# This "Judge" needs to be removed from the bench!!!!



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/2...-refusing-to-see-father#.VZ5tKKdZAxc.facebook


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Disgusting abuse of power.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

We live in a dictatorship. Why is anyone surprised? Unless you are an illegal alien who cas committed a serious felony you can expect no understanding from the courts. Our judges rule like medieval lords passing judgements on whim, not the law.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

JJ Grandits said:


> We live in a dictatorship. Why is anyone surprised? Unless you are an illegal alien who cas committed a serious felony you can expect no understanding from the courts. Our judges rule like medieval lords passing judgements on whim, not the law.


In this area for years now the cops wright the laws as in tickets ect and the judge enforces them. Now if you have a ton of money you may have a chance :thumb:

There is a answer but it has not been implemented to a large extent yet .:thumb:


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

This is absolutely insane! So the judge feels the mother is brainwashing the kids against their father and she sentences the children to 4, 8 and 9 years to prison for that???? How can you order anyone to have a "healthy relationship" with someone else anyway? Obviously, the father does not give a ____ since he left the country. 

If there are true concerns of child abuse, then should not the abuser be investigated and charged with a crime? No, we send the victims off to prison without even investigating if a crime occurred.


----------



## KatieVT (Dec 22, 2014)

I actually read an interview with the father. Don't have the link to it now, but the mother is no angel - and may have actually corrupted her kids against the father. (Not that it makes it right to "jail" the kids.) The father is currently on a business trip in Israel, but he lives in MI near his ex-wife for the purpose of trying to have a relationship with his kids. The mother has disregarded multiple court orders as well.

I do NOT agree with the judge, but it does sound like she was at her wits' end with the mother. At least according to this one article.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Judges dont like to have their authority questioned... and they do have a LOT of authority. It might have been better just to have gone to lunch with daddy.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If there was a court order in place requiring that the children spend time with their father, the mother should have complied or taken the issue back to court if she felt there was some clear reason the children shouldn't spend time with the father. 

I suspect that the judge was trying to teach mom a lesson but the lesson was a poor one and I truly feel sorry for children who become pawns in adult games.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

This may not be popular but; I am reminded of the story of Solomon and the two mothers. Should one of the parents come forward and say "I surrender"...that is the parent with pure, unconditional love. 

No matter what is ordered, one cannot force how a child processes life. The way they are processing the current situation is likely to backfire on the court, the system, the father, the children, and society as a whole. Putting anyone in a detention facility has negative consequences that are far reaching beyond what is being addressed.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Based upon the article given, the oldest boy told the judge that he has SEEN his mother beaten by his father; so the father has a propensity towards violence.

Maybe the judge should have ordered family counseling; where the COUNSELOR, the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL spent time w/ the mother-father-and children (individually) to come to a professional opinion.

Maybe the mom has BPD.....
Maybe the dad is a Narcissistic - Anti Social - Sociopath?
Maybe the kids are Bi-Polar

OR maybe the dad is right and the mom IS brainwashing the kids because she's just evil.
OR maybe the mom is right, and the dad is a monster that has no business having the kids unsupervised.

There is not enough info in this article (police runs to the residence when they were married; hospital records of injuries due to abuse, etc)'

But at face value?
Me, and my kids, would disappear..........poof!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Based upon the article given, the oldest boy told the judge that he has SEEN his mother beaten by his father; so the father has a propensity towards violence.
> 
> Maybe the judge should have ordered family counseling; where the COUNSELOR, the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL spent time w/ the mother-father-and children (individually) to come to a professional opinion.
> 
> ...


Or maybe after 5 years in court this judge has done all of this and seen enough of this family. Maybe it's time for the adults, and kids to grow up a little bit. Someone asked in another post about the proper response to kids whining. The judge responded.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe after 5 years in court this judge has done all of this and seen enough of this family. Maybe it's time for the adults, and kids to grow up a little bit. Someone asked in another post about the proper response to kids whining. The judge responded.


14, 10 and 9?
Time for 'the kids' to grow up?
Abused kids 'whining' about abuse, but they get locked up?

The judge is an idiot.

IF the judge wanted to 'teach someone' a lesson, then she should have 'taught' the adults a lesson......hit them in the pocket; that usually gets everyone's attention.

SHE had permenately scarred the children.
Separated them. Put them in a criminal detention facility.
That judge is a wack job.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> 14, 10 and 9?
> Time for 'the kids' to grow up?
> Abused kids 'whining' about abuse, but they get locked up?
> 
> ...


Since I haven't sat through the 5 years of court proceedings nor have I read all the transcripts of these proceedings( and I'm not likely to be able to) nor have seen any record of other aberrant behavior by this judge I have trouble ftom a distance labeling her as a "wack job". I do know that she knows more about this case and the people involved after dealing directly with them than you or I will ever know from reading a short story including lawyers statements from an aggrieved party. I'm guessing after 5 years or more of being used as a weapon in this relationship these kids have plenty of scar tissue. It could be the best thing for these kids was to remove them from this toxic environment. It could give those scars time to heal.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Since I haven't sat through the 5 years of court proceedings nor have I read all the transcripts of these proceedings( and I'm not likely to be able to) nor have seen any record of other aberrant behavior by this judge I have trouble ftom a distance labeling her as a "wack job". I do know that she knows more about this case and the people involved after dealing directly with them than you or I will ever know from reading a short story including lawyers statements from an aggrieved party. I'm guessing after 5 years or more of *being used as a weapon in this relationship these kids have plenty of scar tissue. It could be the best thing for these kids was to remove them from this toxic environment. It could give those scars time to heal.*


A quality foster home would have been better for the kids than a juvie detention center......

9-6-4 is the age of the children when this non-sense started.
how sad. 
How very very sad. 
Stupid adults acting like idiots (1 or both) and the kids pay.
And we wonder why society is screwed up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> 14, 10 and 9?
> Time for 'the kids' to grow up?
> Abused kids 'whining' about abuse, but they get locked up?
> 
> ...





Laura Zone 5 said:


> A quality foster home would have been better for the kids than a juvie detention center......
> 
> 9-6-4 is the age of the children when this non-sense started.
> how sad.
> ...


You're right, a quality foster home likely would have been better. Of course that quality foster home with room for three kids is just sitting there waiting because no other kids in the area could have benefitted from it and it was holding open slots just for these kids. Sometimes "wack job" judges have to make do with the options in front of them, not the perfect reality we compose on the internet.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

The kids have now been sent to summer camp. There's a lot more going on than the one-sided story presented, and even some of what the article does present is not 100% true. The "juvenile detention facility" is actually a center for abused children, not a detention center for criminal children as the article implied.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

I know of a case around here where the daughter is telling people her father left her at a gas station and also that he forgot about them at an after school program. Neither is true. But, the kids are w/the mom and she's out to get the dad at all costs. She's a real whack job, the kind that wants to have her cake and eat it too.

So, w/out knowing more about what's going on in this case, I won't make any judgments.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The judge released the kids to go spend time at a Jewish camp instead.

