If that is true, then the judge made the right call in hopes of fixing the situation. If my speculation is true, then the mother should be punished for abuse.


----------



## MarriedDude

Married but Happy said:


> It *sounds like the mother poisoned the children's attitude towards their father to get back at him *for whatever perceived issues they had, which in my mind is child abuse. If that is true, then the judge made the right call in hopes of fixing the situation. If my speculation is true, then the mother should be punished for abuse.


I have thought about that....but, if thats the case -why wouldn't the judge attempt to have the father interact with them during the confinement?

I have a feeling the craziness comes from mother AND father


----------



## EleGirl

The children were not jailed and were not put in juvenile detention.

"Children's Village in Pontiac provides what the county website calls temporary, "out-of-home care, custody and treatment" to children under the jurisdiction of Oakland County courts."

They are in a facility that is specifically for children who need intervention.

Have any of you ever seen a really bad child alienation case? These things happen. One parent, and often extended family on that parents side, brain wash children against the other parent. In the extreme, it's not a minor problem.

The judges talks about the kids having defiant behaviors that are not normal at all.

It is easy to have a knee jerk reaction to something like this. Especially the way it's presented on the internet. None of us were there. None of us have witnessed the behavior of the children, their mother or the extent of child alienation (brain washing) that has occurred.


----------



## MarriedDude

EleGirl said:


> The children were not jailed and were not put in juvenile detention.
> 
> "Children's Village in Pontiac provides what the county website calls temporary, "out-of-home care, custody and treatment" to children under the jurisdiction of Oakland County courts."
> 
> They are in a facility that is specifically for children who need intervention.
> 
> Have any of you ever seen a really bad child alienation case? These things happen. One parent, and often extended family on that parents side, brain wash children against the other parent. In the extreme, it's not a minor problem.
> 
> The judges talks about the kids having defiant behaviors that are not normal at all.
> 
> It is easy to have a knee jerk reaction to something like this. Especially the way it's presented on the internet. None of us were there. None of us have witnessed the behavior of the children, their mother or the extent of child alienation (brain washing) that has occurred.


I find it unlikely that things have come to this point -simply because of the mother. There is some really strange group dynamic going on here.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Extremely bizarre. The judge could place the children in protective custody to keep them safe from their mother if she was harming them but you can't imprison people because they don't want to associate with another person.


The children are not imprisoned. They are in protective custody in the "Children's Village in Pontiac provides what the county website calls temporary, "out-of-home care, custody and treatment" to children under the jurisdiction of Oakland County courts."


----------



## Constable Odo

I'd like to lock up my little bastards from time to time. Like when they don't pick up their bedrooms.

At least I can use the invisible fence collars to keep them in the yard.


----------



## MarriedDude

EleGirl said:


> The children are not imprisoned. They are in protective custody in the "Children's Village in Pontiac provides what the county website calls temporary, "out-of-home care, custody and treatment" to children under the jurisdiction of Oakland County courts."


I have worked on the construction of several facilities like this one. 

No matter how much wallcovering / murals / pretty pictures / comfortable carpet you throw around....They still feel like a jail.


----------



## EleGirl

MarriedDude said:


> I find it unlikely that things have come to this point -simply because of the mother. There is some really strange group dynamic going on here.


The articles say that it's the mother and the extended family are alienating the children.


----------



## Pluto2

If the mother is guilty of parental alienation, why not jail the mother for contempt of court. It still seems punitive towards the kids.


----------



## EleGirl

MarriedDude said:


> I have worked on the construction of several facilities like this one.
> 
> No matter how much wallcovering / murals / pretty pictures / comfortable carpet you throw around....They still feel like a jail.


Yea, I'm ware of what they are like. Sadly, sometimes they are the best society can do for some children who are out of control.

We do not know what is really going on in this case. We do not know how the children behave and/or the mother and her extended family.

We do know that they were given a court order to spend time with their father, they refused and were in contempt of court.


----------



## EleGirl

"In the Oakland Circuit Court case, each of the children is represented by separate attorneys, "none of whom objected to the children's placement" at Children's Village, according to Middleditch's statement."


----------



## GTdad

EleGirl said:


> We do know that they were given a court order to spend time with their father, they refused and were in contempt of court.


I'm not sure we know that. To my knowledge, divorce decrees rarely if ever order the kids, particularly minors, to do anything. The decree and order is directed to the parties of the suit: mom and dad.

Unless this is some very unusual exception, I just can't see nonparty children being held in contempt.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> There very well could be brainwashing involved with the children but her ruling exceeded her powers. You can't order someone to eat with someone else.


The children were not ordered to eat with their father. They were ordered to spend time with him. And yes the court can order children to spend time with a parent.


----------



## EleGirl

Pluto2 said:


> If the mother is guilty of parental alienation, why not jail the mother for contempt of court. It still seems punitive towards the kids.


Maybe the mother should be in jail for contempt of court. If they put their mother in jail, where would the children go? To their father? Under current circumstances I don't think the children would do that.

While I agree this sounds outrageous, I don't have enough info at this time to say what I think of it. I can imagine things that would either make it reasonable for a judge to do this and things that would not.


----------



## EleGirl

GTdad said:


> I'm not sure we know that. To my knowledge, divorce decrees rarely if ever order the kids, particularly minors, to do anything. The decree and order is directed to the parties of the suit: mom and dad.
> 
> Unless this is some very unusual exception, I just can't see nonparty children being held in contempt.


Apparently it was contempt of court. The judge directly ordered the children to participate in supervised visitation. They told the judge to basically stuff it.

Judge jails kids for refusing to lunch with dad


----------



## GTdad

EleGirl said:


> Apparently it was contempt of court. The judge directly ordered the children to participate in supervised visitation. They told the judge to basically stuff it.
> 
> Judge jails kids for refusing to lunch with dad


Wow. Apparently the judge DID issue such an order. 

This is weird on so many levels I don't know where to begin.


----------



## EleGirl

GTdad said:


> Wow. Apparently the judge DID issue such an order.
> 
> This is weird on so many levels I don't know where to begin.


Did you read the court document attached to that article?

There is a long history behind this.


----------



## EleGirl

Judge to the 15 year old boy:


"When you can follow the court's direct order and have a normal, healthy relationship with your father I would review this. I mean, it might be one day, it might be -- it might be three years. It might be til you're 18.
This is over your dad's objection. I want this to be heard. Obviously, it's over your mother's objection. Your dad -- I wanted to do this because of your horrific behavior a long time ago and your dad begged me not to. He begged me not to. So it was only because of your dad I would have switched custody and they would have appealed because I find it's against-- it's hurting--you are so mentally messed up right now and it's not because of your father. And one day you are going to realize what's going on in this case and you're gonna apologize to your dad.”


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> The children were not ordered to eat with their father. They were ordered to spend time with him. And yes the court can order children to spend time with a parent.


Unless we are reading different articles, the judge ordered them to go to lunch with him.

No. A judge cannot command you to interact socially with anyone else and then imprison you, yes juvenile detention is jail, when they don't eat with who they were ordered to eat with.

Lisa is somewhat of a tyrant. Even if she has good intentions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

She also cannot order anyone to have a healthy relationship, or any relationship for that matter, with someone else.

This judge has lost her mind.

I'm well aware of visitation rights. I am also aware of what is entailed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Unless we are reading different articles, the judge ordered them to go to lunch with him.
> 
> No. A judge cannot command you to interact socially with anyone else and then imprison you, yes juvenile detention is jail, when they don't eat with who they were ordered to eat with.
> 
> Lisa is somewhat of a tyrant. Even if she has good intentions.


The judge did not order them to eat. She ordered them to go to lunch with their father. There is on order that they have to eat if they do not want to.

A judge can order children to spend time with a parent. I've seen it happen. One of our judges has a saying.. a gorilla sleeps anywhere they want to. A child sleeps where the judge tells them to sleep. 

They were place in the Children’s Village that serves several different purposes. One of the facilities is called Mandy’s place; a shelter care service facility. It is obviously not jail because they take children from birth who have been temporarily removed from their homes by the court due to parental neglect and abuse. Parental alienation is child abuse. Very serious child abuse.

Mandy's Place 

•	For children ages birth to 18 who have been temporarily removed from their homes by the court due to parental neglect and abuse.

•	Mandy's Place houses 44 boys and girls, waiting to return to their family, go to foster care, be placed in Oakland County Children’s Village residential treatment, or at another agency.
All programs include:

•	Medical and Health care including physicals, psychiatric services, immunizations, dental care, and diagnostic medical treatment as needed.

•	Clinical and Counseling Services provide case management for all residents. The clinical and counseling staff provides therapeutic intervention by providing individual, family, and group therapy and crisis intervention. Comprehensive case management includes bolstering relationships between the resident, their family, hometown school and community.

https://www.oakgov.com/village/Pages/program_service/default.aspx


----------



## naiveonedave

MarriedDude said:


> It sure does look that way.
> 
> makes me wonder exactly what the mother (and father) have been coaching/teaching/bribing/convincing these children to do and/or say to the other parent.
> 
> could be the best option would be to place the children in the care of a grandparent or some neutral family member if one exists.
> 
> i think the implications for these children, and later, their children is going to be negative and far reaching.
> 
> what a mess.


the one thing that stood out to me is that the Dad's lawyer is essentially trying to get the mother in trouble for alienation of affection between the kids and their father. That, I think, is the heart of the matter that the judge acted on. The kids need to be away from their mothers vitriol about their father. I could be wrong, but it fits how I read it.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

My guess would be that the judge was caught between a rock and a hard place. 

To leave the kids with mom is unconscionable as she's clearly alienating them. Leaving them with her would just make it worse.

To put the kids with dad would really stress them out because of their previous brainwashing about him. Moving them to his custody shouldn't happen without some therapy and gradual reintegration first.

So the judge had to put them somewhere neutral and this was the facility and method chosen to accomplish it. I suspect it's the media making a sensationalist twist on it wording it the way they did.


----------



## naiveonedave

ConanHub said:


> She also cannot order anyone to have a healthy relationship, or any relationship for that matter, with someone else.
> 
> This judge has lost her mind.
> 
> I'm well aware of visitation rights. I am also aware of what is entailed.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't get your take on this at all. The kids, due to their Mother and her family, hate their dad. Alienation of affection. To the point that no sane judge could jail the mother and send the kids to the dad, as the kids are now brainwashed to hate dad.....

In these cases, especially with minors, establishing a relationship with the alienated parent has to be one of the top priorities.


----------



## naiveonedave

Hopeful Cynic said:


> My guess would be that the judge was caught between a rock and a hard place.
> 
> To leave the kids with mom is unconscionable as she's clearly alienating them. Leaving them with her would just make it worse.
> 
> To put the kids with dad would really stress them out because of their previous brainwashing about him. Moving them to his custody shouldn't happen without some therapy and gradual reintegration first.
> 
> So the judge had to put them somewhere neutral and this was the facility and method chosen to accomplish it. I suspect it's the media making a sensationalist twist on it wording it the way they did.


well said, I can't like this post enough


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> the one thing that stood out to me is that the Dad's lawyer is essentially trying to get the mother in trouble for alienation of affection between the kids and their father. That, I think, is the heart of the matter that the judge acted on. The kids need to be away from their mothers vitriol about their father. I could be wrong, but it fits how I read it.


I agree that this is why the judge did what she did. The only way to end the mother's apparently pretty bad parental alienation is to remove the children from her custody.


----------



## EleGirl

Hopeful Cynic said:


> My guess would be that the judge was caught between a rock and a hard place.
> 
> To leave the kids with mom is unconscionable as she's clearly alienating them. Leaving them with her would just make it worse.
> 
> To put the kids with dad would really stress them out because of their previous brainwashing about him. Moving them to his custody shouldn't happen without some therapy and gradual reintegration first.
> 
> So the judge had to put them somewhere neutral and this was the facility and method chosen to accomplish it. I suspect it's the media making a sensationalist twist on it wording it the way they did.


Well said!


----------



## ConanHub

naiveonedave said:


> I don't get your take on this at all. The kids, due to their Mother and her family, hate their dad. Alienation of affection. To the point that no sane judge could jail the mother and send the kids to the dad, as the kids are now brainwashed to hate dad.....
> 
> In these cases, especially with minors, establishing a relationship with the alienated parent has to be one of the top priorities.


I absolutely get the spirit of what she is trying to do but she has absolutely no authority to tell anyone that they must have a relationship of any kind, healthy or not, with someone they despise right or wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy

ConanHub said:


> I absolutely get the spirit of what she is trying to do but she has absolutely no authority to tell anyone that they must have a relationship of any kind, healthy or not, with someone they despise right or wrong.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry, but minors don't get the same treatment as adults. Pretending otherwise ignores the law.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> I absolutely get the spirit of what she is trying to do but she has absolutely no authority to tell anyone that they must have a relationship of any kind, healthy or not, with someone they despise right or wrong.


Wrong. A judge can enforce child custody and which parent a child is with at what time.


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> Wrong. A judge can enforce child custody and which parent a child is with at what time.


Might be splitting hairs, but having custody and having a relationship are separate animals.


----------



## EleGirl

phillybeffandswiss said:


> What makes this strange, "out there" and wrong is she jailed the kids.


