Jump to content

Menu

Remember the Tsimhoni kids sent to juvie for refusing to spend time w/their Dad?


umsami
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am flabbergasted and disgusted by this.

 

They have been with their Dad after a controversial reunification therapy led by a woman with a high school diploma.

 

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/tsimhoni-children-cultists-or-abused-50007/

 

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/family-judge-orders-reunification-therapy-despite-childrens-fears-48904/

 

The judge herself in the case would not resign.  

 

The chief  judge who is supposed to determine if the original judge should be replaced, recused herself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So bizarre.

 

One thing that stood out to me.

The judge said these kids had the most severe behavior she had seen in 46,000 cases.

46,000 cases? Is that possible, that she's seen that many cases?

If she's been a judge/lawyer for 46 years, works 48 weeks a year, that's over 20 cases a week.

 

 

Ummmm, google tells me she's only 47 years old.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So bizarre.

 

One thing that stood out to me.

The judge said these kids had the most severe behavior she had seen in 46,000 cases.

46,000 cases? Is that possible, that she's seen that many cases?

If she's been a judge/lawyer for 46 years, works 48 weeks a year, that's over 20 cases a week.

 

 

Ummmm, google tells me she's only 47 years old.

 

Well, she sounds crackers anyway, but a mention is only 5-10 minutes. You can fit a fair few of them into a day.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So bizarre.

 

One thing that stood out to me.

The judge said these kids had the most severe behavior she had seen in 46,000 cases.

46,000 cases? Is that possible, that she's seen that many cases?

If she's been a judge/lawyer for 46 years, works 48 weeks a year, that's over 20 cases a week.

 

 

Ummmm, google tells me she's only 47 years old.

 

Well, she also berated the children, compared them to Charlie Manson, and threatened them in court so... yeah. She's nuts. I mean, after the original slew of coverage a few months back, I felt like I couldn't say for sure which parent was in the wrong (or if it was both), but one thing I am sure of is that judge is cuckoo bananas.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I've been following the case obsessively. It's just so heartbreaking, and the articles don't do it justice. You really have to read the actual court transcripts of Judge Gorcyca berating the children (9, 10, & 14 at the time) to get a real sense of how horrible it is. It's stunning to read the vulgar, abusive things the judge says to the 9-yr-old girl in open court. Horrible. And the father, his lawyer, the mother, her lawyer, and the guardian ad litem Lansat just stand by and let it happen. Not one of them objects.

 

There were also lawyers present to represent each of the children, but they were reportedly pulled in moments before the hearing and didn't even know the children's names, so I'm going to give them a one-time pass on the basis of total ignorance and a sad lack of integrity when facing a scary, vindictive judge. The lawyer for the 9-yr-old is recorded as saying at one point, "I'm not sure what my client has done, but . . . " which pretty much says it all about the lack of protection and support for the children. Um, your client just completed the third grade and is not a party to her parents' divorce proceedings. Hey, lawyer, when the judge sentences your 3rd grade client to 9 years in juvie (the order said she had to stay until 18), because she didn't follow the court order to have a good relationship with dad . . . you stand up and freakin' object . . . you might even want to cuss the judge out and get held in contempt yourself to make a dramatic point. But you don't just stand by and let a 9-yr-old be verbally abused and sentenced to 9 years in "jail" for not feeling the right way about her dad.

 

 

These kids are victims. They have been failed by every adult at every level. I don't care whether you believe the mom, believe the dad, or think they're both crazy, you don't punish kids for their parents' actions. Judge Gorcyca needs to be removed from this case and from family court. William Lansat needs to be removed from his position as the children's GAL and probably from acting as a GAL at all. I am disgusted by them both. No child in the midst of a custody battle should ever have to go through the things these children have gone through. Shame on the family court system.

  • Like 34
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So bizarre.

 

One thing that stood out to me.

The judge said these kids had the most severe behavior she had seen in 46,000 cases.