I don't think the courts should have much of a say at all in child custody family court type cases anyway.

I haven't met a great deal of people who have raved about what a sweeping success their experiences have been. No one seems to get out unscathed.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> The judge released the kids to go spend time at a Jewish camp instead.
> 
> I don't think the courts should have much of a say at all in child custody family court type cases anyway.
> 
> I haven't met a great deal of people who have raved about what a sweeping success their experiences have been. No one seems to get out unscathed.


Divorce his hard on children and even harder when they become pawns in adult games. 

I needed family court to protect my children from their father's vices, while also making sure there was an opportunity to grow up knowing him many view it as something different. 

Very few who have been involved with family court would tell you that it's a great system but for those that need it, it sure helps to have them available.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Since I haven't sat through the 5 years of court proceedings nor have I read all the transcripts of these proceedings( and I'm not likely to be able to) nor have seen any record of other aberrant behavior by this judge I have trouble ftom a distance labeling her as a "wack job". I do know that she knows more about this case and the people involved after dealing directly with them than you or I will ever know from reading a short story including lawyers statements from an aggrieved party. I'm guessing after 5 years or more of being used as a weapon in this relationship these kids have plenty of scar tissue. It could be the best thing for these kids was to remove them from this toxic environment. It could give those scars time to heal.


Though we often disagree politically, I've always thought you had intelligent, thoughtful comments. But not this time. If the kids need to be removed from the toxic environment, they could have gone into foster care. I'm no fan of foster care, but it is way better than juvenile detention. Even if the judge was just doing this to scare the kids and plans to reverse it in a week or so, he still needs to be fired. One of the kids is 9 years old and has been sentenced to 9 yrs in juve? You don't do that to a little kid!

I'm sure there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what facts could justify the judge's actions.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

DEKE01 said:


> Though we often disagree politically, I've always thought you had intelligent, thoughtful comments. But not this time. If the kids need to be removed from the toxic environment, they could have gone into foster care. I'm no fan of foster care, but it is way better than juvenile detention. Even if the judge was just doing this to scare the kids and plans to reverse it in a week or so, he still needs to be fired. One of the kids is 9 years old and has been sentenced to 9 yrs in juve? You don't do that to a little kid!
> 
> I'm sure there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what facts could justify the judge's actions.


The facility the children were sent originally severes other family needs besides detention. One of them is shelter care, similar concept to those used by battered wives.
https://www.oakgov.com/village


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

And if they were to be placed in foster care as suggested they would likely have gone to this facility (Children's Village/Mandy's Place) first anyway, since the foster system has limits. Finding a qualified foster home with room for all three children sometimes takes a few days or more. They could place the kids in separate foster homes if they had three available but it would be more outrageous to split the kids up when they have this facility available to keep them together.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

kuriakos said:


> And if they were to be placed in foster care as suggested they would likely have gone to this facility (Children's Village/Mandy's Place) first anyway, since the foster system has limits. Finding a qualified foster home with room for all three children sometimes takes a few days or more. They could place the kids in separate foster homes if they had three available but it would be more outrageous to split the kids up when they have this facility available to keep them together.


Read the court transcript. The judge says the kids are to be put in separate cells, that no one from the mother's side of the family can visit. It sure doesn't sound like the judge intends for this to be anything but punishment and no mention is made of a possible transition to foster care. The judge tried to scare the heck out of these kids. The judge was angry, out of control and needs to be fired. What ever problems the kids had, the judge made it worse.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The court systems do not do a magnificent job managing people's personal domestic problems the majority of the time in my opinion.

The fact that tax dollars have been wasted for five years to play a role in this couple's personal drama really ticks me off. It's such nonsense.

I get that there truly are times when the govt can step in and play a role in disaster home situations and have effect a positive change. But, those are few and far between.

90% of the time, or more, people need to handle their own messes, and no be allowed to carry on these circus show type lifestyles. Life's not fair and you just have to deal with it. it ticks me off that this system is this idea we've embraced as a society as the most acceptable way to handle it.

And, we wonder why marriages are being avoided and falling apart so often.......what a terrible example we've championed for what the proper way to handle the business of life looks like.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Though we often disagree politically, I've always thought you had intelligent, thoughtful comments. But not this time. If the kids need to be removed from the toxic environment, they could have gone into foster care. I'm no fan of foster care, but it is way better than juvenile detention. Even if the judge was just doing this to scare the kids and plans to reverse it in a week or so, he still needs to be fired. One of the kids is 9 years old and has been sentenced to 9 yrs in juve? You don't do that to a little kid!
> 
> I'm sure there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what facts could justify the judge's actions.


Nah, I'm just a left leaning whacko who thinks government has all the answers. Or maybe I'm just not willing base all my views on something like this on a few short articles trying to tug on my heart strings. I've seen a couple cases like this in my day. Parents who use the kids to beat up on each other. Kids forced to take sides. I'll trust that after 5 years in court this judge knows these parents and kids better than they probably know themselves. Judges sometimes do things to get people's attention. Orders of detention can be rescinded and modified. This one already seemingly has been. The bottom line, for me, is that this is a family issue and should be handled as quietly as possible. Somebody brought this to the attention of the press. Somebody's still using the kids as a weapon, this time against a judge they may not like. Maybe I'll save my ire for that somebody.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

kuriakos said:


> And if they were to be placed in foster care as suggested they would likely have gone to this facility (Children's Village/Mandy's Place) first anyway, since the foster system has limits. Finding a qualified foster home with room for all three children sometimes takes a few days or more. They could place the kids in separate foster homes if they had three available but it would be more outrageous to split the kids up when they have this facility available to keep them together.


I think it is okay to take children to a shelter for a short while until a foster family is located - if it is done to protect children from abusive parents. But it is not okay to jail them for years just to teach the parents a lesson. If the situation is so bad in this family, then the kids would be better off in the loving care of someone else. But is it? 

Why are the children in contempt of court? If the parents did not make arrangements for children's lunch with the father, aren't the parents in contempt of court instead?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Nah, I'm just a left leaning whacko who thinks government has all the answers.
> 
> *See, we can agree on something! :buds:*
> 
> Or maybe I'm just not willing base all my views on something like this on a few short articles trying to tug on my heart strings. I've seen a couple cases like this in my day. Parents who use the kids to beat up on each other. Kids forced to take sides. I'll trust that after 5 years in court this judge knows these parents and kids better than they probably know themselves. Judges sometimes do things to get people's attention. Orders of detention can be rescinded and modified. This one already seemingly has been. The bottom line, for me, is that this is a family issue and should be handled as quietly as possible. Somebody brought this to the attention of the press. Somebody's still using the kids as a weapon, this time against a judge they may not like. Maybe I'll save my ire for that somebody.


The article is as poorly written as most everything else in media. My opinion isn't from the article. Read the transcript. The judge is punishing and berating the kids for not having a good relationship with the father. Yeah, force kids to love their father, that should work. 