The children were put is a place that is a faculty for children ages newborn to 18, who have been removed form the custody of their parent. It is not a jail.


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> Might be splitting hairs, but having custody and having a relationship are separate animals.


The judge has said that the brain washing by the mother is so bad that she wants to give the father 100% custody of the children. But the children will not cooperate with it. 

So the relationship bit is to get them to start interacting with their father.

Since the kids will not even talk to their father and the judge will no longer allow the mother custody of the children, a state run facility is the only choice she had. The children could be put in foster case from there.

The picture is a lot bigger than the children did not want to have lunch with their after so the judge put them in "jail".


According to the court transcript, the mother and older son have accosted the judge in the hall way before/after previous hearings. There is a long history here.


----------



## MarriedDude

EleGirl said:


> The judge has said that the brain washing by the mother is so bad that she wants to give the father 100% custody of the children. But the children will not cooperate with it.
> 
> So the relationship bit is to get them to start interacting with their father.
> 
> Since the kids will not even talk to their father and the judge will no longer allow the mother custody of the children, a state run facility is the only choice she had. The children could be put in foster case from there.
> 
> The picture is a lot bigger than the children did not want to have lunch with their after so the judge put them in "jail".
> 
> 
> *According to the court transcript, the mother and older son have accosted the judge in the hall way before/after previous hearings. There is a long history here.*


Thats a whole new level of bizarre


----------



## Fozzy

Paging Jerry Springer.


----------



## EleGirl

MarriedDude said:


> Thats a whole new level of bizarre


The judge said that out of 46,000 cases, this is one of two worst cases of parental alienation and brain washing that she has ever seen.

There is a lot more to this story.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'm not clear on why the judge is so convinced that there is parental alienation. From what I read she said that he's a nice man, people love him, and he's not been charged with anything. That hardly gives her insight into what goes on behind closed doors and the personal relationship these kids have with him. 

The same things could've been said of my mom's father and he was a child molester in private. 

I'm sure more than one person here has or had a spouse that everyone else loved but behind closed doors they were a different person. 


This guy might me a great guy, just saying that you can't always know what goes on in private. 

And I find it disturbing that he left the country for work the day after his kids were locked up. I can't imagine doing this. When he was still married to the mother he took a job in Israel knowing she didn't want to go. What does that say?

The father himself said that he'd had supervised visitation. Why? That's not usually ordered without a reason. 

I agree there's a lot more to this story. I just hope these kids aren't further damaged in detention.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

I'm not sure that he moved to Israel without his wife's agreement. There were married in Israel. Lived there for a while. Came back to the USA. Then went back to Israel. Then she left Israel with the children without the father's permission.

The problem is that we don't know the truth. There are people who make false claims of abuse. The mother claims abuse but never called the police. She never sought medical help for injuries from abuse. So it ends up looking a lot like false allegations. She cannot prove that he has ever abused her. He cannot prove that he has not. So do we categorically believe the mother? This is why a victim of abuse HAS to create a record of the abuse. 

Years ago the mother filed for a restraining order. It was apparently denied because the mother refused to do what the court required of her to get the order.

I found another article that talks about things that the mother has been doing that are basically contempt of court to prevent the kids from seeing their father. This includes not allowing him to come to the son’s bar mitzvah in 2014.

The father traveled to the USA last summer to see his kids. He wanted to know when his son’s bar mitzvah was. The other refused to tell him and said that instead of the father getting time whit the kids she was taking them to visit her family in Italy.

So the just order: "She can't go anywhere unless she tells Dad when the bar mitzvah is and when, where she's planning on going," Gorcyca said, adding that Eibschitz-Tsimhoni must submit an itinerary to the court for any travel plans the children had.

The mother never told the father where the bar mitzvah was held. AND she traveled out of the country with the children without submitting an itinerary to the court. So the mother has been in contempt of court for many occasions.

'Jailed' kids were warned to cooperate with judge

Suppose the father is innocent of abuse? What then? Why does he have to prove that he did not do something that he did not do?

I know that sometimes people make false accusations of abuse. I know of two situations where this happened. In both cases the women were using it to gain advantages in child custody. In one it would have increased her alimony. Thank goodness that in both of these cases the men had witnesses.


----------



## EleGirl

On 10 July 2015, Judge Lisa Gorcyca ordered that the kids be released from Children’s Village facility and sent to Camp Tamarack in West Bloomfield.

Read more at Tsimhoni Children Detained in Custody Dispute : snopes.com


----------



## EleGirl

more.. their father requested that the court send the children to summer camp... 

Here's the court order

Statement from Omer Tsimhoni Legal Team - PR News Blog
The above link 

http://everything-pr.com/omer-tsimhoni-maya-eibschitz-legal-case/258402/

Court documents from 2/23/2015, 3/26/2015, 7/10/2015

These links also have a court document at the bottom of the page that has a lot of the things that the mother and grandmother have been doing to deny the father visitation.

ETA: I'm still reading the court document at the bottom of the page. It gives a bad picture of the mother. Says that all custody evaluations have given scathing reports of the mother's actions.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I read the link you provided and something about this judge's attitude bothers me. I get that there may be alienation involved but the judges attitude of "i order you to talk to your father" and "going to the bathroom in public" reeks of her on a power trip because the kids won't listen to her and she's going to show them. She's going to shame and strong arm them because she can. 

I don't hear much compassion from the judge for kids that have been so horribly brainwashed as she claims. 

I hear a judge who's going to show bratty kids who's in charge here. This is not consistent with her claims that they're really victims. 

This could blow up in her face.[/size]

I agree that the judge is being harsh with the kids.

But what is she supposed to do? Is she supposed to just let people, including kids, come in to the court and simply refuse court orders?

I think it is consistent with her saying that the kids are victims. It certainly shows that they have been taught that they can completely disregard the judge and even be sassy to the judge.

Did you read the 11 page court document at the bottom of the page? It tells a lot more of what the mother's attitude has been.

I do think that the judge was right in removing the kids from their mother's custody. I'd be surprised if the mother got any custody now.

Now that the kids are going to summer camp, both the mother and the father have to have supervised visitation.

http://everything-pr.com/omer-tsimhoni-maya-eibschitz-legal-case/258402/


----------



## EleGirl

30. The Recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem was scathing toward Plaintiff Mother and her actions.

31. The Guardian Ad Litem cautioned the Court at this time that letting Plaintiff Mother's behavior go unchecked would be condoning her alienating and bizarre behavior to have the children act in a cult-like fashion.

32. The Guardian Ad Litem's ultimate recommendation was that each child see Defendant Father separately to eliminate the cult-like behavior in which the children basically gang up on the father and won't talk to him.

33. In addition, the Guardian Ad Litem also recommended that {name redacted} , the parenting time supervisor, be present for no other reason than to protect the Defendant from bogus allegations.


----------



## lifeistooshort

It's a tough call for sure, I'd just feel more comfortable if she demonstrated any real compassion for these kids who she feels are such victims. 

I don't like the you will do what I say and talk to your father or else. Not i feel for you kids and I deeply regret that this is necessary even if you don't understand it now.

Fvck you nasty brats is inconsistent with the kids being victims., which is basically what she said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

She was harsh on the kids. But I also think that the kids need to learn that they cannot just defy the court. Their mother has being doing it for 5-6 years. She has no respect for the court. She has apparently taught her kids to not respect the court/authority.

Now the children have been removed from both parents. Both parents have equal visitation rights. I kids have their own lawyers, counselors, etc. 

Hopefully the kids can now get the help that they need.


----------



## jld

Ele, what exactly did the mother do wrong? I have been reading the links, but do not see any specific actions listed.

Is it because she took the kids to Italy to visit her ill father at the same time the dad came to America to visit the kids?

From what I read, the father was physically abusive to the mother and the oldest child witnessed it. When the mother tried to get a protective order in place, this same judge denied it.

Apparently the mother, who is a physician, and the father, who is an engineer, divorced when the dad wanted the family to move to Israel back in 2008. He seems to have remarried since, with a new baby son, iirc.

Please help me understand your position on this. To me, it just looks like the dad and judge are power-grabbing out of their own pride, at the expense of the kids. What am I not seeing here?


----------



## jld

I read the article the _Washington Post_ did on this. It all seems very disturbing. From the comments section:

_alawyer1
7/10/2015 8:16 PM CDT
I've been following this case for a few days now. It is the father who hired a pitbull media guy to spin his story. It is the father who has a lawyer who happens to be buddies with the judge. It is the father who initially defied the court's jurisdiction - "Tsimhoni claimed the children's habitual residence was in Israel and they should be returned, but his bid was denied, according to court records. A judgment was entered in favor of Eibschitz-Tsimhoni in March 2010." I'd call him a liar - the kids were born in the US and lived there all their lives except for six months in Israel. it is the father who alleged kidnapping - long before the mother accused him of abuse. Get the picture? The judge bought the discredited, sexist theory of parental alienation fed her by her bestest friend and former colleague while the mom was going from lawyer to lawyer unable to pay. And it is this father's lawyer who has threatened lawyers who have attempted to intervene and assist the children.

skiesofblue
7/10/2015 11:17 PM CDT
some of the things you point out also gave me concern. The judge says that dad has jumped through hoops to see the kids, but he's still living in Israel? Parents that want placement of their children, along with a strong relationship with them, will move heaven and earth to keep the child's life/routine stable and as much the same as possible. He is considered a foremost expert in his field. Surely he should be able to find work back in the US. Parental alienation is such a complicated area. I've seen cases where it has occurred, and I've seen cases where a parent makes the claim because the parent is refusing to look at his or her own actions that caused the riff. It looks like there may have been a bit of both here._

I also read the transcript from the court. It appears the judge likened the children to followers of Charles Manson. She also said flat out she likes the dad. This judge hardly seems impartial.

And then ordering that the children not be allowed contact with one another, nor with their mother, only their father. My goodness. Is the judge trying to destroy their psyches? 

It seems a social justice organization has taken up for the children. I hope there will be a new judge, one who can wisely and impartially bring justice to this situation. And I hope somehow the children can recover from all this trauma.


----------



## jld

Another comment:

_Pretty obvious and true. This whole case started with Dad forcing the family to move to Israel. The mother had established a successful career in the US and liked it here. What's interesting is the threat of jail here the father used it against the mother when she took the kids from Israel, filing a kidnapping charge. He then tried to prevent the local courts from hearing the case and tried to force the case back to Israel. He knew the courts would be more sympathetic. He was behind the kids getting imprisoned - his attorney and the judge are buddies and likely set the whole thing up to teach the kids to honor their father. Period._

Well, I have to step away from this now. I am getting too worked up.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

jld said:


> I read the article the _Washington Post_ did on this. It all seems very disturbing. From the comments section:
> 
> _alawyer1
> 7/10/2015 8:16 PM CDT
> I've been following this case for a few days now. It is the father who hired a pitbull media guy to spin his story. It is the father who has a lawyer who happens to be buddies with the judge. It is the father who initially defied the court's jurisdiction - "Tsimhoni claimed the children's habitual residence was in Israel and they should be returned, but his bid was denied, according to court records. A judgment was entered in favor of Eibschitz-Tsimhoni in March 2010." I'd call him a liar - the kids were born in the US and lived there all their lives except for six months in Israel. it is the father who alleged kidnapping - long before the mother accused him of abuse. Get the picture? The judge bought the discredited, sexist theory of parental alienation fed her by her bestest friend and former colleague while the mom was going from lawyer to lawyer unable to pay. And it is this father's lawyer who has threatened lawyers who have attempted to intervene and assist the children.
> 
> skiesofblue
> 7/10/2015 11:17 PM CDT
> some of the things you point out also gave me concern. The judge says that dad has jumped through hoops to see the kids, but he's still living in Israel? Parents that want placement of their children, along with a strong relationship with them, will move heaven and earth to keep the child's life/routine stable and as much the same as possible. He is considered a foremost expert in his field. Surely he should be able to find work back in the US. Parental alienation is such a complicated area. I've seen cases where it has occurred, and I've seen cases where a parent makes the claim because the parent is refusing to look at his or her own actions that caused the riff. It looks like there may have been a bit of both here._
> 
> I also read the transcript from the court. It appears the judge likened the children to followers of Charles Manson. She also said flat out she likes the dad. This judge hardly seems impartial.
> 
> And then ordering that the children not be allowed contact with one another, nor with their mother, only their father. My goodness. Is the judge trying to destroy their psyches?
> 
> It seems a social justice organization has taken up for the children. I hope there will be a new judge, one who can wisely and impartially bring justice to this situation. And I hope somehow the children can recover from all this trauma.





jld said:


> Another comment:
> 
> _Pretty obvious and true. This whole case started with Dad forcing the family to move to Israel. The mother had established a successful career in the US and liked it here. What's interesting is the threat of jail here the father used it against the mother when she took the kids from Israel, filing a kidnapping charge. He then tried to prevent the local courts from hearing the case and tried to force the case back to Israel. He knew the courts would be more sympathetic. He was behind the kids getting imprisoned - his attorney and the judge are buddies and likely set the whole thing up to teach the kids to honor their father. Period._
> 
> Well, I have to step away from this now. I am getting too worked up.