46,000 cases? Is that possible, that she's seen that many cases?

If she's been a judge/lawyer for 46 years, works 48 weeks a year, that's over 20 cases a week.

 

 

Ummmm, google tells me she's only 47 years old.

On my limited experience of sitting with a friend for her family court hearing, the judge heard (maybe) half a dozen cases in the 2 or 3 hours that we were there. (She was competent, it's just kind of a fast-moving experience.) Based on that, I think 20 cases per day x 5 days x 48 weeks yields my guess at around 4,800 per year... 10 years' experience as a judge for 46,000 cases?

 

However, regarding "behaviour" -- there were no children present in the court room that day that I was there. (Except, possibly babies?) and the judge insisted on complete decorum and formality from everyone who spoke, and became swiftly unfavourable to anyone who put a toe out of line. Perhaps judges don't experience too much of mouthy preteens who express little fear of authority? (Which is normal childhood behaviour -- including immature emotions -- not finding fault with the kids, but perhaps with a judge having limited experience.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid I've been following the case obsessively. It's just so heartbreaking, and the articles don't do it justice. You really have to read the actual court transcripts of Judge Gorcyca berating the children (9, 10, & 14 at the time) to get a real sense of how horrible it is. It's stunning to read the vulgar, abusive things the judge says to the 9-yr-old girl in open court. Horrible. And the father, his lawyer, the mother, her lawyer, and the guardian ad litem Lansat just stand by and let it happen. Not one of them objects.

 

There were also lawyers present to represent each of the children, but they were reportedly pulled in moments before the hearing and didn't even know the children's names, so I'm going to give them a one-time pass on the basis of total ignorance and a sad lack of integrity when facing a scary, vindictive judge. The lawyer for the 9-yr-old is recorded as saying at one point, "I'm not sure what my client has done, but . . . " which pretty much says it all about the lack of protection and support for the children. Um, your client just completed the third grade and is not a party to her parents' divorce proceedings. Hey, lawyer, when the judge sentences your 3rd grade client to 9 years in juvie (the order said she had to stay until 18), because she didn't follow the court order to have a good relationship with dad . . . you stand up and freakin' object . . . you might even want to cuss the judge out and get held in contempt yourself to make a dramatic point. But you don't just stand by and let a 9-yr-old be verbally abused and sentenced to 9 years in "jail" for not feeling the right way about her dad.

These kids are victims. They have been failed by every adult at every level. I don't care whether you believe the mom, believe the dad, or think they're both crazy, you don't punish kids for their parents' actions. Judge Gorcyca needs to be removed from this case and from family court. William Lansat needs to be removed from his position as the children's GAL and probably from acting as a GAL at all. I am disgusted by them both. No child in the midst of a custody battle should ever have to go through the things these children have gone through. Shame on the family court system.

I knew it was bad but that makes me sick. Literally, my stomach hurts.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your divorce has "gone wrong" if you are in court at all. Maybe numbers are different in the US, but here it's only about 5% of divorced couples who end up in family court.

 

I looked it up - the numbers varied but seems to be about the same here, though I know most people do need to get lawyers. So yeah. Someone I know is fighting a messy divorce. Her kids have a lawyer. My own parents' divorced so smoothly... I can't even imagine any of this stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem in a lot of US states now is that the father's rights movement basically has changed the laws so that there is forced shared custody unless in the most extreme cases of abuse.  Well I think fathers should have shared custody, the people who tend to abuse these laws....the people who end up in court and fight fight fight....tend to be abusive spouses especially those with NPD and other situations.  

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This divorce has been going wrong from the beginning. To get the whole back story - including the 5 year international custody battle which has been fought out on three continents - you have to sift through a lot of articles. The Israeli news articles tend to be the most complete, but they often incorrectly imply that the children are Israeli (all 3 were born in the US and have always resided here). The American articles tend to be very pro-father’s rights & pro-the "parental alienation syndrome" accusations while forgetting to mention the children's accusations that the father is abusive or any of the backstory about the court findings in Israel or at the International Court. I find the UK articles to be the most unbiased, and you gotta love that crazy British assumption that the children have rights and that they ought to be protected by the family court.