Yeah, I've seen kids used as chess pieces in a marital battle as well. It probably happened here. The judge is punishing the victims.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> The article is as poorly written as most everything else in media. My opinion isn't from the article. Read the transcript. The judge is punishing and berating the kids for not having a good relationship with the father. Yeah, force kids to love their father, that should work.
> 
> Yeah, I've seen kids used as chess pieces in a marital battle as well. It probably happened here. The judge is punishing the victims.


Just because he donated some sperm, does not mean he is worthy to be called a father.

And this article is very poorly written. As most are.

You cannot FORCE one human being to have a relationship / love for another.
What this judge is doing is emotional rape: She is forcing the children to have a 'relationship' with someone they do NOT want to have a relationship w/ and have SAID they do not want to have a relationship w/ him.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> The article is as poorly written as most everything else in media. My opinion isn't from the article. Read the transcript. The judge is punishing and berating the kids for not having a good relationship with the father. Yeah, force kids to love their father, that should work.
> 
> Yeah, I've seen kids used as chess pieces in a marital battle as well. It probably happened here. The judge is punishing the victims.





Laura Zone 5 said:


> Just because he donated some sperm, does not mean he is worthy to be called a father.
> 
> And this article is very poorly written. As most are.
> 
> ...


You can't force someone to have a good relationship. You can remove them from a toxic one. It could be that by removing these kids from the influence of both parents for a while they'll get some serious counseling and time to independently process that counseling. Maybe that allows for a better relationship than sending them home. The judge seems to have, after 5 years, done what he could to get the kids out of the line fire. I don't know all the legal niceties of the family court system in that area but I'm sure the judge does. I'm also sure the lawyers do and remember, her lawyer advocates for her, not the kids. Maybe, just maybe, the person looking out for the kids was the judge.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I think it would be interesting to look back at how this particular judge handled previous family court cases. How long has she been a judge? Did she treat other children/families with the same type of discipline? 

My DH and I were appalled at her arrogance and vindictiveness. It does sound like this is a dysfunctional family but that is no reason to make anything worse. Kudos to whomever made this public. They did everyone, especially future litigants that may come before her bench, a big service...


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Read the court transcript. The judge says the kids are to be put in separate cells, that no one from the mother's side of the family can visit. It sure doesn't sound like the judge intends for this to be anything but punishment and no mention is made of a possible transition to foster care. The judge tried to scare the heck out of these kids. The judge was angry, out of control and needs to be fired. What ever problems the kids had, the judge made it worse.


Do you have a link to the transcript? I've only read a few excerpts.
Edit: I found it. You're right. That's extremely unprofessional the way she threatened the kids. She didn't actually order they be put in separate cells, though. That was only a threat. Whether that makes it less horrible or not, I'll leave up to you.



DEKE01 said:


> Yeah, I've seen kids used as chess pieces in a marital battle as well. It probably happened here. The judge is punishing the victims.


This part I agree with completely, regardless of what else is going on in the family.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I'm also sure the lawyers do and remember, her lawyer advocates for her, not the kids. Maybe, just maybe, the person looking out for the kids was the judge.


The kids each have their own lawyer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kuriakos said:


> The kids each have their own lawyer.


I know they do. But who's lawyer is quoted in the story and talking to the press. Most family court proceedings aren't open to the public, in my experience. Why is this one being made public?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Just because he donated some sperm, does not mean he is worthy to be called a father.


That is true, but it would be insane to jump to such a conclusion about this particular father from the tiny amount of information known. I don't know him so I can't vouch for him, but I sure have my opinions about the mother. They all lived in Israel and she took the kids and left the country without telling the dad. He moved here to be close to them. He appears to be more than a sperm donor at least.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I know they do. But who's lawyer is quoted in the story and talking to the press. Most family court proceedings aren't open to the public, in my experience. Why is this one being made public?


That would be the mother's attorney, of course. The children's attorneys (and their father) are responsible for getting them sent to camp instead of the shelter, though. It's being made public because the mother hired a PR firm to make it public. That might shed a little light on her motives. The father now also has a PR firm, but that could be a defensive move.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kuriakos said:


> That would be the mother's attorney, of course. The children's attorneys (and their father) are responsible for getting them sent to camp instead of the shelter, though. It's being made public because the mother hired a PR firm to make it public. That might shed a little light on her motives. The father now also has a PR firm, but that could be a defensive move.


Thanks for all the info. Sounds like the kid's lawyers might have a clue .

Now, for those of you who constantly decry the state of today's youth. The ones who don't know hard work, respect for authority, are self centered spoiled brats. What do you do with three kids who stand in a courtroom and tell a judge "no"? What do you call a mother who teaches such disrespect for authority?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for all the info. Sounds like the kid's lawyers might have a clue .
> 
> Now, for those of you who constantly decry the state of today's youth. The ones who don't know hard work, respect for authority, are self centered spoiled brats. What do you do with three kids who stand in a courtroom and tell a judge "no"? *What do you call a mother who teaches such disrespect for authority?*


 Typical.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Ethics, compassion and good judgment left this chaos years ago. These children are victims of their own parents' poor choices in spouses. It is a shame that they couldn't figure this out before they brought three innocent beings into this world. 

I believe children should respect authority. Authority should be wise and just. In my opinion the judge did not draw on wisdom or justice...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> You can't force someone to have a good relationship. You can remove them from a toxic one. It could be that by removing these kids from the influence of both parents for a while they'll get some serious counseling and time to independently process that counseling. Maybe that allows for a better relationship than sending them home. The judge seems to have, after 5 years, done what he could to get the kids out of the line fire. I don't know all the legal niceties of the family court system in that area but I'm sure the judge does. I'm also sure the lawyers do and remember, her lawyer advocates for her, not the kids. Maybe, just maybe, the person looking out for the kids was the judge.


That makes all the sense in the world...if you haven't read the transcript.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for all the info. Sounds like the kid's lawyers might have a clue .
> 
> Now, for those of you who constantly decry the state of today's youth. The ones who don't know hard work, respect for authority, are self centered spoiled brats. What do you do with three kids who stand in a courtroom and tell a judge "no"? What do you call a mother who teaches such disrespect for authority?


Again, you haven't read the transcript. Why won't you? 

It clearly shows the mother trying to get the kids to have the lunch mtg with the dad. Mom didn't want to have the kids taken away. 

I don't have anything good to say about the Mom but if she taught them to stand up to authority when authority is being abusive, as is true with this judge, she had done at least one thing right.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I'm glad when stuff like this becomes public. I hope it reinforces to people that flinging your dirty laundry in a courtroom is not worth it mos of the time. 

I hope other people can realize it's much better to do everything you possibly can to find the best solutions with the people involved, rather than get the system involved.

Very sad though to know these kids now will have the parts of their childhood that were very personal and difficult floating around the internet indefinitely since its all gone viral.