I always enjoy how angry comment sections, as usual, contain hyperbole and poorly researched inaccuracies.


'


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Ele, what exactly did the mother do wrong? I have been reading the links, but do not see any specific actions listed.


Did you read the two court documents at the bottom of this web page? They are embedded files. Statement from Omer Tsimhoni Legal Team - PR News Blog

They list not only things that the mother did that are in contempt of court. But also reports by mental health professionals, the children’s Guardian Ad Litem that give scathing reports of the mother’s behavior.



jld said:


> Is it because she took the kids to Italy to visit her ill father at the same time the dad came to America to visit the kids?


This is only one thing that she did in contempt of court. She did not have the right to take the children to Italy when it was the father’s time with the children. We call that kidnapping.

The father was in the USA for the summer. By court order he was supposed to have the children. This was all planed out in advance. Instead of allowing the father his visitation with the children she told him that she was going to Italy with them. The court ordered her to provide dates, itinerary and where she would be. The mother did not provide this info. This is not a minor infraction. She just took off with the kids, took them out of country without court permission. AND she denied the father his time with the children.



jld said:


> From what I read, the father was physically abusive to the mother and the oldest child witnessed it. When the mother tried to get a protective order in place, this same judge denied it.


In one of the court records, it says that the judge denied the protective order because the mother refused to follow the steps and fill out the paper work that was required to get the protective order. So the mother really did not try to get a protective order. People who file for a protective order actually submit all the required paperwork, evidence, etc.

The mother claims that he was abusive. She claims abuse in 2008 and 2009. At the time the children were 5, 4 and 2. How much would any of these kids remember from 6, 7, years ago?

The mother did not ever call the police, or get any medical treatment for abuse. She claims that he tried to break her fingers by slamming a door on them several times. If that had happened, she would have had serious injury to her hand. I know what my hand looked like the few times that I have accidently slammed a door on it. And that was just on slam… not several by a strong man.

The fact is that a person cannot just accuse someone of abuse. There is something called innocent until proven guilty. If a person is being abused, they have to get a record of this. She is a doctor. She is a mandatory reporter for abuse and domestic violence. She knows that a record has to be created. But she did nothing to create that record. At this point it’s her word against his.

You know that I’m a huge advocate for victims of domestic violence. However I don’t take every accusation as gospel. Why? Because I know people have falsely reported abuse to try to deny the other parent time/custody. In these cases I now that he accusations were false. In two of them I was witness to what really happened. In one of them the accuser laughed to those who she thought would go along and keep her secret. She was mistaken. 




jld said:


> Apparently the mother, who is a physician, and the father, who is an engineer, divorced when the dad wanted the family to move to Israel back in 2008. He seems to have remarried since, with a new baby son, iirc.


The couple were living in Israel when they married. After a few years they immigrated to the USA. The father then took a job in Israel and the mother moved with him. She then left Israel without the children without the father’s permission. She was in the wrong. It was a unilateral move on her part.

Yea, he remarried after they divorced. I don’t see any problem with remarriage.

The father has also moved back to the USA so he can have more time with his children.


jld said:


> Please help me understand your position on this. To me, it just looks like the dad and judge are power-grabbing out of their own pride, at the expense of the kids. What am I not seeing here?


The judge is not power grabbing. This is case that has been going on for 6 years with dozens of court hearings. There is a long history that none of us know about. From the court record on 6/24/2015, apparently the mother and older boy have even gone after the judge outside of chambers.. the court house hallway. 

I’m not sure why you think that the father is power grabbing. He has joint custody of his children. He was supposed to have summer and other time with the children by court order and the mother refused to let the children see him.

The mother is the one who has power grabbed. She is the one who has been refusing to follow court orders, who has refused to let the children see their father. And according to the counselors and Guardian Ad Litem (not the judge) she has been uncooperative, had bizar behavior, and has brain washed the kids. They gave scathing reports of the mother to the court.

This is not the judge. There have been apparently many people involved and all or most have the same opinion of the mother and her actions.


----------



## EleGirl

Why judge sent children to youth home

“I’m so upset with you,” Gorcyca told the 9-year-old daughter of Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni and Omer Tsimhoni, moments before banishing the girl and her two older brothers to Children’s Village for the mother of all time-outs.

“I’m even more upset with your brother, and I won’t say what I think about your mother,” the judge continued. “Every single adult in this courtroom thinks you have been brainwashed.”

But the June 24 hearing was only the latest skirmish in a 51/2-year custody brawl that has generated a jaw-dropping 465 court filings, and it can be comprehended through only the widest-angle lens.

For example, Gorcyca’s Manson metaphor, however intemperate, was not original. It was first evoked by William Lansat, the veteran Birmingham attorney who Gorcyca appointed to look out for the Tsimhoni children’s best interests in 2010 after their parents and a succession of mediators failed to reach an accommodation on the father’s parenting time.

Like many of the other consultants who the court has engaged in the case, Lansat sees Eibschitz-Tsimhoni — a distinguished eye surgeon noted for pioneering work in the treatment of infants — as the author of a concerted campaign to sabotage her children’s relationship with their father, a traffic-engineering expert who has spent most of the last seven years working in Israel for General Motors.

“The behaviors of these children toward their father over the years is neither normal nor acceptable,” Lansat observed in a report submitted to the court last November. The report described supervised encounters in which the children refused to make eye contact with their father and recalled one occasion when they had resisted the efforts of multiple court personnel — including six sheriff’s deputies — to escort them to a jury room for a court-ordered visit.

Once inside the jury room, Lansat recalled, “The children would not answer to any adult; they huddled together as if they were sending messages/vibes to each other in some sort of Manson-like behavior.”

Lansat recommended that Gorcyca consider “a Draconian approach” to enforce her court orders mandating parenting time, and said he had warned Eibschitz-Tsimhoni that her children could be assigned to Children’s Village if they failed to appear for scheduled visits with their dad.

In an impassioned address to the court at Friday’s emergency hearing, Lansat said that Gorcyca should find another placement for the children, but defended the court’s decision to separate them from their mother.

“You can debate whether it’s legal or not legal, whether you can do it or not,” the court-appointed guardian told Gorcyca. “But they cannot go back to the mother.”

Few would have objected, and many professionals close to the case would have no doubt applauded, if Gorcyca had sent Eibschitz-Tsimhoni to jail for contempt of court. There is ample precedent for holding a custodial parent accountable in such circumstances.

But even if their mother had taken the fall, the children might have had to be placed in foster care; their father’s overseas posting, and the children’s continuing reluctance to see him, raised serious practical obstacles.

In the event that Gorcyca’s decision to quarantine the children, rather than their mother, turned the Tsimhoni custody battle into a prisoner’s rights case. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni and her attorney seized the opening to write a new narrative, casting the trial judge as the villain and the mother as their blameless defender.

Even those on the periphery of the case became targets for an aroused national audience. Karen Cook, a Beverly Hills family law attorney hastily summoned to represent the youngest Tsimhoni child just minutes before the June 24 hearing began, was awakened at home one night by an enraged caller from Nebraska; the caller had read about the case online and demanded to know why Cook had allowed her 9-year-old client to be “locked up.”

The consensus in Michigan’s legal community is that Gorcyca was prudent to transfer the Tsimhoni children before an appellate court insisted on it. But even in private conversation, judges who contend with divorce and custody matters were muted in their criticism of the judge and sympathetic to the dilemma she confronted.

Before and after Friday’s hearing, I spoke with judges who preside in family courts outside Oakland County. Again and again, they described an increasingly common scenario in which divorcing parents abdicate their responsibility to enforce custody arrangements, leaving minor children to call the shots and protesting their own helplessness when the kids balk at parenting schedules ordained by the court.

“They’ve absolutely had it with the kids being in charge and the parents hiding behind them,” one veteran divorce lawyer told me. Gorcyca “isn’t the only one pulling her hair out.”

In an address from the bench Friday afternoon, Gorcyca reiterated her frustration.

“Alienation is a devastating problem,” she said, “and the judicial system has very few tools to address it.” She dismissed Eibschitz-Tsimhoni’s allegations that her ex-husband had threatened his children, insisting that in 51/2 years, she had seen “no credible evidence that the father has ever done anything to harm them.”

Fifteen years ago, in a column that appeared the day after Elian Gonzalez was spirited from his uncle’s house, I ridiculed the notion that Reno or the armed agents who seized him at gunpoint were the villains of the custody battle.

The real villains, I believed then and now, were the Miami relatives and Cuban exiles who had subordinated a helpless child’s interests to their own political agenda, slandered his father’s name, and defied the court’s insistence that he be reunited with his father.

By the same token, I have little sympathy for the social media mob demanding Gorcyca’s scalp. Yes, she stretched her legal authority to the breaking point. And her remarks in the June 24 hearing violated her own insistence that the Tsimhoni parents not speak ill of each other in front of their children.

But it was Eibschitz-Tsimhoni’s contempt for the law, and her refusal to assume her parental responsibility, that led Gorcyca and virtually every other professional who has come into contact with her to conclude her children would be safer if they were living somewhere else for a while.

Even Lansat worries that it may be too late to allay the suspicions that Eibschitz-Tsimhoni’s unfounded allegations against her ex-husband have provoked in her children. But if we really believe that every child deserves two loving parents, we shouldn’t blame the court for trying.


----------



## Duguesclin

Elegirl, you seem to feel strongly about this issue. But, in all honesty, I am afraid you are on the wrong side. I am not going to argue on who, between the mother or the father, is wrong. But sending kids to jail because they refuse to have lunch with their father is simply appalling. How can a father accept this?

Now, regarding the brain washing, who is to decide what is brain washing and what is not, the government? We all brain wash our kids. If harm is done, then it is another story. As far as I know, those kids are doing very well in school and are well appreciated in their community. Reading the court transcript, I even saw the second boy almost ready to accept lunch with his father simply because he wants to play soccer. But the judge's attitude was simply appalling. The boy finally decided to give up soccer to stand with his brother and sister. It shows character.


----------



## ConanHub

I don't care what the background story is. I would have this lady's job before I was done if I was one of the children. A damn good settlement from the district that employs the buffoon as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

Duguesclin said:


> Elegirl, you seem to feel strongly about this issue. But, in all honesty, I am afraid you are on the wrong side. I am not going to argue on who, between the mother or the father, is wrong. But sending kids to jail because they refuse to have lunch with their father is simply appalling. How can a father accept this?
> 
> Now, regarding the brain washing, who is to decide what is brain washing and what is not, the government? We all brain wash our kids. If harm is done, then it is another story. As far as I know, those kids are doing very well in school and are well appreciated in their community. Reading the court transcript, I even saw the second boy almost ready to accept lunch with his father simply because he wants to play soccer. But the judge's attitude was simply appalling. The boy finally decided to give up soccer to stand with his brother and sister. It shows character.


Wrong side? She never said the judge was right in sentencing the kids. Neither did I for that matter.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

ConanHub said:


> I don't care what the background story is. I would have this lady's job before I was done if I was one of the children. A damn good settlement from the district that employs the buffoon as well.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Doubt it.


----------



## Duguesclin

phillybeffandswiss said:


> Wrong side? She never said the judge was right in sentencing the kids. Neither did I for that matter.


Nor did she say the judge was wrong.



EleGirl said:


> While I agree this sounds outrageous, I don't have enough info at this time to say what I think of it. I can imagine things that would either make it reasonable for a judge to do this and things that would not.





EleGirl said:


> She was harsh on the kids. But I also think that the kids need to learn that they cannot just defy the court. Their mother has being doing it for 5-6 years. She has no respect for the court. She has apparently taught her kids to not respect the court/authority.


Elegirl, do you think the judge was wrong with what she did?


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> Elegirl, you seem to feel strongly about this issue. But, in all honesty, I am afraid you are on the wrong side. I am not going to argue on who, between the mother or the father, is wrong. But sending kids to jail because they refuse to have lunch with their father is simply appalling. How can a father accept this?


The children did not go to jail. They went to Mandy's place.... a place for children from age 0 to 18. 



Duguesclin said:


> Now, regarding the brain washing, who is to decide what is brain washing and what is not, the government? We all brain wash our kids. If harm is done, then it is another story. As far as I know, those kids are doing very well in school and are well appreciated in their community. Reading the court transcript, I even saw the second boy almost ready to accept lunch with his father simply because he wants to play soccer. But the judge's attitude was simply appalling. The boy finally decided to give up soccer to stand with his brother and sister. It shows character.


If it were just the judge who came to this conclusion, it would be one thing.

But there are about a dozen people who tried to work with the mother and the children .. they refused to cooperate.

The mother and children could have worked with the counselors. They could have explained things. Instead they refused to even talk to anyone.. for 5/6 years.

I'm not sure why people seem to think that the father has no rights here.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

I think that the reason I have strong feelings about this case is because I've seen cases where this has happened. These are cases in which I know what was going on. 

We also had a lot of problem with my step children because their mother tried this. I have recordings of her coaching the children to defy us, the court and everything else. She put hideous things in their heads. In our case, the court allowed the recordings.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> Nor did she say the judge was wrong.
> 
> Elegirl, do you think the judge was wrong with what she did?


Before I answer this, it has to be clear that the judge did not send the children to jail, or to juvenile detention. She sent them to Mandy’s Place.