 

 

Many of the transcripts from previous hearings are also available online if you look in the right places; there seems to be a movement among some down at the courthouse to put the information out there. Don't start down that rabbit hole unless you have plenty of time to spare. This isn't the first time Judge Gorcyca has berated and verbally abused the Tsimhoni children, either. Her behavior toward them has been increasingly bizarre. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be kind of interested in how it works for kids to have a lawyer. You know, without having to have first hand experience...

 

Ditto. I know that in cases like this one the lawyers are appointed by the court. But in my friend's case, I'm pretty sure she picked the lawyer. I don't know her well enough to ask, but who pays for the lawyer and did she and her ex have to agree about the lawyer choice and why does the lawyer meet with the kids and who has to be at what... all these things intrigue me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto. I know that in cases like this one the lawyers are appointed by the court. But in my friend's case, I'm pretty sure she picked the lawyer. I don't know her well enough to ask, but who pays for the lawyer and did she and her ex have to agree about the lawyer choice and why does the lawyer meet with the kids and who has to be at what... all these things intrigue me.

 

Then there's the matter of time. What kind of sense you can get out of a kid can be very different now compared to six months ago. 

 

Tricky stuff, and the adult/s causing the problems should grow up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, William Lansat, the guardian ad litem appointed by Judge Gorcyca, is also a lawyer. He is supposed to be the lawyer representing the children. The children's individual lawyers were only appointed moments before the June hearing where they were sentenced to juvie until their 18th birthdays. This is the reason why the lawyers appear to not know anything about the case or the accusations against the children when you read the court transcript. I have read first-hand accounts from people present that claim the lawyers were grabbed from the courtroom cafeteria moments before the hearing started and didn't even know the children's names. I don't know if that's true or not.

 

So there were at least 6 lawyers present during the June hearing: dad's lawyer, mom's lawyer, GAL William Lansat, and the 3 lawyers to represent the individual children.

 

Apparently, the children had to have these additional lawyers before Judge Gorcyca could find them in contempt of court and sentence them to juvie. Once Judge Gorcyca decided to release the children from juvie, the individual lawyers were no longer legally necessary. So my understanding is that these 3 individual lawyers were only present at the June hearing, but were not present at the July hearing where the children were released from juvie and sent to Jewish summer camp instead. 

 

The GAL William Lansat is now the only lawyer representing the children. If you have spare time, try reading some of the court documents where Lansat trash-talks the children. It is truly disturbing to think this is the lawyer that is supposed to be representing the kids' best interests. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but one thing I am sure of is that judge is cuckoo bananas.

 

Ha, ha....sad to say, but welcome to family court.  It's amazing how much outrageous behavior/abuse the courts will saddle on helpless children (via their parents) in the name of "parental rights" and "status quo".

 

Stefanie

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked it up - the numbers varied but seems to be about the same here, though I know most people do need to get lawyers. So yeah. Someone I know is fighting a messy divorce. Her kids have a lawyer. My own parents' divorced so smoothly... I can't even imagine any of this stuff.

 

Mostly one person (such as myself) gets a lawyer when they feel threatened by the other party. I wanted to do it without lawyers but he started making vague threats. So I got a lawyer to advise me.

 

I think most people get divorced without going to court though. Lawyers will often help work it out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be kind of interested in how it works for kids to have a lawyer. You know, without having to have first hand experience...

 

 

In my case, the court ordered a kids attorney - an ad litem, after xh continued to escalate the custody battle.

 

Our ad litem evaluated me, my (then) husband, and us with the kids. He interviewed us together and separately. He did the same thing with my xh, his wife, the kids with them and separately. He then made a recommendation to the court. He was available for the kids if they wanted to talk to him. (None of them did, to my knowledge). I liked him, not just because he sided with me. ;)

 

It's been 5 years and I am still paying him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case, the court ordered a kids attorney - an ad litem, after xh continued to escalate the custody battle.