Whether it's good, bad, or otherwise I pray regularly that me and mine don't ever go viral for anything. I just don't see much of an upside for people when that happens, and it seems such an everyday thing the last several years.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm glad when stuff like this becomes public. I hope it reinforces to people that flinging your dirty laundry in a courtroom is not worth it mos of the time.
> 
> I hope other people can realize it's much better to do everything you possibly can to find the best solutions with the people involved, rather than get the system involved.
> 
> ...


*IF* the ex husband is 1/2 the monster she makes him out to be, let this be a warning to women who are trying to protect their kids:
Run.
Hide.....protect.
Cause the courts, won't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Just because he donated some sperm, does not mean he is worthy to be called a father.


And just because she happened to be fertile doesn't mean she is worthy to be called a mother. I know this all too well from first hand experience.
My daddy had his faults but abandoning his children wasn't one of them, neither was teaching us to lie cheat and steal.... Those were my "mothers" talents.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Duh.
That's why I 'qualified' my comment with *IF*
Hang on.....

**IF* * the ex husband is 1/2 the monster she makes him out to be, let this be a warning to women who are trying to protect their kids:
Run.
Hide.....protect.
Cause the courts, won't.

There, hope that helps!!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> That makes all the sense in the world...if you haven't read the transcript.


Ok, I've read the transcript. I heard a judge who had reached the end of her patience. I heard a judge who gave three kids every chance to sit down and have lunch with their father, to actually talk and interact with him, and go home with their mother. I heard one kid refuse outright and another agree, then recant when he realized the meal would be filmed and who had no real intent to live up to his promise. Yeah, the judge used some harsh language, but the kids, in my opinion, deserved it. The judge did mention counseling at the facility and did outline how the kids could go home. All they had to do was make some effort. All they have to do in the future is make some effort.

I also read a copy of the complaint that led to this hearing. A complaint that outlined many of the ways the mother sabotaged and interfered with court ordered and supervised visits with the father. A complaint that outlined how the guardian ad litem assigned to the children outlined the numerous ways the mother crippled any chance at a relationship.

Nothing I read changed my mind that these kids are better off, at least for now, where they're at and that the judge is far from the out of control whacko many believe her to be.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Ok, I've read the transcript. I heard a judge who had reached the end of her patience. I heard a judge who gave three kids every chance to sit down and have lunch with their father, to actually talk and interact with him, and go home with their mother. I heard one kid refuse outright and another agree, then recant when he realized the meal would be filmed and who had no real intent to live up to his promise. Yeah, the judge used some harsh language, but the kids, in my opinion, deserved it. The judge did mention counseling at the facility and did outline how the kids could go home. All they had to do was make some effort. All they have to do in the future is make some effort.
> 
> I also read a copy of the complaint that led to this hearing. A complaint that outlined many of the ways the mother sabotaged and interfered with court ordered and supervised visits with the father. A complaint that outlined how the guardian ad litem assigned to the children outlined the numerous ways the mother crippled any chance at a relationship.
> 
> Nothing I read changed my mind that these kids are better off, at least for now, where they're at and that the judge is far from the out of control whacko many believe her to be.


Did you back yourself into a corner and can't admit you are wrong?

So you think that the mother crippled the relationship, maybe brainwashed the kids? You're probably right about that. So the kids won't do something they have been brainwashed not to do? You do understand the difference beteen a minor child and a responsible adult in law? 

Judge lost her patience? Yep, right again. Don't you see a problem with that when the one voice in the room that has power over all others is angry and out of control? 

The mother that the kids trust, for right or wrong, has had years to make them think like they do. Do you think the judge is going to over come that in a few short court sessions? 

So how is a judge yelling at and threatening these kids helping? The kids are scared of the judge and so scared of their dad that they would choose juvenile detention and the loss of all contact with their mother. I thought the judge was supposed to be the voice of reason at that moment, not the one escalating the fear and heartache. 

No matter what, these kids are still kids are not responsible for or able to control all that is going on around them. You and the judge are punishing the victims. I thought you touchy feely libs were supposed to have compassion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Did you back yourself into a corner and can't admit you are wrong?
> 
> So you think that the mother crippled the relationship, maybe brainwashed the kids? You're probably right about that. So the kids won't do something they have been brainwashed not to do? You do understand the difference beteen a minor child and a responsible adult in law?
> 
> ...


So, have you read the complaint that led to this hearing and the statements in it. I read your transcript, do me the same honor.

If this had been the first hearing on this issue my feelings might be different. This judge has been dealing with this family for some time. She seems to have tried playing nice and giving the mother and children a chance to cooperate and avoid this drama. Experts hired by the court to speak for the children point to the mother and her actions as escalating the problems, not helping to solve them. The kids are victims in this. Sending them back home with the mother wouldn't make them less so, it would continue to make them her victims. The kids knew going in that refusal to go to lunch and talk to their father would have consequences. They challenged the judge to follow through. She did. In my touchy feely world that's called good parenting. My daughter knew I never threatened a punishment I wouldn't follow through on. She turned out pretty good and responsible, if I do say so myself.

I do have compassion. Compassion enough to know that sometimes hard choices and harsh words are the right ones. Hopefully the kids are talking to people who can help them work through this. Compassion enough to hope that they come out the other side with healthy relationships with both parents.


----------



## Robotron (Mar 25, 2012)

This has been ongoing for 5 years now. At a certain point it has to change, this judge is highly respected in her circle. It shouldn't have come to this but something has to change. Time is running period, kids deserve a chance to know dad without the filters and roadblocks that mom has thrown up. Maybe she is afraid of losing the kids to dad once they realize he's not the monster they have been taught to believe he is. With them out of the house maybe counseling will work and allow this to happen. I just hope mom hasn't screwed up her relationship too bad with the kids. Eyes will be opened as this goes forward.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I honestly don't believe that much of anything this judge does is going to fix or spare these kids from messed up relationships with either or both parents.

The kids probably have suffici nt food shelter clothing schooling medical care etc.

So I don't see how anything will ultimately intervene to save them the head game drama.

When they grow up they will still have the same parents and have to decide for themselves who they side with.

In the meantime, the courts aren't going to be able to manufacture a happy healthy ending.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

gibbsgirl said:


> I honestly don't believe that much of anything this judge does is going to fix or spare these kids from messed up relationships with either or both parents.
> 
> The kids probably have suffici nt food shelter clothing schooling medical care etc.
> 
> ...


You're right, the kids will have to decide for themselves. They now seem to be in a place where impartial parties can help them make a more informed decision. You can keep feeding kids poison or you can remove the poison and give them an opening to start healing. That's what the judge has done. Removed the kids from a poisonous environment.

Some of you seem to think the judge's job is to be the kid's friend. Its not. It's to do what she, in consultation with court appointed guardian and all other professionals involved in this case, deem best for the children and the family. It is to ensure that court orders are followed. The kids defied a direct court order. They learned an important lesson. No matter what someone may tell you otherwise, a judge can and will follow through. Actions have consequence is a valuable lesson. 

As for yelling and tone. It's hard to grasp from a transcript. I do know that an outsider might have taken pause at my tone and words towards my daughter on occasion. My daughter knew that as long as I was yelling she was going to be ok. It's when I got quiet she started to take the pending consequences seriously.