Mandy's Place is short-term housing for children ages 0-18 who have been removed from their homes by the court due to neglect, abuse and status offenses. The children are waiting to return to their family, go to foster care, be placed in Children’s Village live-in program or to another agency. Our goal is to provide care, safety and security to the best of our ability until the Court or DHS has made a decision.

https://www.oakgov.com/village/Pages/about/shelter_care.aspx


I do not like the way that judge talked to the children, trying to scare them. 

From the court paper’s I’ve read, I think that the judge was probably right to remove the children from their mother’s custody.

Not all women are good mothers. Alienating a child from the other parent is a form of child abuse.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> I don't care what the background story is. I would have this lady's job before I was done if I was one of the children. A damn good settlement from the district that employs the buffoon as well.


What do you think that she can lose her job over?


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

Duguesclin said:


> Nor did she say the judge was wrong.


I am not the one who said she was "on the wrong side" like you did. As you confirmed, "she never said the judge was right in sentencing the kids." I am like Ele, I try to research before choosing a side if their really is one. 

I despise her comments and she should have recessed to calm down IMO.


----------



## Duguesclin

Elegirl, I am surprised that you find that there are acceptable reasons to deny children freedom of movement because they refuse to see their dad. And even worse they were not allowed to be with each other.

The judge was very specific in pointing out that they would not have a soft and comfortable bed, that they would have to use public toilets. The judge herself referred to the "village" as a jail (I did not invent it, page 17 of the transcript).

Denying children their freedom simply because they do not want to meet their dad is appalling.

What greatly concerns me is the fact that the government think they can do a better job raising those kids. Where are we, in the Chinese cultural revolution?

I understand the father has rights, but kids do too. And their rights have been walked on.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Mom's abusive and they don't want to be with dad so it's off to the orphanage they go.


----------



## Duguesclin

What evidence do you have that the state can raise kids better than the mom?


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

Duguesclin said:


> What greatly concerns me is the fact that the government think they can do a better job raising those kids. Where are we, in the Chinese cultural revolution?
> 
> I understand the father has rights, but kids do too. And their rights have been walked on.





Duguesclin said:


> What evidence do you have that the state can raise kids better than the mom?


I'm curious, is this really new to you? Or are you from a different country?

No offense meant or insult intended.


----------



## Duguesclin

Philly, what are you asking? I do not understand.

The kids are better off with the parents or one of the parents than with the state. In this case, there are better off with the mom because this is where the children want to be.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> Elegirl, I am surprised that you find that there are acceptable reasons to deny children freedom of movement because they refuse to see their dad. And even worst they were not allowed to be with each other.
> The judge was very specific in pointing out that they would not have a soft and comfortable bed, that they would have to use public toilets. The judge herself referred the "village" as a jail (I did not invent it, page 17 of the transcript).


I know what the judge said to the kids, I read it too. I’ve already said that I think that the judge was wrong in the way she talked to the kids.

Keep in mind that the judge had told the mother and the children in an earlier court hearing that she was seriously considering moving the children to Mandy’s Place. The mother and children were give a walkthrough of the facility before this hearing. So the children already knew what it was like.

When a group of kids have been brain washed, they are separated. That is standard procedure. If they are left together they will not break out of the mindset that was been created with the brain washing.



Duguesclin said:


> Denying children their freedom simply because they do not want to meet their dad is appalling.
> 
> What greatly concerns me is the fact that the government think they can do a better job raising those kids. Where are we, in the Chinese cultural revolution?
> 
> I understand the father has rights, but kids do too. and their rights have been walked on.


Do you really think that the government, our courts, should never intervene when children are being abused? Parental alienation is a form of serious child abuse. The dynamics of parental alienation are very emotionally damaging for children. The crux of it is that one parent has made the children know they have to hate and mistreat their other parent in order to keep the love of alienating parent. Most parents who do parental alienation have in the Narcissistic Personality Disorder range.

Part of the damage that is done is that the child does love both parents. So while tiring to appease the alienator, they suffer great guilt and feeling of loss (like mourning a death) of the alienated parent.

The court has given the children 5/6 years to express what they want and why. The children and their mother refused to take advantage of that very long opportunity express what was going on. 

Let's say for a minute that all of the professionals who have worked with the children for 6 years, a dozen or more, are right: the mother has brain washed the kids against their father.

Let's also say that the visitation supervisors who say that the children falsely accused their father of abuse are not lying. The supervisors were supervising the visitation so they know what went on. They know that the children fabricated false accusations of abuse.

If we assume that a dozen or more professionals are not liars and actually have the children's best interest in mind, then removing the children from their mother's custody is the right thing to do.

Children do not have a right to decide where they live. Now the court can hear them out. But the court does not have to let the children live where they want if the court decides that it's not in the child's best interest.

Kids sleep and live where their parents tell them to. In a divorce, custody is determined and a judge signs the order. The children then sleep and live where the judge agreed they live and sleep. In this case the court said that the children live part time with their mother and part time with their father. 

When parents are deemed to behave in a manner that is injurious to the children, then the court can removed the children from the parent who is injuring the children. In this case, again they sleep/live where the judge tells them to live.

That's how the family law works.

I don't have all of those 8 folders of legal documents. So I don't know the entire story. No one on here does. 99.99999% of those yelling about this on the internet don't have a clue of what the real story is. All we have is the mother’s twisted version of the story and 3 court documents, and one video for the proceeding last Friday.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> Philly, what are you asking? I do not understand.
> 
> The kids are better off with the parents or one of the parents than with the state. In this case, there are better off with the mom because this is where the children want to be.


I used to volunteer with abused children.

Just to talk about one case, there were two children who insisted that they wanted to live with their mother. The mother is an alcoholic, drug user. She would leave the children unsupervised at night when they were little to go out and party. One of the children said that she had sexually molested them for a 3-4 year period. 

The mother had the kids convinced that they had to live with her to save her and because if they did not live with her, she would withdraw her love for them. 

It was heart wrenching to watch those kids beg to live with their mother. But the court could not allow it.

With what you are saying, the court should have allowed the kids to return to an abusive, alcoholic, drug user.

Every one of the dozen or more people working with the children in the Tsimhoni has said that the level of alienation that the mother is doing is harming the children. So why would the court leave the children with a mother who is harming them with emotional abuse (yes parental alienation is emotional abuse).


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> Children do not have a right to decide where they live. Now the court can hear them out. But the court does not have to let the children live where they want if the court decides that it's not in the child's best interest.


Denying kids their freedom of movement, separating them from one another is acceptable to you. It is not to me.

It is a difficult situation, I concede, but no one, including the state should use kids as a bargaining chip. And what really bothers me, as a father, is that that father allowed it.



EleGirl said:


> Just to talk about one case, there were two children who insisted that they wanted to live with their mother. The mother is an alcoholic, drug user. She would leave the children unsupervised at night when they were little to go out and party. One of the children said that she had sexually molested them for a 3-4 year period.


In 5-6 years of court proceeding, there is not mention of any such issues with Maya Tsimhoni. 

Regarding emotional abuse, who defines it? The one with the most money?


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

Duguesclin said:


> Philly, what are you asking? I do not understand.


Your Chinese Revolution hyperbole was weird. It is as if you have never encountered custody issues in he US. 



Duguesclin said:


> The kids are better off with the parents or one of the parents than with the state.


I agree. Still, kids get removed for many issues including contentious divorces. Kids have rights, as well as adults, which are all superseded by laws and court orders. If a judge orders a person to do "A" they can fight it, but they can be sent into custody. Yes, a child or an adult.


----------



## ConanHub

WorkingOnMe said:


> Doubt it.


Doubt what you will. I have already seen a judge dismissed for similar behavior. I'm not talking from inexperience.

What are you talking from?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

I really don't understand the sympathy for the mother of these kids. Based on what we know as facts:
1) she kidnapped them when she didn't let them go the fathers per court order
2) she claims abuse, with no proof
3) the judge and others are apparently appalled at her flagrant attempts to alienate the kids from their father (which is child abuse)

I can see why people are not happy with the judge, but I don't know what recourse he/she has. based on the facts we have, the judge apparently determined the mother is not fit to retain her parenthood. (The two felonies, listed above pretty much prove that).

I can see why he would not send them to their dads. What else could be done?

And please stop calling the place the kids were sent jail or what not. It is a place for kids without parents, really an orphanage.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> I really don't understand the sympathy for the mother of these kids. Based on what we know as facts:
> 1) she kidnapped them when she didn't let them go the fathers per court order
> 2) she claims abuse, with no proof
> 3) the judge and others are apparently appalled at her flagrant attempts to alienate the kids from their father (which is child abuse)
> 
> I can see why people are not happy with the judge, but I don't know what recourse he/she has. based on the facts we have, the judge apparently determined the mother is not fit to retain her parenthood. (The two felonies, listed above pretty much prove that).
> 
> I can see why he would not send them to their dads. What else could be done?
> 
> And please stop calling the place the kids were sent jail or what not. It is a place for kids without parents, really an orphanage.


I agree and do not understand why people are so quick to dismiss the crimes and other inexcusable things that the mother has done.

There is a lot, 8 file folders full, of things that have gone on that we are not privy to. But everyone working on the case agrees that the mother's behavior has been bizar and abusive towards the children.


.


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> I agree and do not understand why people are so quick to dismiss the crimes and other inexcusable things that the mother has done.
> 
> There is a lot, 8 file folders full, of things that have gone on that we are not privy to. But everyone working on the case agrees that the mother's behavior has been bizar and abusive towards the children.
> 
> 
> .


The outcry is about the behavior of the judge and the tactics used to have the children comply. Right or wrong, this alone overshadows whatever the mother may or may not have done.

There is no smoking gun of child abuse from the mother. I understand parental alienation is a concern, but we have a situation of a father living in Israel with lots of money, able to hire a PR firm in NY against a crying mother with no money who wants her kids to stay in the US.

Again, right or wrong, the heart goes to the weak, therefore the mother.

The father blew it when he allowed his kids to go separated to this detention center.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> The outcry is about the behavior of the judge and the tactics used to have the children comply. Right or wrong, this alone overshadows whatever the mother may or may not have done.


We have no idea whether or not what the judge did overshadows what the mother may have done. We don’t know the full extent of what they are accusing the mother of doing.

What I have read is that very often the children huddle together, holding on to each other, shaking and crying. Sometimes, if they are seated at a table they will put their heads on the table in unison. They usually refuse to talk to any adults involved. They tap out things with their feet that look like they are communicating in code. They do this in court. They do it in counseling when the father is not there. When the mother is present, sometimes they huddle behind her holding on to each. When the father is there, they will not look at him or acknowledge that he’s there. They just sit/stand staring. 

One time, early on, when the father was supposed to pick the children up at their school, the children became hysterical and caused a huge scene at the school. The school personnel has to get involved, court personnel had to be called to handle the situation.

Then there was at least one time when the children were at a supervised visitation with their father. They of course would not talk to, or look at him. Then they called 911 and accused their father of abusing them. The supervisor was right there. There was no abuse. The kids lied.

That is very odd behavior and disturbing. The mother encourages this behavior. 

If my kids acted like that and did not stop it when told, I’d have them in counseling so fast their heads would spin. That’s not normal or healthy behavior.



Duguesclin said:


> There is no smoking gun of child abuse from the mother.


Again, we have no idea what the extent of the child abuse is that the GAL, counselors, etc. say has gone on. What I describe above are only a part of the strange behavior by the children. It does not even start to talk about the strange behavior of the mother for the last 6 years. Parental alienation in and of itself can be very damaging to a child. The incidence of suicide goes up 5 times when there is parental alienation. 

Teaching and encouraging children to behave like the above, with counselors, visitation supervisors, the police, court officers, court clerks and on and on is not good parenting.



Duguesclin said:


> I understand parental alienation is a concern, but we have a situation of a father living in Israel


The mother kidnapped the children from where they were living in Israel and brought them to the USA without the permission of their father. That’s a crime that she has gotten away with.

The father has lived in the USA for a few years. He moved back to the USA to be near his children. When he was living in Israel he come to the USA about every 3 months for an extended visit to see his children. And the mother did things like run off to Italy with the children to deny him visitation. 



Duguesclin said:


> with lots of money, able to hire a PR firm in NY against a crying mother with no money who wants her kids to stay in the US.


We do not know if the father has more money than the mother. She is an Ophthalmologist. There is press out there about her being a renowned doctor because of groundbreaking things she has done. She probably makes a good income as well. She might make a lot more than he does. There are webpages all over the internet about her publications and work. Here is a web page that talks about the mother’s significant professional accomplishments.

https://www.sunzu.com/mayaeibschitztsimhoni-684676

If she had not caused this many year legal battle, with dozens of court appearances and the need for a dozen or more people having to be paid for evaluations, suppression, etc, she would not have wasted probably 10’s, or maybe 100’s, of thousands of dollars. She has wasted not only her money, but her ex’s money as well. This is money that could have gone to her children’s education, trips to wonderful places, and on and on. 

On top of his legal fees, the father traveled between the USA and Israel many times a year to spend time with his children. That is expensive. 

The PR firm is run by a good friend of his. There is a good chance that he's not paying anything for whatever they do. 

I have found tons of social medial sites and activity done by the mother and her supporters. I’ve also found many mainstream media articles that are based on interviews with the mother and her press releases. There are interviews of the mother giving her side of the story. I wonder how much the mother is paying a PR consultant to get this kind of coverage. But I’m sure she’s not going to publicize that.

I’ve found two things from the father’s side. One is a statement published by his attorney saying that the father will not comment publically. The other is the ONLY thing that the PR firm has help the father with. He only published this two weeks after the mother started her media blitz.

Omer Tsimhoni, Whose Kids Were Put in Juvenile Detention | Observer



Duguesclin said:


> against a crying mother with no money who wants her kids to stay in the US.


There is just about zero chance that the father could take the children out of the USA. He does not have their passports. It is not easy to get children out of the country on a few hours’ notice. I have no doubt that where he to try, those kids would cause a ruckus that could be heard for miles. After the fiasco at the park in about 2010 when ridiculous claims were made about the father, there have always been court appointed supervisors when visitation with the children was attempted. The supervisors were hired to protect the father from false accusations, not the children.

Like it says in the court papers, the mother’s stated fear that he will take the children to Israel is a red herring.



Duguesclin said:


> against a crying mother


I’m sorry but tears are cheap. Crying for a media photo op is propaganda and even cheaper. I’ve seen this before in court. I’ve seen mothers and fathers who abused their children crying in court, denying that they did anything. It’s done to get sympathy. I’ve wanted her interview over and over. I don’t buy it. Add to that her statements made while she was crying for the camera “I felt like I was watching them being executed.” In her interviews, she told quite a few lies. What she said does not match the court documents.



Duguesclin said:


> Again, right or wrong, the heart goes to the weak, therefore the mother.


This woman is not weak. Not by a long shot. She is a highly paid doctor. She is a woman who is strong enough to kidnap her children and run off to another country. She’s strong enough to fight an entire court and support system.

The judge had told her before the hearing that the children were being removed from her custody. She was strong enough to put together an entire social media and mainstream media blitz to hit immediately after the children were removed from her custody. Unfortunately the judge gave her a lot of ammo by losing it in court.

She is not a weak woman. I sure as hell would not want to come up against her for anything.

All women are not weak. All women are not good mothers.


Duguesclin said:


> The father blew it when he allowed his kids to go separated to this detention center.


The children did not go to a detention center. They were in Mandy’s place. I’ve posted links to its web site a few times. I guess you did not look at the website. The place takes new born babies… children from ages 0 to 18. New born babies are never put in a detention center.

The father had no choice in this. The judge said that the father begged her not to put them in Mandy’s place. But she said that it was no longer his call. He also had no control over the children being separated. 
If the father blew it, then the mother did as well. The court told the mother months earlier that if things did not change, the children would be removed to Mandy’s Place till an alternative placement could be found.

But I can see why the children were separated. Had they not been separated, they probably would have huddled together, holding on to each other, shacking, crying, and mumbling to each other as they apparently do most of the time.

The report from Mandy’s place say that the kids engaged in actives like nature works, bar-b-ques, school, arts and craft, etc. They talked to the other children and were laughing and playing.

That beats the hell out of the strange huddling thing they would have probably done were they together.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> I really don't understand the sympathy for the mother of these kids. Based on what we know as facts:
> 
> *2) she claims abuse, with no proof*


A little while ago I read the court papers that quote the police report on this. 

The day of the supposed abuse, the father left the house and called 911. Yes the father was the one who called 911.

When the police got there, the mother told them that the father was slamming her hand in the door saying that he would break her fingers so she could never work again as a surgeon. The police found no injuries on her hand or anywhere else.

I don't now about anyone else, but when I've slammed my hand in a door it leaves marks like bruises and cuts. I can only imagine what would happen if a strong man slammed a door on my hand a few times.

When the police said that there were no injuries and that there was nothing that they could do since there was nothing to back up her claim, she then starting saying that, well he emotionally abuses her.

A couple of months later she willingly moved to Israel with the children to live with her husband.

The more I read about this case the worse it gets about the mother.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Why did the father have supervised visitation? That question has not been answered and courts don't like to order it without a reason.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> Why did the father have supervised visitation? That question has not been answered and courts don't like to order it without a reason.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


From the father's side, I read that he is scared of having the kids make false allegations against him. A supervisor affords him some protection.

From the mother's side, it seems a little more complicated. Both mom and dad are from Israel. They did their studies in Michigan, and their children have birth certificates from America.

Apparently the dad has a good job with GM, and was transferred to Israel in 2008. The mom initially filed for divorce in Michigan. I am guessing she did not want to leave her professional work in the U.S. As Ele mentioned, she is a pediatric eye surgeon, and also a glaucoma researcher.

They reconciled, and the mom agreed to try living in Israel. 

After six months, the mom told the dad she was taking the kids on a vacation to the U.S. Once there, she filed for divorce. The dad then had her charged with kidnapping in Israel. I read that if she ever goes back to Israel, she will be arrested.

From what I read, in the press and comments sections, not court documents, the father said during divorce proceedings that the children were Israeli residents. However, the kids had only lived those six months in Israel. Israeli courts tend to favor the father, so it was suggested that the kids would have gone to the dad had they been remanded to Israel. Kids with dad, mom unable to ever see them except if dad allowed them to visit in the U.S., or if the mother was willing to serve time first in an Israeli jail for kidnapping charges.

It seems the mistake mom made was to ever go back in the first place. She probably realized that, and figured her best chance of having a fair shot at custody of the kids was to get them back to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

It was shown to the court that the dad was lying in his claim, and the mother got full physical custody.

Again, I read this in news/comments, so cannot vouch for its veracity.


----------



## ConanHub

I'm not advocating for either parent. The judge is definitely out of line however.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> I'm not advocating for either parent. The judge is definitely out of line however.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 I think the judge is advocating for the father.

According to his lawyer, the father will be filing to have full custody of the kids. The GAL said that they must not be returned to the mother. That is out.

A reconciliation expert is supposed to start working with the children at the end of the summer camp experience.

Whatever the mother did, her time with them, outside of whatever supervised visits will be allowed to her, appears to be over.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> According to his lawyer, the father will be filing to have full custody of the kids. The GAL said that they must not be returned to the mother. That is out.
> 
> 
> Whatever the mother did, her time with them, outside of whatever supervised visits will be allowed to her, appears to be over.


I agree, the judge is trying to make this work for the father to be the sole guardian when the mess is over. I am not sure the judge is right or wrong, but since the GAL is stating the mother is out, I don't see what choices the judge really had. The kids are so poisoned against their father, I don't think the kds could go there right now.

I think, based on what I read and what Ele posted, the mother is really in the wrong. I don't think we know about enough about the father to judge him.

Very said situation.


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> Why did the father have supervised visitation? That question has not been answered and courts don't like to order it without a reason.


There is a court document that I read last night that has a long history.

The GAL addressed it in the court hearing when it was agreed that the children would go to the summer camp. The GAL said that the father needed supervised visitation because of repeated false accusations against him. It's been for the protection of the father. 

The father did not have supervised visitation in the beginning.

But there were incidents.

One was that he was going to spend several hours with the children in a park. The mother dropped the children off at the park. The children refused to talk, look at or otherwise interact with their father. During the entire time the mother drove round and round the park. At about the 2 hour point, the mother stopped her car. the children ran to the car, jumped in and locked the doors. The visit was supposed to be for several hours.

The mother then told the children to dial 911. when the police arrived, the mother told the police that the father had shoved her against the car trying to prevent the children from getting in the car. The kids told the police that while in the park the father told them that he was going to kill them.

The father mentions this event in his one press release.

There is mention of other supervised visitations where the children called 911 and falsely accused the father of abusing them during the visit. The court knows that the accusations were false because there was a retired police officer who was supervising the visit. As I understand it, this is only one example of the attempts of the children to falsely accuser their father of abuse during a supervised visit.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I think the judge is advocating for the father.
> 
> According to his lawyer, the father will be filing to have full custody of the kids. The GAL said that they must not be returned to the mother. That is out.
> 
> A reconciliation expert is supposed to start working with the children at the end of the summer camp experience.
> 
> Whatever the mother did, her time with them, outside of whatever supervised visits will be allowed to her, appears to be over.


I don't believe that the judge is advocating for the father as in she wants to see him win some prize.

I think that the judge is advocating for the children.

I think that the judge, GAL and everyone else on the case believes that the mother has causes serious issues with the children and poisoned them against the father to the extent of some very bizar behavior.

So the court has no choice but the remove the children from their mother.


The father is the only other choice. Well except for either the orphanage called Mandy's Place or foster care.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> Very said situation.


This is the bottom line. It's a horrible, sad situation that could have been very easily avoided.


----------



## jld

Do you want the mother burnt or hanged, Ele?


_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> This is the bottom line. It's a horrible, sad situation that could have been very easily avoided.


I never could understand how anyone could use their kids like this. I have seen it with acquaintances who got divorced. Absolute tragedy.


----------



## EleGirl

Jld, that is just nonsense. 

Like a lot of people I find the case interesting. One of the things I find the most interesting is how people are now using the internet to try to drum up public sympathy with the goal of overriding the courts and just about anything else. 

This is done by one side splashing social media with twisted versions of the story, to the point of lying. More and more , social media is driving mainstream media... so the they perpetuate the social media hyperpol.

The web then explodes with people writing blog posts that further spead the false story. Followed by people who leave comments based on rumor. And then people read the comments as though the commenters have a clue.

It is fascinating to watch... and horrible to watch. It's the gossip mill on steroids aided by the mainstream media.

We has been happening for some time now.

I have tried as. Much as possible to stick to actual court documents. When I read things on here that contradict the court documents, I post with what they actually say.

And yes I have posted my opinion. The more I read court documents and see how the mother has lied to the public, the more I am convinced the the court is right.... she is in the wrong and has emotionally harmed her children.

I have little to no opinion of the father except that he is not the one hurting the children and playing games with the court.

For all I know they are both loney toons in their own rights. 

You snd I disagree on this. That's ok.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Jld, that is just nonsense.
> 
> Like a lot of people I find the case interesting. One of the things I find the most interesting is how people are now using the internet to try to drum up public sympathy with the goal of overriding the courts and just about anything else.
> 
> This is done by one side splashing social media with twisted versions of the story, to the point of lying. More and more , social media is driving mainstream media... so the they perpetuate the social media hyperpol.
> 
> The web then explodes with people writing blog posts that further spead the false story. Followed by people who leave comments based on rumor. And then people read the comments as though the commenters have a clue.
> 
> It is fascinating to watch... and horrible to watch. It's the gossip mill on steroids aided by the mainstream media.
> 
> We has been happening for some time now.
> 
> I have tried as. Much as possible to stick to actual court documents. When I read things on here that contradict the court documents, I post with what they actually say.
> 
> And yes I have posted my opinion. The more I read court documents and see how the mother has lied to the public, the more I am convinced the the court is right.... she is in the wrong and has emotionally harmed her children.
> 
> I have little to no opinion of the father except that he is not the one hurting the children and playing games with the court.
> 
> For all I know they are both loney toons in their own rights.
> 
> You snd I disagree on this. That's ok.


Just giving you a hard time, Ele. 

It's not like the case will be settled here on TAM.  

I do think it is interesting that those kids are so adamant about not seeing their dad.

Have you read anything that indicates the dad has tried anything besides coercion to get a relationship going?

_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Coercion... use of force or intimidation to obtain complance

Yes, pages and pages of him not using coercion. 6 years of him not using coercion.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Coercion... use of force or intimidation to obtain complance
> 
> Yes, pages and pages of him not using coercion. *6 years of him not using coercion*.


I don't think it feels that way to the kids, Ele. And the kids are the ones he wants to form a relationship with, right?

All those forced visitations, plus being told two weeks ago that they would be held in what the judge called "jail" until their father gave her the go ahead to let them out, right up until age 18, likely felt very coercive to them. 

And make no mistake, if the media had not exposed the judge, and likewise, the father, those kids would be sitting there still.

I understand that some people feel comfortable with what the judge and father did. I think the backlash is from folks who don't.


----------



## jld

I thought this was an insightful comment:

_Yes epidemically, a "father's rights" trumps a child's rights to feel safe. Likely it was this abusive "entitlement" mentality that caused the marital split in the first place. 

You cant induce trust with the use of terror no more than you can force a child to have a "healthy relationship" with someone with whom they do not feel emotionally safe. When it comes to emotions, children are more sensitive and aware than most desensitized adults. They are NOT "stupid". sigh...
_


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I thought this was an insightful comment:
> 
> _Yes epidemically, a "father's rights" trumps a child's rights to feel safe. Likely it was this abusive "entitlement" mentality that caused the marital split in the first place.
> 
> You cant induce trust with the use of terror no more than you can force a child to have a "healthy relationship" with someone with whom they do not feel emotionally safe. When it comes to emotions, children are more sensitive and aware than most desensitized adults. They are NOT "stupid". sigh...
> _


I am struggling to even figure out how to respond to those comments.

I am astonished that someone would call wanting to be a father to his children "entitlement". Then whoever wrote that extrapolates that it's why the marriage broke up. 