----------



## Robotron (Mar 25, 2012)

This may well be the time out that all parties need. The kids away will get a chance to learn / unlearn some things. But it also allows the parents to take a breath. They just might decide to be parents after all and come to an agreement that's best for all parties involved. Sometimes the gavel banging down is the best medicine for the problem.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> So, have you read the complaint that led to this hearing and the statements in it. I read your transcript, do me the same honor.
> 
> If this had been the first hearing on this issue my feelings might be different. This judge has been dealing with this family for some time. She seems to have tried playing nice and giving the mother and children a chance to cooperate and avoid this drama. Experts hired by the court to speak for the children point to the mother and her actions as escalating the problems, not helping to solve them. The kids are victims in this. Sending them back home with the mother wouldn't make them less so, it would continue to make them her victims. The kids knew going in that refusal to go to lunch and talk to their father would have consequences. They challenged the judge to follow through. She did. In my touchy feely world that's called good parenting. My daughter knew I never threatened a punishment I wouldn't follow through on. She turned out pretty good and responsible, if I do say so myself.
> 
> I do have compassion. Compassion enough to know that sometimes hard choices and harsh words are the right ones. Hopefully the kids are talking to people who can help them work through this. Compassion enough to hope that they come out the other side with healthy relationships with both parents.


You keep trying to change the subject. This isn't bout how bad the mother is. This is not about the highly probable need to remove the children from a bad situation. You can keep trying to argue those points and I'll keep agreeing with you, from the limited info I have on this case. 

This thread is about a judge who did wrong, who verbally assaulted innocent children. The 9 year old has been in this mess since 4 years old. That's when it got to the courts so the parental fight had probably been going on for years prior. The kid just can't know any better. If the kid murdered her neighbor, she would be too young and innocent (more than one definition for that word) to be held legally liable. Yet you think it is OK for a judge to intimidate and threaten children when the judge doesn't get his way trying to force a child to be nice to someone the child has been taught to fear or hate. 

WOW. How heartless. What a complete lack of empathy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You keep trying to change the subject. This isn't bout how bad the mother is. This is not about the highly probable need to remove the children from a bad situation. You can keep trying to argue those points and I'll keep agreeing with you, from the limited info I have on this case.
> 
> This thread is about a judge who did wrong, who verbally assaulted innocent children. The 9 year old has been in this mess since 4 years old. That's when it got to the courts so the parental fight had probably been going on for years prior. The kid just can't know any better. If the kid murdered her neighbor, she would be too young and innocent (more than one definition for that word) to be held legally liable. Yet you think it is OK for a judge to intimidate and threaten children when the judge doesn't get his way trying to force a child to be nice to someone the child has been taught to fear or hate.
> 
> WOW. How heartless. What a complete lack of empathy.


And you seem to think that kids standing in open defiance of the judge and refusing to make any attempt to comply with a court order should be patted on the head and fawned over as delicate flowers who will wilt away at the first sign of heat. These kids only had to be willing to take the first step- go to lunch and actually talk and interact. They knew this going in to this hearing. They were counseled to try. They chose not to. This didn't happen in a vacuum though many wish to judge the judge's statements in isolation. The judge has countless hours of interactions and evaluations by professionals to base her decision and words on. You've got one transcript that lists words, which doesn't show attitude, facial expressions or body language. These kids and this family need lots of help. The kids are in a place they just might start to get it. 

I don't have a lack of empathy for these kids. Quite the opposite. It's painful to think of how they got here but treating them with kid gloves isn't going to help them. They needed to hear some hard truths and maybe start realizing they aren't the center of the universe. It's time someone opened their eyes to the simple fact that their actions affect others, including their father. It's time they realized that open defiance of and lying to a judge may just get you punished. My empathy extends to my feeling that these kids may just have a chance in a different environment. An environment they're now in.

If you think the judge lacks empathy you might wish to rethink. Someone who doesn't care doesn't get emotional. Telling the people in front of you hard truths even using harsh language doesn't show a lack of caring. It can, and I'd guess does, show exactly how much this judge cares and how frustrated she is that the kids have reached this point. She gave these kids every opportunity to comply with a simple order. They refused. They had defied these orders in the past, they wished to continue to. They seemed to have a lot of self esteem. Maybe too much. Hurting their feelings and making them face the consequence of their choice isn't uncaring. It's very caring. Most parents know the heartache of hurting a kids feelings while doing the right thing. So does this judge.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> And you seem to think that kids standing in open defiance of the judge and refusing to make any attempt to comply with a court order should be patted on the head and fawned over as delicate flowers who will wilt away at the first sign of heat. These kids only had to be willing to take the first step- go to lunch and actually talk and interact. They knew this going in to this hearing. They were counseled to try. They chose not to. This didn't happen in a vacuum though many wish to judge the judge's statements in isolation. The judge has countless hours of interactions and evaluations by professionals to base her decision and words on. You've got one transcript that lists words, which doesn't show attitude, facial expressions or body language. These kids and this family need lots of help. The kids are in a place they just might start to get it.
> 
> I don't have a lack of empathy for these kids. Quite the opposite. It's painful to think of how they got here but treating them with kid gloves isn't going to help them. They needed to hear some hard truths and maybe start realizing they aren't the center of the universe. It's time someone opened their eyes to the simple fact that their actions affect others, including their father. It's time they realized that open defiance of and lying to a judge may just get you punished. My empathy extends to my feeling that these kids may just have a chance in a different environment. An environment they're now in.
> 
> If you think the judge lacks empathy you might wish to rethink. Someone who doesn't care doesn't get emotional. Telling the people in front of you hard truths even using harsh language doesn't show a lack of caring. It can, and I'd guess does, show exactly how much this judge cares and how frustrated she is that the kids have reached this point. She gave these kids every opportunity to comply with a simple order. They refused. They had defied these orders in the past, they wished to continue to. They seemed to have a lot of self esteem. Maybe too much. Hurting their feelings and making them face the consequence of their choice isn't uncaring. It's very caring. Most parents know the heartache of hurting a kids feelings while doing the right thing. So does this judge.


WOW. How heartless. What a complete lack of empathy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> WOW. How heartless. What a complete lack of empathy.


Repeating it doesn't make it true. I hope you never had to raise your voice to or punish a child in your care. The times I had to with my own weren't because I didn't feel empathy for her, didn't love her, didn't care for her. It was because I did care that I followed through and sometimes explained in no uncertain terms the failings of her and her behavior. And I never once felt good or righteous about it. I suspect a judge feels the same. She has a long history on the bench in an environment fraught with controversy and this is the first we've heard of her. Show me a pattern of such behavior and you might sway me. Crucify her on one case with isolated words and I'll sit in my little corner and fight for the good of the kids, not complain about the words of the judge.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And you seem to think that kids standing in open defiance of the judge and refusing to make any attempt to comply with a court order should be patted on the head and fawned over as delicate flowers who will wilt away at the first sign of heat.