The stupidest blog comment that I've read asks *"Why does this man care so much about the children? What does he want them for?" *What? He is their father.

Not one person wants the kids to feel unsafe. The children and their mother have been provided with counselors, evaluators, visitation supervisors for 6 years. All of these people have worked 6 years trying to get the mother and children to talk to them. If they had an issue they had ample time to let people know exactly what it was and why. The mother has refused to work with these people for 6 years. She has encouraged and coached the children to not cooperate.

The court knows that the children have lied about accusations of abuse on a few occasion because the court had a visitation supervisor (picked by the mother) who witnessed what was going on. If they lied in those cases, it's hard to believe anything they say.

Their lies are why the father and his attorney insisted on supervised visitation. The FATHER needed a witness to protect himself from lies.

Parental alienation is a real thing. It's horrible. It hurts the children more than it hurts either of the parents. That's why it's considered child abuse.

I will stick with what the actual court documents say and not what bloggers who know little to nothing about the case make up and post. It's gossip and rumor mongering at it's worse.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I am struggling to even figure out how to respond to those comments.
> 
> I am astonished that someone would call wanting to be a father to his children "entitlement". Then whoever wrote that extrapolates that it's why the marriage broke up.
> 
> The stupidest blog comment that I've read asks *"Why does this man care so much about the children? What does he want them for?" *What? He is their father.
> 
> Not one person wants the kids to feel unsafe. The children and their mother have been provided with counselors, evaluators, visitation supervisors for 6 years. All of these people have worked 6 years trying to get the mother and children to talk to them. If they had an issue they had ample time to let people know exactly what it was and why. The mother has refused to work with these people for 6 years. She has encouraged and coached the children to not cooperate.
> 
> The court knows that the children have lied about accusations of abuse on a few occasion because the court had a visitation supervisor (picked by the mother) who witnessed what was going on. If they lied in those cases, it's hard to believe anything they say.
> 
> Their lies are why the father and his attorney insisted on supervised visitation. The FATHER needed a witness to protect himself from lies.
> 
> Parental alienation is a real thing. It's horrible. It hurts the children more than it hurts either of the parents. That's why it's considered child abuse.
> 
> I will stick with what the actual court documents say and not what bloggers who know little to nothing about the case make up and post. It's gossip and rumor mongering at it's worse.


I just found a site that has several, maybe 8 or so, court transcripts from this case. I have only read a few so far, but to me it looks like a big, almost cultural, divide between the court and children's father v. the kids and the mother.

The court and the father are on the more conservative end of the parenting spectrum, deep into compliance, even through force, if necessary, to achieve their objectives. They want those kids to obey, period.

The mother and the kids are on the more liberal end. The mother is very gentle, even in the court transcripts, just like she is on video. She really does not believe in coercion. But her way is so different from the court, that the court is both flabbergasted by her, and extremely frustrated. 

The kids have told her they are scared of the court, apparently because of some things the judge and the GAL and the father have said, or were understood by the kids to have said. In one of the transcripts the judge straight out tells them she will send them to "jail for children." The GAL, according to them, told them they were responsible for the death of their grandfather. I have not read enough to know how the kids got that out of whatever he did say, but you know children: they interpret things and can be easily frightened by big, powerful people.

They told their mother that during a dinner with their dad, he told them in Hebrew that they better behave or he would "destroy" their mother. Ele, can you imagine how kids would react to that?

Also, in one of the transcripts, the judge flat out talks about giving the dad custody and letting him take the kids back to Israel (just checked--Page 14, 12 Nov. 2014 transcript). Ele, that is the kids' and the mother's greatest fear. And it appeared to be a definite possibility. Why would they _not_ be afraid?

You can say that the kids are just liars, but that fear is coming from somewhere. And I have heard enough from that judge to believe she is a big part of it.

Also, one of the records says the dad just moved back to the U.S. from Israel in Feb. of this year. Why did you say he had been living here for a few years?

I can understand why everyone says the dad says he wants a relationship. But like the mother, I can see how forcing it is unlikely to get it there. 

I think if he would back off, and encourage the court to tone it down, the kids might be able to develop some trust in the court, and in him. As long as they feel under threat from him or the court, they are likely to engage in the self-protective behavior we have seen: the huddling together and refusing to talk to the dad. They do not feel safe with him, nor with the people they feel are backing him.

Btw, did you know that last year, when the 14 yo was 13, he was in advanced placement calculus? No wonder he was invited to that math camp at Stanford. That kid is probably some kind of genius!

Will finish reading the documents in the next few days. It does seem to me there are some misunderstandings going on.

Again, I think a lot of the problems in this case arise from different philosophies about parenting children. We have the "be quiet and obey; you kids will be grateful to us later" crowd, and the "let them open at their own pace like a beautiful flower" crowd. Just two different approaches, which, as that comment suggested, is probably the reason the marriage went down, too.

I could not figure out before why people thought the mother was some kind of monster. She is just kind of a hippy, I think. She means well, but her natural lack of coercion when dealing with the children must seem positively foreign, and wrong, to more naturally forceful types like the judge and, it seems, the dad.


----------



## naiveonedave

Where does the fear come from JLD? It is obvious that the parental alienation started by the mother is the source of their fear. The GAL specifically notes this. They are the advocates for the kids here, are they not? This is a tragedy and for the past 6 years, the losers are the kids and the dad. The mother ought to be in jail.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Where does the fear come from JLD? It is obvious that the parental alienation started by the mother is the source of their fear. The GAL specifically notes this. They are the advocates for the kids here, are they not? This is a tragedy and for the past 6 years, the losers are the kids and the dad. The mother ought to be in jail.


From what I am reading, the fear comes from the dad's attempt to have the kids returned to Israel during the divorce trial, and probably the judge's threat to send them back to Israel if the dad wants as late as a few months ago.

During the divorce trial, the dad said the kids were residents of Israel. Israeli laws appear to favor the father, so he likely would have been given full custody if the kids had been remanded.

Dave, did you read the post where I gave some of the backstory on the divorce? 

The parents are both from Israel. Dad wanted to move the family there in 2008. Mom objected and filed for divorce. 

They reconciled and moved to Israel in early 2009.

After 6-8 mos., the mom decided she indeed still wanted a divorce. Knowing that Israeli law favored the dad, she decided to return to America with the kids.

She did so, and her husband charged her with kidnapping. I read that there is a law firm that specializes in helping Israeli women get divorces outside of Israel because of the attitude of Israeli courts favoring the father.

So the divorce is processed in America, and the dad claims the kids are Israeli residents, and must be returned to Israel. Mom produces their American birth certificates, and the judge, realizing what the dad tried to do, gives full physical custody to the mom.

The judge they have now, Lisa Gorcyca, is not the judge they had during the divorce. She very much favors the father. In one of the transcripts, from Nov. 2014, she tells the court that she will give custody to the dad and let him take the kids to Israel. 

The mother's lawyer objects, said that is not legal, and the judge tells her that she will do it if she feels like it.

This judge is something else, Dave. Looks like a person with a power complex.

Whether or not the GAL is looking out for the kids or is trying to curry favor with the judge seems debatable. He did not object to their being sent to what the judge herself called "jail." 

Have you read the transcripts yourself, Dave?


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I just found a site that has several, maybe 8 or so, court transcripts from this case.


Would you mind posting a link to that site?


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> From what I am reading, the fear comes from the dad's attempt to have the kids returned to Israel during the divorce trial, and probably the judge's threat to send them back to Israel if the dad wants as late as a few months ago.


That’s easy to fix. Sit the children down and explain to them that the father cannot take the children. He does not have their passports. If he tried the kids could cause such a ruckus that every one for miles could hear it. After all these kids see themselves as in charge and have no problem causing scenes, lying to police to make false accusations, etc. Plus the FATHER asked for a supervisor to be present at visitations. 


So all the mother has to do is to explain to the kids that there is no way their father can take them to Israel. This claim is a red herring.




jld said:


> After 6-8 mos., the mom decided she indeed still wanted a divorce. Knowing that Israeli law favored the dad, she decided to return to America with the kids.


The above assumption is false. In Israel, the mother is favored for custody 90.8% of the time. By law, up to the age of 6 the mother automatically gets custody. After the age of 6, most mothers retain custodianship.


The divorce files I examined show that women received exclusive custodianship in 90.8 per cent of the cases and conditional exclusive custodianship in another 2.5 per cent of the cases (the latter conditioned on such grounds as retaining Israeli residency). Men received exclusive custodianship in 3.9 per cent of the cases, joint custody was assigned in 1.4 per cent of the cases, and split custody – one or more children in custody with the father and one or
more children custody with the mother – was assigned in the remaining 1.4 per cent of the cases. 

http://www2.tau.ac.il/InternetFiles/news/UserFiles/motherhood, fatherhood, law.pdf




jld said:


> She did so, and her husband charged her with kidnapping. I read that there is a law firm that specializes in helping Israeli women get divorces outside of Israel because of the attitude of Israeli courts favoring the father.


Of course the father tried to get the children returned to their family home. This is what 99.9999% of parents down when one parent unilaterally make huge decisions like move the children out of the country that the family is living in. 






jld said:


> So the divorce is processed in America, and the dad claims the kids are Israeli residents, and must be returned to Israel. Mom produces their American birth certificates, and the judge, realizing what the dad tried to do, gives full physical custody to the mom.



Can you show a court paper that says that this is what happened?


The kidnapping case was not part of the divorce case. The kidnapping was a federal issue. The divorce is a state issue. The decision to not return the children to Israel was made in federal court. The federal court did not give custody to the mother as they have no jurisdiction over custody. Instead the federal case was about the father asking that the children be returned to Israel. The federal court decided that the children had not lived in Israel long enough to be considered residents. That is why the court did not order the children returned to Israel. Israel courts apparently disagree.


It’s funny to me that you keep saying that the father is controlling, coercive, etc. When it was the mother who was so controlling that she gave the father no say whatsoever in issues like where the children live and his access to the children. She is definitely controlling.


----------



## EleGirl

Another interesting thing in this case is that the federal judge who heard the case stated that he did not find either the mother or the father very creditable. That says a lot.

I do not think that the mother every had sole custody. From what I've read, the divorce court gave them joint legal custody and joint physical custody. The father was to have physical custody at specified times.

Once the custody arrangement was established, he traveled to the USA about every 3 months for his time with the children. And the mother did everything she could to obstruct him from having any time at all with the father.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> From what I am reading, the fear comes from the dad's attempt to have the kids returned to Israel during the divorce trial, and probably the judge's threat to send them back to Israel if the dad wants as late as a few months ago.
> 
> During the divorce trial, the dad said the kids were residents of Israel. Israeli laws appear to favor the father, so he likely would have been given full custody if the kids had been remanded.
> 
> Dave, did you read the post where I gave some of the backstory on the divorce?
> 
> The parents are both from Israel. Dad wanted to move the family there in 2008. Mom objected and filed for divorce.
> 
> They reconciled and moved to Israel in early 2009.
> 
> After 6-8 mos., the mom decided she indeed still wanted a divorce. Knowing that Israeli law favored the dad, she decided to return to America with the kids.
> 
> She did so, and her husband charged her with kidnapping. I read that there is a law firm that specializes in helping Israeli women get divorces outside of Israel because of the attitude of Israeli courts favoring the father.
> 
> So the divorce is processed in America, and the dad claims the kids are Israeli residents, and must be returned to Israel. Mom produces their American birth certificates, and the judge, realizing what the dad tried to do, gives full physical custody to the mom.
> 
> The judge they have now, Lisa Gorcyca, is not the judge they had during the divorce. She very much favors the father. In one of the transcripts, from Nov. 2014, she tells the court that she will give custody to the dad and let him take the kids to Israel.
> 
> The mother's lawyer objects, said that is not legal, and the judge tells her that she will do it if she feels like it.
> 
> This judge is something else, Dave. Looks like a person with a power complex.
> 
> Whether or not the GAL is looking out for the kids or is trying to curry favor with the judge seems debatable. He did not object to their being sent to what the judge herself called "jail."
> 
> Have you read the transcripts yourself, Dave?


not to repost what Ele just posted, but the mother is the one who is nuts and she has brainwashed the kids. I read plenty, maybe not as much as you and Ele, but plenty.

I find it very ironic that the advocate for the children is actually siding with the father and you don't believe them, you believe the mother. That the advocate is against the mother is so rare in itself, that it should tell you all you need to know about the mother.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Another interesting thing in this case is that the federal judge who heard the case stated that he did not find either the mother or the father very creditable. That says a lot.


Ele, the judge herself threatened to give the dad full custody and allow him to return the kids. How can the mother in good faith tell her kids what you have said? It is not true.

The only transcripts I have read deal with the custody issues in the last year. Anything I have heard about the divorce or how divorce plays out for women in Israel came from news articles or opinion pieces, or blogs with comments. 

Ele, are we talking about the same woman? The video I watched shows about the gentlest, meekest woman that could be. That is the feel I get from the transcripts so far, too.

I am not sure about the personality of the father. The kids said he threatened them in Hebrew at one of the dinners. They also said he spends a lot of time on his phone when he is with them. I understand he is a businessman, but they probably do not sense they are a priority when he does that.

The site is called tsimhoni v. tsimhoni. It is partial to the father, but the transcripts are just public record.

Could you address the points I made yesterday? Why would a father leave his kids in what the judge herself called "jail" when he knew he was only one of three people allowed to see them, and when the judge told him that given the word from him, she would release them?

Do you feel that whatever ends are required to give the father what he wants justify the means? Do you think the children's feelings should not be respected at all, only the father's? 

You feel they are brainwashed, and so then whatever means of "re educating" them are necessary to achieve the court-desired outcome are acceptable?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - where is your empathy with the father? He didn't do anything to deserve the utter disrespect he is getting from his children. THEY WERE BRAINWASHED BY THEIR MOTHER. THE JUDGE STATED EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE CASE SEES THIS CLEARLY.


----------



## jld

Dave, there are plenty of women who side against other women. This judge would not be the first.

I am not impressed with the character of this judge. I think she is focused on controlling the kids and easing the father, not seeking to understand where they are coming from. And how can they trust her if they do not feel respected and understood by her?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - where is your empathy with the father? He didn't do anything to deserve the utter disrespect he is getting from his children. THEY WERE BRAINWASHED BY THEIR MOTHER. THE JUDGE STATED EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE CASE SEES THIS CLEARLY.


Everyone who is looking through that particular lens, Dave. There is more than one lens to look through.

Maybe you and Ele have not known many hippy type parents. This gal, to me, fits right in with the ones I have known. They just are not into coercion.

And honestly, I think these kids are incredibly smart and principled. How many adults have the courage of their convictions to accept to go to "jail," and stay there, the way these kids have? How many peoe can resist the bullying of a judge? Most of us would just cave in and comply.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Ele, sorry, forgot to respond to that post of yours I quoted. I don't know either the exact truth of either parent. And if that federal judge is still not sure, I can't imagine I will do any better. 

I have only started reading the transcripts, and am still forming my own opinions.

I do think the mother is in a minority on her parenting beliefs, though. I think a lot of people not only disagree with her, but simply do not understand her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Everyone who is looking through that particular lens, Dave. There is more than one lens to look through.
> 
> Maybe you and Ele have not known many hippy type parents. This gal, to me, fits right in with the ones I have known. They just are not into coercion.
> 
> And honestly, I think these kids are incredibly smart and principled. How many adults have the courage of their convictions to accept to go to "jail," and stay there, the way these kids have? How many peoe can resist the bullying of a judge? Most of us would just cave in and comply.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you are wrong about the kids. Their behavior toward their father is proof they are not smart or mature enough to deal with this situation.

How does your hippie parents give you no empathy for the rights of the father? You continually amaze me at how much you expect men to just lay down and take. Makes me a bit sick.

Sure the judge may be wrong to send the kids to what you call jail and the places themselves call an orphanage. But the mothers behavior is heinous and the father is just getting screwed. Yeesh


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I do think the mother is in a minority on her parenting beliefs, though. I think a lot of people not only disagree with her, but simply do not understand her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


shocking. It is not that people don't understand her, it is that they do. They see her as alienating her husband kids from her husband for no real reason, other than their divorce She is using them as a pawn in the D. Most normal people in the US find that behavior to be despicable. What about it is okay to you?


----------



## EleGirl

Jld, I find it amusing that you call the. Mother a hippie mother. I'm a hippie ftom the 1960s 1970s... you know the real thing. I'm very much what would be called a hippie mother.

A large part of what hippies are about is love, honesty and equal rights. 

A woman who brain washes her children with fear and lies is controling. Exactly against what would be called hippie.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Everyone who is looking through that particular lens, Dave. *There is more than one lens to look through.*


The one based on pure fantasy and the notion that somehow mothers are magic.


----------



## EleGirl

Jld. Again please post a link to the court docs you have found. Unless we all have access to theb same info, we csnnot really discuss based on fact.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Jld, I find it amusing that you call the. Mother a hippie mother. I'm a hippie ftom the 1960s 1970s... you know the real thing. I'm very much what would be called a hippie mother.
> 
> A large part of what hippies are about is love, honesty and equal rights.
> 
> A woman who brain washes her children with fear and lies is controling. Exactly against what would be called hippie.


 I never would have pegged you as a hippie mom, Ele. You don't seem like those gals I knew at all. 

I don't think she is controlling. I do think she and the kids are afraid. And from what I read from the judge, I think they have reason to be.

Peace out.  
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Ele, I don't know if I can link it from my phone. It is called tsimhoni v. Tsimhoni. I think pr experience is in the title. I found it by just googling the last name of the parents. About 8 or 10 court documents are included.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Tsimhoni Vs. Tsimhoni: Full Court Documents - News
_Posted via Mobile Device_

Hey, it worked! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I think you are wrong about the kids. Their behavior toward their father is proof they are not smart or mature enough to deal with this situation.
> 
> How does your hippie parents give you no empathy for the rights of the father? You continually amaze me at how much you expect men to just lay down and take. Makes me a bit sick.
> 
> Sure the judge may be wrong to send the kids to what you call jail and the places themselves call an orphanage. But the mothers behavior is heinous and the father is just getting screwed. Yeesh


I did not call it a jail. The judge did.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> shocking. It is not that people don't understand her, it is that they do. They see her as alienating her husband kids from her husband for no real reason, other than their divorce She is using them as a pawn in the D. Most normal people in the US find that behavior to be despicable. What about it is okay to you?


Dave, I think you and Ele see this the same. Through your lens, the mother is a criminal.

I don't see her that way. Maybe as I read more transcripts, I will. 

At this point, I just think she is deep into non-coercive parenting. I am not surprised she is a pediatric specialist. She seems to have a very gentle, loving, non-intimidating manner. I am sure children feel very comfortable with her.


----------



## Duguesclin

jld said:


> Tsimhoni Vs. Tsimhoni: Full Court Documents - News
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> Hey, it worked!


I just read the court document from Nov 12th 2014. It is amazing to see the disconnect in the approach to child rearing.

The judge, the GAL, the father all want their orders to be obeyed and they want they mother to help by doing the same. But her approach is totally different. It comes from listening to the kids, letting them go at their speed.

No wonder it is not working. She is likely not brainwashing her kids, but rather listening to them and letting them grow at their own speed. 

I know what it is like to be gone a lot from your kids. I know what it is like to be busy with work. This father was probably the same way before they ever got divorced. You cannot show up once in a while and dictate them around. They need time. They need to be listened to. This father is only giving them orders and threats. How can it work?


----------



## EleGirl

I've read everything on this site... it's 53 pages of documentation..


https://upload-assets.vice.com/files/2015/07/09/143646648115.pdf


and everything here.... 

Tsimhoni Vs. Tsimhoni: Full Court Documents - News

These convince me ever more that the mother is manipulative using passive aggressive tactics and manipulation. She is also unable to parent. Then she allows her children to control.

An example is that the court had set up visitation in a jury room. The mother shows up with the children who argue that they don't want to go into the court room. So the mother tells them to just go to the cafeteria. Then when the judge asked the mother where the children are, she says that they are in cafeteria and that the court and everyone else should go down to the building basement because that's what the children want.

Now why didn't the children want to go to the court room? Because the mother has been telling them how mean the judge is and apparently blow by blow what is said in court. Um.. It is wrong to drag children into the legal proceedings like this. It part of what is called parental alienation.. badmouthing the father and the court, turning them into the buggy man for the child.

The judge, GAL and others there make it clear to the mother that in court, the children do not call the shots. The mother and the children do not tell the judge, lawyers, GAL and everyone else how it will be.

Anyone who is interested can read all those documents and make up their own minds. There are some more out there. I'll add the links as I find them again.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Dave, I think you and Ele see this the same. Through your lens, the mother is a criminal.
> 
> I don't see her that way. Maybe as I read more transcripts, I will.
> 
> At this point, I just think she is deep into non-coercive parenting. I am not surprised she is a pediatric specialist. She seems to have a very gentle, loving, non-intimidating manner. I am sure children feel very comfortable with her.


Telling one's children to go into the restaurant is not coercive. 

Telling them to go into the court room and/or jury room because the judge as asked it (ordered it) is not coercion. 

When a child has to go to the dentist, does the parent let the child decide if the child feels like doing this? Or does the child just do it because they trust that their parent has their best interest in mind and because they were raised to be good children?

When a child has to go to school, does the parent allow the child to decide not to go to school for one day, a week, or forever?

When I've been in juvenile court, I've heard judges call that "failure to allow themselves to be supervised". 

I've seen judges say things just as harsh to children who refuse to allow themselves to be supervised. I've seen kids sent to juvi and/or supervised homes because of this very thing.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I never would have pegged you as a hippie mom, Ele. You don't seem like those gals I knew at all.


I don't know what you consider hippie mom or what those gals, who ever they are, are like. So I cannot comment on that.




jld said:


> I don't think she is controlling. I do think she and the kids are afraid. And from what I read from the judge, I think they have reason to be.


All the court papers we have seen are from 8/2014 forward to now.

There are 5+ years prior to that. There have been 3 judges that I've read about on the case. All 3 have said that there is a huge problem with the mother.

Why would she be afraid? All she had to do was to follow the court order from day one. She had primary custody. Her ex came every few months to visit. There was no way he'd get out of the country with them. 

The children are afraid because she has told them things that they should have never been told.

Yea, I know that judge said that she was going to give the father custody and let him take the children to Israel.

Did the judge do this? NOPE. She was clearly trying to get through to the mother that the mother had to start encouraging the relationship with their father and cooperate. For example , the mother very often refused to allow the father visitation or, just left for Italy, France, North Carolina, California and other destinations just at the time when the father's visitation was to occur. He'd arrive in the USA and find out that she and the kids were gone. The mother defied the court orders of providing itinerary, location, etc.

For example, instead of telling where they would be staying in Italy and France. The mother just said "a hotel". That alone is enough for the judge to seriously sanction the mother.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Ele, are we talking about the same woman? The video I watched shows about the gentlest, meekest woman that could be. That is the feel I get from the transcripts so far, too.


A gentle, meek person does not lie. They do not do things like leave the country with the children against court orders to prevent their father and children time together.
The kind of person who does this is manipulative and a lot more that is not good.



jld said:


> I am not sure about the personality of the father. The kids said he threatened them in Hebrew at one of the dinners. They also said he spends a lot of time on his phone when he is with them. I understand he is a businessman, but they probably do not sense they are a priority when he does that.


Yea, the kids say all kinds of things.. like calling the police and falsely accusing the father of abuse.

I have read a lot about this case, a lot. Not one of the documents that I read mention anything about the father being on phone all the time.



jld said:


> Could you address the points I made yesterday? Why would a father leave his kids in what the judge herself called "jail" when he knew he was only one of three people allowed to see them, and when the judge told him that given the word from him, she would release them?


I’ve answered this several times.

This bit about insisting to call it “jail” when it’s clearly not a jail is nonsense. Yes the judge called it jail. I’m not sure of her motive. My guess is that she thought that by exaggerating she might be able to get them to pay attention. 

The judge stated that she would let the children out after they had talked to their father. Once that happened then she would let them out of Mandy’s place after their father told her that the children were cooperating. 

The father tried to see them in the place and the kids said no. So what was he supposed to do? He has a job. He cannot quit his job and sit there, hostage to his kids. He has to make money to support kids who mistreat HIM. So he had to go on an already scheduled business trip. Do you understand that the man needs to work to support his children, yes even children whose mother has poisoned them against him and whose children are very ill mannered and disrespectful. 
Also, where would the children have gone if he could have had them release that very first day? They cannot go back to their mother’s. They will not go to their fathers. Do you suggest that they just be turned out on the street? Where would they have been placed? 
They were in Mandy’s place, not a jail. They were safe and getting the counseling that they needed. 
In one of the court papers I read, someone brought up something interesting that makes the point of the mother’s subtle manipulations.

In a lot of places in the documents, there is talk about the mother complying. She would tell them “You have to go with your father.” Or with skype she would sit them in front of skype and the kids would just sit there looking away. And that was the entire extent of her efforts to nurture a relationship with the father.

It was suggested that this is not enough. She needed to be doing things that fostered a relationship. For example, when on skype she could get the conversation going, “Tell your dad about your great soccer game.” Or “Tell your dad that you made straight A’s on your report card. She could do something besides ordering them to do something and then just stand there. 

After the fiasco in the court house that has the judge and many others very upset, the judge told the mother that while the children’s behavior was extremely disturbing, the mother’s behavior was even more disturbing. The judge was upset because the children appeared to be, or were acting, scared and traumatized. And the mother just stood there. She did nothing to comfort them or reassure them. When the children did finally go into the jury room, the mother entered and sat down to supervise the children. She was told by court personnel to leave. She refused to. 

These are very typical manipulative actions of parent who is causing parental alienation (mind control).. Withhold love and affection when the child is supposed to go with the other parent. The message is “I will not love you if you go see your father.” Sitting in the room during the father’s time and keeping an eye on the children is also manipulative. This makes sure that the children will not talk to their father. They know that their mother is watching and that she will be very unhappy if they talk to their father. So what did the children do? Put their heads down on the table and ignore everything and everyone during the visit. And the enforcer mother was in the room to make sure this happened. Apparently she was there for almost all of the father’s visits with the children. She was not supposed to be but she would not leave. Again… controlling the situation.