If the parent has shown a propensity towards violence in the past, and the children have witnessed it, and if the parent has, in the past, shown that they can become violent or verbally / emotionally abusive.
Then yes, the children SHOULD be defiant.
If the parent forces a religion on them that is against their Faith? YES the children SHOULD be defiant.
That judge is NOT God.



> These kids only had to be willing to take the first step- go to lunch and actually talk and interact. They knew this going in to this hearing. They were counseled to try. They chose not to. This didn't happen in a vacuum though many wish to judge the judge's statements in isolation. The judge has countless hours of interactions and evaluations by professionals to base her decision and words on. You've got one transcript that lists words, which doesn't show attitude, facial expressions or body language. These kids and this family need lots of help. The kids are in a place they just might start to get it.


If the mother had enough $$ to hire a PR person, she should have packed those kids up, and disappeared **IF* *the abuse is what she is protecting them from.



> I don't have a lack of empathy for these kids. Quite the opposite. It's painful to think of how they got here but treating them with kid gloves isn't going to help them. They needed to hear some hard truths and maybe start realizing they aren't the center of the universe. It's time someone opened their eyes to the simple fact that their actions affect others, including their father. It's time they realized that open defiance of and lying to a judge may just get you punished. My empathy extends to my feeling that these kids may just have a chance in a different environment. An environment they're now in.


You clearly are not a woman, as you have zero maternal instincts nor do you have any idea what lengths a woman will go to protect her young.
Watch some YouTubes about folks that have run up on a baby bear in the woods......and watch the mama.
Same instinct but humans mama's show more restraint.



> If you think the judge lacks empathy you might wish to rethink. Someone who doesn't care doesn't get emotional. Telling the people in front of you hard truths even using harsh language doesn't show a lack of caring. It can, and I'd guess does, show exactly how much this judge cares and how frustrated she is that the kids have reached this point. She gave these kids every opportunity to comply with a simple order. They refused. They had defied these orders in the past, they wished to continue to. They seemed to have a lot of self esteem. Maybe too much. Hurting their feelings and making them face the consequence of their choice isn't uncaring. It's very caring. Most parents know the heartache of hurting a kids feelings while doing the right thing. So does this judge.


Someone who doesn't care, doesn't get emotional?
You know nothing of personality disorders, and I can ASSURE you that people who "do not care" get VERY emotional (the emotion is usually anger followed up with fits, yelling, screaming, cussing, name calling, etc.)

This judge does not 'care'.
She's ticked off that everyone is not bowing to her.
She's ticked off that this mother, and children will not bow to her commands.

"Hurting their feelings and making them face consequences"......
Locking up children, separating them from the one person that clearly protects them, will traumatize them.......and trauma does untold damage to the human brain. 
This "all wise all knowing" judge should know this; maybe she does and just doesn't care because she is ticked off that this family will not bow to her.

This judge is an idiot, and needs to be removed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> If the parent has shown a propensity towards violence in the past, and the children have witnessed it, and if the parent has, in the past, shown that they can become violent or verbally / emotionally abusive.
> Then yes, the children SHOULD be defiant.
> If the parent forces a religion on them that is against their Faith? YES the children SHOULD be defiant.
> That judge is NOT God.
> ...


At least you got one fact right, I'm not a woman. I've also seen the news reports of mothers who have killed their children to "protect " them. Mental disorders come in many shapes. Some of them even appear maternal.

You lead with the supposed "propensity" towards violence of the father. There seems to be little or no evidence of this propensity. No restraining orders, no judgements, no mention of it by the guardians or lawyers representing the children, no mention of it in this hearing by the mother or her lawyer. An accusation by one child who has been taught well how to manipulate the system against a judge who repeatedly called the father a "good man" and court documents that paint quite a different picture than the child. A father so evil even he objected to the judge's decision. ( I'm sure you've looked at the complaint by now.)

Separating these children from the toxic environment surrounding the mother and getting them some proper treatment may be the least traumatic thing that had happened to them in the last five years.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> At least you got one fact right, I'm not a woman. I've also seen the news reports of mothers who have killed their children to "protect " them. Mental disorders come in many shapes. Some of them even appear maternal.
> 
> You lead with the supposed "propensity" towards violence of the father. There seems to be little or no evidence of this propensity. No restraining orders, no judgements, no mention of it by the guardians or lawyers representing the children, no mention of it in this hearing by the mother or her lawyer. An accusation by one child who has been taught well how to manipulate the system against *a judge who repeatedly called the father a "good man" *and court documents that paint quite a different picture than the child. A father so evil even he objected to the judge's decision. ( I'm sure you've looked at the complaint by now.)
> 
> Separating these children from the toxic environment surrounding the mother and getting them some proper treatment may be the least traumatic thing that had happened to them in the last five years.


You really don't know anything about Personality Disorders.
I'm not saying that the mother does not possess one, but, educate yourself on personality disorders, and domestic abuse; especially mental and emotional abuse, and the 'mask' that the parent who appears 'a good man/woman' will begin to reveal itself for what it is.........a mask.

As a woman, who is keenly aware of maternal instinct, I can speak to that topic, with authority.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You really don't know anything about Personality Disorders.
> I'm not saying that the mother does not possess one, but, educate yourself on personality disorders, and domestic abuse; especially mental and emotional abuse, and the 'mask' that the parent who appears 'a good man/woman' will begin to reveal itself for what it is.........a mask.
> 
> As a woman, who is keenly aware of maternal instinct, I can speak to that topic, with authority.


Once again, when facts fail I'm told what I am presumed to know. I may know nothing, I may know more than you'll ever know. None of that changes the facts of this case. Unless this judge has had some recent mental break there's no indication from her long career that she suffers from all the faults and disorders you ascribe to her. Calling her a whacko, suggesting some underlying mental issues and calling for her removal from the bench because of this case seems a bit over the top, to me. 

Maybe along with my education( though once agin I'll point out that I may be more educated in these matters than you presume) you should take some time to educate yourself in this woman's behavior. It likely won't change your unyielding stance that she is the victim and he is evil, but you might find it enlightening. The only victims in this are the children and the judge didn't make them so.

You can speak authoritatively on the effects of your maternal instinct. I'll leave any study of the effects of this woman's on her children to those who have met and interacted with her. That would include the judge.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'll sit in my little corner and fight for the good of the kids, not complain about the words of the judge.


Nope, you'll fight for the judge because you love authority. The kids you don't care about.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Nope, you'll fight for the judge because you love authority. The kids you don't care about.


I think rebuilding fences in the Florida sun might be impacting your judgement of me. I've never been one to kowtow to authority. I once argued with a judge that I should pay a fine. (I lost that argument).  I don't really give a swamp rat's patootie about the judge. I am happy that the kids may be in a place that might provide the counseling and help that I, the many professionals involved and yes, the judge, think might help them. I'm not so concerned about the words the judge used to get them there or whether the kid's feelings might have been hurt. Hopefully the counseling they're now getting can help them with that, also. I do think the mother, her lawyer and her PR team have done exactly what they wished. They've deflected attention from the mothers abysmal actions in this case and made it all about the mean, old judge. Just like your statement seeks to make it about me.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I think the judge made a good call on this.
Don't follow the judge's rules, you pay the penalty.
Don't like what happened in court, stay out of court.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Separating these children from the toxic environment surrounding the mother and getting them some proper treatment may be the least traumatic thing that had happened to them in the last five years.


Yes, separating a child from a toxic environment is a good thing. However, several years of jail time are not going to accomplish that. Which is what the judge did. Others have fought to have the children go to a camp - that's different and likely good for the kids.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmerKat said:


> Yes, separating a child from a toxic environment is a good thing. However, several years of jail time are not going to accomplish that. Which is what the judge did. Others have fought to have the children go to a camp - that's different and likely good for the kids.


Read the transcript. The camp was specifically referenced by the judge as the place the children would go. They were never going to sit in jail cells for years.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Fishindude said:


> I think the judge made a good call on this.
> Don't follow the judge's rules, you pay the penalty.
> Don't like what happened in court, stay out of court.


Exactly why the mother should have 'disappeared' with the children.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Read the transcript. The camp was specifically referenced by the judge as the place the children would go. They were never going to sit in jail cells for years.


I don't have time to go back and read the transcript again, but I don't remember any mention of the camp. Children's Village is the facility they were sent to for about two weeks. I think the camp is Camp Tamarack, which is a Jewish summer camp, not any type of government institution.

But I agree, the judge never intended to keep them incarcerated until they graduated from high school, nor does she have that authority, but that is what she said to the children. That's very unprofessional and potentially unethical, but it's extremely unlikely she will be removed from the bench over this. She got in over her head, like a lot of family court judges do. She may have been watching too much Judge Judy and forgot the limits of her power.

I believe the mom is very wrong in this case, and strongly doubt the abuse allegations about the father, but it's possible for the mom and the judge to both be wrong. From what I've heard, the mom is $15,000 behind in paying her attorneys so they're trying to dump her as a client, too.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Exactly why the mother should have 'disappeared' with the children.


That's kidnapping if the other parent has a legal right to the children. I heard she tried it once before. She packed them up in the middle of the night and left Israel with them to move to Michigan, most likely violating Israel's laws. She is also well known in her career field, so she would probably have to give that up to disappear.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Read the transcript. The camp was specifically referenced by the judge as the place the children would go. They were never going to sit in jail cells for years.


I have not seen a single reference to "camp" in the transcript. I have read the words Children's Village, jail and cell. And by my count, a 9, 10 and a 15 year old have "years" until they graduate high school. Which is also how long the judge told them they would be there. 

I assume we are reading the same document: http://content.foxtvmedia.com/wjbk/pdf/tsimhoni_kids_sent_to_jail.pdf


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

kuriakos said:


> That's kidnapping if the other parent has a legal right to the children. I heard she tried it once before. She packed them up in the middle of the night and left Israel with them to move to Michigan, most likely violating Israel's laws. She is also well known in her career field, so she would probably have to give that up to disappear.


IF the father was a credible threat to the children's physical and mental health, my career would mean NOTHING. Zero. Nada, Zip.

I'd wash dishes, shovel out barns, etc to live 'off grid and under the wire' to protect them.

The judge is abusing her 'power'. Period.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> IF the father was a credible threat to the children's physical and mental health, my career would mean NOTHING. Zero. Nada, Zip.
> 
> I'd wash dishes, shovel out barns, etc to live 'off grid and under the wire' to protect them.


Yes, I believe most mothers are like that, but that's a big IF you started with. Perhaps the fact that she didn't disappear gives an insight into whether she believes the father is a real threat. I don't think she does. She took the kids and fled the country, but she didn't hide. That to me says angry and vindictive, not scared.



> The judge is abusing her 'power'. Period.


I agree, but nothing will come of it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmerKat said:


> I have not seen a single reference to "camp" in the transcript. I have read the words Children's Village, jail and cell. And by my count, a 9, 10 and a 15 year old have "years" until they graduate high school. Which is also how long the judge told them they would be there.
> 
> I assume we are reading the same document: http://content.foxtvmedia.com/wjbk/pdf/tsimhoni_kids_sent_to_jail.pdf


I apologize. The "village" and "camp" got conflated in my mind. 

But just like I never really intended to ever ground my daughter for the rest of her life the judge was never going to put these kids in "jail" for years.

What would all of you have done with these children had you been in the judge's place? Remember, this wasn't their first visit to court. They had done everything in their power to sabotage the visits. How did you punish your own children and get them to comply with the rules of the household. The rules in this case that the kids show some respect for their father and talk to him. Were your kids to sit at the dinner table each night ignoring you and your queries how wou&#322;d you react?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I apologize. The "village" and "camp" got conflated in my mind.
> 
> But just like I never really intended to ever ground my daughter for the rest of her life the judge was never going to put these kids in "jail" for years.
> 
> What would all of you have done with these children had you been in the judge's place? Remember, this wasn't their first visit to court. They had done everything in their power to sabotage the visits. How did you punish your own children and get them to comply with the rules of the household. The rules in this case that the kids show some respect for their father and talk to him. Were your kids to sit at the dinner table each night ignoring you and your queries how wou&#322;d you react?


My kids? I threaten to send them to public school for a day ... lol. 

It seems that these kids can use some time away. A camp where they have time to do kid stuff and get some counseling sounds appropriate. 

I honestly don't think that forcing a 14 year old to have lunch with the father is going to do any good (sounds like the younger siblings are just following his lead). My parents separated when I was 14. My mom tried to hold it together but I could see what was happening. She left when I told her I felt we would be better off on our own (my father was cheating, hiding money from her and spending it on other women while mom struggled to pay bills & buy food). I did not talk to my father for years after we left - my choice. There is no way anyone could have forced me to like him or hang out with him. When I was an adult, we revisited our relationship. As I got older, I could understand better how he became the person he was and that allowed me to see things from a slightly different perspective. We never became close but we had a relationship in the end. However, we had to get to that point over the years. 

If the mother has been telling these kids for years how horrible their father is, I imagine that they feel just as strong as I did (even if it just perceived and not real). It sounds to me that the mother is the one who is in contempt of court (she is the adult here) and maybe she needs to be removed from the situation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmerKat said:


> My kids? I threaten to send them to public school for a day ... lol.
> 
> It seems that these kids can use some time away. A camp where they have time to do kid stuff and get some counseling sounds appropriate.
> 
> ...


I agree with you about the mother. Read the complaint that led to this hearing and you'll likely reinforce your feelings. But, in this case, it was the children violating the court order. It was the children's actions that needed to be dealt with. It was the children's actions that the judge was using her legitimate power and role to address.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It was the children's actions that the judge was using her legitimate power and role to address.


...in an inappropriate and needlessly hurtful way.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> ...in an inappropriate and needlessly hurtful way.