As I’ve mentioned, I did a lot of volunteering for abused children. We saw this type of manipulation all the time by the abuser. The fake crying to get attention. The standing back and not giving children assurance and love when the abuser felt a need to use withdrawal of affection as a way to control the kid. 
The judge told the mother that her cold treatment of her children in the court house on those days was extremely upsetting. She said that if the mother will be that cold with her children when she’s in public with them, what is she doing at home when no one can see what’s going on?



jld said:


> Do you feel that whatever ends are required to give the father what he wants justify the means? Do you think the children's feelings should not be respected at all, only the father's?


Do you think that the only thing that matters is what the mother wants? Do you think that allowing the children to be manipulated and brainwashed into hating their father is ok because that’s what the mother wants? This is not about the father getting what he wants. This is about the children getting what they need. Children who are brain washed suffer extreme emotional damage. When they are brain washed to hate a parent, they are taught to hate half of themselves. The physiological damage from this is very hard on a child. Children who are treated like this (the way the mother is treating them) usually end up doing things like cutting, self-mutilating and even suicide. They grow up unable to have healthy relationships.

For 5 years the mother has refuse the children any kind of counseling. The father, now that he is getting custody has arranged for them to get counseling and the help they need. During the 2 weeks in Mandy’s place they apparently started counseling for deprograming the brain washing. They have counselors working with them in camp. The father is working to get them long term placement because they cannot go to either parent right now. 



jld said:


> You feel they are brainwashed, and so then whatever means of "re educating" them are necessary to achieve the court-desired outcome are acceptable?


I guess you do not know that the brainwashing & parental alienation are real. You are ok with the mother alienating them from their father, which is very sinister form of, breaking their will and manipulation.

Are you aware that cults do similar things to their members to control them? When a person is removed from a cult, if they are lucky, they are put into a kind of counseling that helps them come safely out of the brainwashing. If they are not lucky, they often do not do very well mentally.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> But her way is so different from the court, that the court is both flabbergasted by her, and extremely frustrated.


Um, do you know how courts work? Judge gives an order. You do what they judge says. If you do not do it, you end up in contempt of court. That’s how it works.

Sure you can get your attorney to ask the court if they will agree to you doing it your way, but the judge does not have to even consider the request.

Example. Mother said that she was leaving the country and be done during the father’s visitation time. (Contempt of court right there). So the judge, trying to work with her, asks for an itinerary and the addresses of where she will be staying. This is normal procedure in a divorce. It’s usually written in every custody agreement. A parent has to let the other parent know at all times where the children are staying. So if there is a trip, the other parent has to know about is, the itinerary and addresses. The mother just leaves the country and does not provide the information that the judge said that she has to provide to the court. Another contempt of court action. Then after that, at another time, the mother just takes off to France with the children again. And again this seems to just end up being during the father’s visitation time. Reading the court papers, these sort of disregarding the judge’s orders are constant by the mother. 

And note those two examples are HUGE. The mother could have been prosecuted for traveling whit the children without the court’s permission. These are significant contempt of court at the very least. 

So if we look at those examples, huge contempt of court actions, not one of them have to do with a “kinder, gentler, laissez-faire, hippy way of raising children. Nope. These are the actions of a manipulative, passive aggressive, woman who thinks that the court rulings and laws do not apply to her.

It’s not hard at all to follow court orders. It’s actually a lot harder when a person plays these games and thinks that they are above it all. Like the judge said, out of 46,000 cases, this mother is one of the two worst she has ever had.



jld said:


> The GAL, according to them, told them they were responsible for the death of their grandfather. I have not read enough to know how the kids got that out of whatever he did say, but you know children: they interpret things


I do not believe the above. I doubt that the kids told their mother this. Since we know that the kinds have lied and falsely accused their father of abuse, I think that they and their mother are perfectly capable of making up all kinds of lies to serve their purpose.


----------



## EleGirl

Unless more info comes out that that adds to the knowledge on this case, I'm not sure that there is anything else to discuss.

We disagree. We'll have to just be ok with that.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Dave, I think you and Ele see this the same. Through your lens, the mother is a criminal.
> 
> I don't see her that way. Maybe as I read more transcripts, I will.
> 
> At this point, I just think she is deep into non-coercive parenting. I am not surprised she is a pediatric specialist. She seems to have a very gentle, loving, non-intimidating manner. I am sure children feel very comfortable with her.


How on earth can you not see that the mother is intentionally alienated their children from their father?


----------



## Nynaeve

I just want to say, EleGirl, that when I started reading this thread I was outraged at the judge. You have definitely changed my perspective of this case. I still wonder if holding the kids in contempt was exactly the right move (why not hold mom in contempt and order kids taken from her?). But... there's a lot of info out there and you've obviously spent a lot of time digging into it. I, for one, appreciate you contributing to this thread.


----------



## jld

I finished the documents today. Well, yesterday now. Busy day for me. 

Thanks for linking that first one, Ele. Lots of details in there that I was not aware of. 

For my part, I do not see Maya and the kids as liars and manipulators. I do think they are fearful, and a child-led family. I also think Maya is a bit disorganized and tends to fly by the seat of her pants.

They all seem smart and strong and courageous to me. For sure, they do not fit into the "be quiet and obey" mindset of the court. And this has indeed caused her and the kids problems. 

CPS Report: Did you see the mention about the CPS report that William Lansat made? According to the report, the father threatened to kill the children five years ago. From page 7 of the GAL report: "DHS forensically interviewed the kids and confirmed the threat." 

I was also surprised to see all the efforts Maya had made, at least in my opinion, to foster a relationship between Omer and the kids. Did you read all the entries by Art Gallagher? 

I don't know why it is her responsibility that Omer have a good relationship with his children. I think that is on Omer. How will he grow if others do his work for him?

From reading the transcripts, I think Maya's lawyers have done a good job explaining Maya's thinking to the court. She told them Omer needs to not be forceful with the kids, but to build the relationship slowly, with an emphasis on positivity. I think earning their trust is key here.

I do wish the court would have let Maya and her lawyers speak more. They seemed to be interrupted often. 

In addition to feeling fearful, I would guess the kids feel very hurt by their father. If he could acknowledge their hurt, seek to understand it, sincerely apologize for it, and start to make amends, I think true, heart-level healing could occur.



EleGirl said:


> I have read a lot about this case, a lot. Not one of the documents that I read mention anything about the father being on phone all the time.


Page 10, 23 June transcript: "I've been told that father spends a lot of time texting on his cell phone."--Maya's lawyer

One last question: Ele, you have expressed some very strong concerns about Maya in your posts. Do you think there is any chance you might have misunderstood her? Or are you certain you are right about her and her children in every way?

As much as I believe in the fundamental goodness of Maya and the kids, I certainly could be wrong. I do tend to be idealistic. And the story of a mother losing her children, and children their mother, is almost more than I can bear.


----------



## EleGirl

Nynaeve said:


> I just want to say, EleGirl, that when I started reading this thread I was outraged at the judge. You have definitely changed my perspective of this case. I still wonder if holding the kids in contempt was exactly the right move (why not hold mom in contempt and order kids taken from her?). But... there's a lot of info out there and you've obviously spent a lot of time digging into it. I, for one, appreciate you contributing to this thread.


The judge already has the mother in contempt of court. She’s had to do community service. She spent a day in jail. There is an outstanding order for 90 days jail for contempt of court that the judge is ready to sign. Knowing that was hanging over her head did nothing to motivate the mother. I think that contempt order is still in play.

One of the things that another judge who handles the case sometimes, the GAL, counselors, etc. have been saying is that the children are in charge. The mother just sits back and acts helpless. The 14 year old takes over. He does things and the other two children copycat him. If the 14 year old puts his head on table that they are sitting at, the other to copycat when they see their brother’s actions.

The judge has mentioned that she observed the 14 year old doing this that day in court. And I think she lost it.

While the judge says that she had the children in contempt of court and that there were going to jail, they did not go to jail. There was a contempt order but it was really more symbolic than anything else. The kids would have gone to Mandy’s Place that day anyway. 

Today the father has filed a motion saying the children’s mother “is not a fit and proper person to have legal or physical custody of the children and should be allowed supervised parenting time only when a mental health professional deems it appropriate.” It also requests that she submit to a psychological evaluation.

Father seeks custody of kids judge sent to juvenile detention


----------



## EleGirl

I just want to address this quickly as I need to get some sleep. I’ll address the rest of your post tomorrow.



jld said:


> CPS Report: Did you see the mention about the CPS report that William Lansat made? According to the report, the father threatened to kill the children five years ago. From page 7 of the GAL report: "DHS forensically interviewed the kids and confirmed the threat."


I’ve brought this up a couple of times. 

The father was supposed to have unsupervised parenting time from August 25, 2010 through August 30, 2010 for about 5 hours a day. The children are 9, 6, 4.5 years old. The children were supposed to be with their father for several hours.

For the first two days things went fine. Then on the 27th….. here is father’s side of the story. 



> “The one incident that happened was five years ago. I had a five-hour unsupervised visit. We were in a park and Maya was circling around the park the whole time, trying to sabotage the visit. Two hours into the visit, the children ended up in her car and she was trying to leave. I tried to prevent her from leaving because it was my time with the children. I was very careful not to do anything but she claimed that I pushed her. She screamed at the children, “Call 911! Call 911!’ The police shoed up and Maya was screaming and the police confirmed that nothing happened. But in the children’s mind, that’s what happened.”


Here is what the report says:



> The motion was heard on August 25, 2010. The Court granted Father’s Motion in an Order dated August 25, 2010. Subsequent to the motion, the court appointed undersigned counsel as the GAL to direct the logistics of the parenting time. The Order also provided that Mother would hold the Father’s passport. A schedule of unsupervised parenting time for August the 25th through Monday the 30th was worked out by the GAL and placed in Order.
> 
> It should be noted that Mother was visibly upset at the Court’s ruling indication that Father will “flee”. In short, she was “beside herself” at the court’s ruling. In fact, her attorney went back on recorded a second time. Mother was advised by her attorney that she could appeal. Father really only had maybe two (2) days of unsupervised parenting time. On the third day, police were calling form the visits and the parenting stopped.
> The next day was even worst. On Sunday this writer stopped the parenting time and intead, all the parties met with this writer (GAL) in his office. Since that date, Father has never had unsupervised parenting time or any meaningful contact with the children.
> 
> A police report was filed on August 17, 2010 alleging that the children during the period of the unsupervised parenting time alleged that “Father made threats against them.” I was the kids who called 911. Mother alleged that when she came to the visit Father began “pushing her around.” The police did not see any injuries to Mother at that time. The Police also were calling the GAL. There was no probably cause to arrest Father for the alleged assault, per the Report. Mother told the police in the report “… [that] Omer has returned to Israel today for work and that the kids are safe at this time.” The police made a referral to DHS. Mother advised the police that she would obtain a PPO and wants DHS involved.
> 
> (Note that mother never did get a PPO. She did not complete the paperwork/process.)
> 
> The CPS Report was dated September 1, 2010. The allegations were that the father “threatened to kill them while at the part on August 27, 2010.”
> 
> The Children called mother while on the visit indicating they were afraid and upset—as Father began pushing mother around, per the complaint. The report further alleged that Mother told the kids to call 911 while they were inside the [Father’s] vehicle. DHS forensically interviewed the kids and confirmed the threat. However, Natalie refused to talk. The children also confirmed this to the GAL as well, except Natalie. Father has always denied making the threat. To my knowledge, the case was substantiated and closed.


"DHS forensically interviewed the kids and confirmed the threat." All that means is that they confirmed that the children ewer accusing their father of threatening to kill them. They cannot confirm that he actually threatened the children.

If DHS actually thought that the father had threatened their children’s lives, I have no doubt that they would block the father having any parenting time.

Now does it make sense that the father would threaten to kill the children? He’s fought to get parenting time, spending tens of thousands of dollars. He finally gets time with his children and he takes that opportunity to tell them that he’s going to kill them?? Really? If he was that psychotic, why not just being a gun or knife with him and do it? Shoot the mother was circling the part for two hours. That would have shown her. Huh?

Threatening to kill the children would not done him no good. He has won a small victory because he was finally able to have some time with his children.

But, putting together a lie and all that drama served the mother’s purpose. She is the one who gained at the moment. The father was not able to have time with his children (other documents say that he was afraid to be alone with hem after this because of the false accusations.

Keep in mind that after that time the children have called 911 and falsely accuse their father of abuse them during subsequent, supervised, parenting time.

It makes no sense at all that the father would threaten the kids. It makes a lot of sense that the mother would create drama to make sure that the father had no time with the children.


----------



## naiveonedave

Kids jailed in Oakland County custody case to stay at camp for now

more update on the story if interested.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> Kids jailed in Oakland County custody case to stay at camp for now
> 
> more update on the story if interested.


I think that the children will benefit from a summer away from the tug of war and their parents.

Another good thing is that it seems that this summer camp solution is the only thing the parents have agreed up and collaborated on since 2009. 

The judge has ordered the entire family be evaluated by psychiatrists. I think that is the right way to go. It sure beats having the internet determine what's going on.


----------