Wah, wah , wah. Sometimes the truth hurts, life can be tough and lessons hard. Behave like self centered pentulant brats and maybe someone will eventually call you on it. Maybe if someone had put their foot down sooner it wouldn't have gotten this far. I'll quote a nice liberal dictum for you- spare the rod, spoil the child. Sometimes a good verbal rodding can do much to reduce spoilage.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

like I said, no empathy or compassion. You keep proving that over and over.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> like I said, no empathy or compassion. You keep proving that over and over.


I find nothing overly empathetic or compassionate in not speaking the truth, even to children. In fact, the most compassionate thing can sometimes be brutal honesty.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I agree with you about the mother. Read the complaint that led to this hearing and you'll likely reinforce your feelings. But, in this case, it was the children violating the court order. It was the children's actions that needed to be dealt with. It was the children's actions that the judge was using her legitimate power and role to address.


Whether the judge had legitimate authority to do what she did is very questionable. For one, the children were not parties to the action before the court. Only the parents were. A court cannot order third parties to act or not act outside the court. Civil contempt power is limited to keeping order in the court and related ends, not to be used to compel non-parties to act in certain ways outside the courtroom. The civil contempt certainly would have been overturned if the judge hadn't released the children herself. She knew that, which is probably why she agreed to let them go to camp. She got in over her head. 

There are also child custody issues. The judge effectively transferred custody of the children from the mother to the state without due process. I defended the judge slightly at first for reasons I won't get into, but I was wrong. She was wrong. Lucky for her, she has immunity for her official mistakes. If she's smart she won't waive that immunity.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I find nothing overly empathetic or compassionate in not speaking the truth, even to children. In fact, the most compassionate thing can sometimes be brutal honesty.


we've already established you have no empathy for these kids. You need not prove it over and over again.


----------



## Robotron (Mar 25, 2012)

Well the father has filed for sole custody, hearing is on Momday. It appears as the mother continues to disregard the courts instructions. Time will tell. 
https://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/10145...kland-child-visitation-dispute-wants-custody/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kuriakos said:


> Whether the judge had legitimate authority to do what she did is very questionable. For one, the children were not parties to the action before the court. Only the parents were. A court cannot order third parties to act or not act outside the court. Civil contempt power is limited to keeping order in the court and related ends, not to be used to compel non-parties to act in certain ways outside the courtroom. The civil contempt certainly would have been overturned if the judge hadn't released the children herself. She knew that, which is probably why she agreed to let them go to camp. She got in over her head.
> 
> There are also child custody issues. The judge effectively transferred custody of the children from the mother to the state without due process. I defended the judge slightly at first for reasons I won't get into, but I was wrong. She was wrong. Lucky for her, she has immunity for her official mistakes. If she's smart she won't waive that immunity.


It would seem that if all that were true and so straightforward one of the five lawyers present would have presented these facts. The mother's attorney, the father's, the childrens'. They all knew these actions were threatened and possibly coming. Yet none had the foresight to object on these grounds. None filed paperwork immediately afterward to revoke the actions based on such simple legal principles. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm doubtful it's so simple. I have my doubts that a judge with this woman's experience is quite so ignorant of legal niceties as you presume.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Real court is not like TV court. I am not aware of whether civil contempt was threatened against the children before the day this happened, but if it was I am certain none of the attorneys believed it was a real possibility. When it happened, they were probably shocked. Unlike TV, very little in regards to court is immediate or even quick. Attorneys are researchers. We get all our ducks in a row before presenting arguments. And unlike TV, we don't have all the laws and case law memorized. A really good attorney might be able to formulate a passable argument on the fly, but the really good attorney would never attempt such a foolish thing.

Also, in regards to the children's attorneys, technically they are supposed to advocate for the children, but in reality they are court appointed for the purpose of facilitating the court's ends. I believe they had just met the children that day and were not up to speed on all the details of the case.

I didn't believe the judge could be wrong here because it's so rare for a judge to be so blatantly wrong, but upon further research and thought I came to the conclusion that she messed up. She apparently also came to that same conclusion, since she reversed her decision when the mother's new attorney presented some of those very arguments I mentioned. http://www.scribd.com/doc/271152760/Court-Order-and-Writ-of-Habeus-Corpus

The judge is obviously not ignorant of the law. That was not the position of my last post. I think she simply let her emotions overwhelm her judgment. It happens to the best of them. Many years ago I defended cases against her husband when he was a prosecutor (she was too at the time). I never had any substantial complaints against him, but he ended up destroying his career and forfeiting his civil immunity for his official mistakes. He had extensive experience in the law just like his wife and he let his ego overwhelm his judgment. I believe she has done the same, but she appears to be smarter than him since she has corrected her misstep.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Just popped back to clarify my position. Thanks again for the extra info. Ive said from the beginning that the judge had exhausted her patience, what you might call letting her emotions get away from her. Letting emotions run and making valid legal rulings aren't always incongruent. Realizing you've made your point and moving to a more moderate position later doesn't always mean the inititial ruling had no legal ground, either.

The initial transcript seems to show that civil contempt was threatened before this hearing and the children had discussions about this with their lawyers. I can only assume that the mothers lawyers were privy to this also and had time to consider the consequences and law involved. I know from my lawyer friends that it is a poor lawyer who counsels his client that a judge might not mean what threatens. 

All that being said I'll concede the judge may have overstepped her legal boundaries though no real evidence has yet been presented that she did. I'll also stand behind my, apparently non empathetic, belief that the judge's language was appropriate.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

In the latest hearing Friday, the judge threatened to lock up both parents for 20 days. That's a much better approach than threatening the children who are not parties to the case. Better doesn't equal good, but at least she's dealing with the right people now.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

> I'll also stand behind my, apparently non empathetic, belief that the judge's language was appropriate.


Even the parts about Charlie Manson?


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

It is a sorry situation But:

All law is controlled by lawyers, FOR A FEE. Just keep those checks coming in. Don't forget that the judge is a lawyer too and paid very well. 

Brainwashing the children is as old as time unfortunately. Sometimes the end result of that garbage is suicise of one or more of the children. I know first hand of what I speak on this matter.

So far in this case I have seen no male lawyers or judges present in this case there may be some, but I have not seen them.

Kudous for the husband/father here for being financially able to provide the cash needed to play this lawyers game. Most men can not provide funds in that amount. No matter they will break him, it will just take a bit longer.:flame:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Several of the attorneys involved are men. The mother's previous attorney and one of her current ones (IIRC both are named Andrew), as well as at least one of the children's court appointed attorneys and the guardian ad litem are all men. As I understand it, the sheriff's deputy serving as a bailiff in this court is also a man who has been involved in trying to get through to the kids under direction from the judge.

But you are correct that there is no incentive for the attorneys to wrap this up quickly. I could never practice family law, but it is very lucrative, especially for those representing professionals.

Also, I am sorry to hear of your first hand experience of a child committing suicide. I cannot imagine the pain that would cause and it certainly would not be worth winning against the ex.


----------