 

Our ad litem evaluated me, my (then) husband, and us with the kids. He interviewed us together and separately. He did the same thing with my xh, his wife, the kids with them and separately. He then made a recommendation to the court. He was available for the kids if they wanted to talk to him. (None of them did, to my knowledge). I liked him, not just because he sided with me. ;)

 

It's been 5 years and I am still paying him.

 

dislike

 

Same reason for GAL here, but the evaluation was unfair IMO.  GAL met first with ex, then with me, then with ex and the kids.  I asked that the kids' therapist be present or involved in direct questioning of the children by the GAL - request ignored.  GAL did not meet with me and the kids together before making a recommendation against me, and even stated in court that she did not know if I were a kind or loving mother who was able to connect with my own children.  She was pretty gobsmacked at the hearing when I had proof of his noncompliance with previous court-orders, and changed part of her recommendation on the spot.  She looked pretty foolish.

 

The judge stated in his decision that he was not going to exercise "judicial ego" before he did just that.

 

Since then the kids have reached adulthood and have chosen to limit contact with ex to occasional phone calls and perhaps one short visit per year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dislike

 

Same reason for GAL here, but the evaluation was unfair IMO.  GAL met first with ex, then with me, then with ex and the kids.  I asked that the kids' therapist be present or involved in direct questioning of the children by the GAL - request ignored.  GAL did not meet with me and the kids together before making a recommendation against me, and even stated in court that she did not know if I were a kind or loving mother who was able to connect with my own children.  She was pretty gobsmacked at the hearing when I had proof of his noncompliance with previous court-orders, and changed part of her recommendation on the spot.  She looked pretty foolish.

 

The judge stated in his decision that he was not going to exercise "judicial ego" before he did just that.

 

Since then the kids have reached adulthood and have chosen to limit contact with ex to occasional phone calls and perhaps one short visit per year. 

 

 

{{Amy}} It's hard to "get" or "understand" the lack of rational, supported, justice that goes on until you have been engaged with the system or VERY close to someone who is.

 

I used to believe that if there was smoke that persisted, there must be fire. Then I went through a custody battle with and NPD in a very flawed system.

 

My oldest (you may remember he was the one of the 3 my xh fought for), now going on 21, has a limited and strained relationship with his Dad.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming back to add that I was just in family law court as a professional witness. That case served NO ONE but the attorneys. IMO, the outcome was close to justice, but the process was not and served no member of the family at all, including the one with the momentum behind the anymosity.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem with court-appointed GAL's in custody battles. You have some GAL's are wonderful, caring, and perceptive, who have training in both family law and psychology. These are GAL's who take the time to really look at the situation from an impartial perspective and act as a voice for the children, who are too often the victims in any custody battle.

 

Then you have the other kind of GAL's.  

 

In the Tsimhoni case, the appointed GAL appears to be the other kind. Based on the court transcripts and documents I've read, William Lansat appears to have taken a strong dislike to the children, and he seems to be trying to punish the children on the father's behalf. Any GAL that advocates for children as young as 9 yrs to be sent to juvie until their 18th birthday as punishment for not having a good relationship with dad clearly does not understand children or what his role should be as the children's advocate. He needs to be removed from this case.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem in a lot of US states now is that the father's rights movement basically has changed the laws so that there is forced shared custody unless in the most extreme cases of abuse.  Well I think fathers should have shared custody, the people who tend to abuse these laws....the people who end up in court and fight fight fight....tend to be abusive spouses especially those with NPD and other situations.  

 

 

I have to disagree a little bit.  The problem is not that the laws have changed to favor shared custody, the problem is you have adults who are not good parents and who abuse the system.

 

In some states both parents have to AGREE to "shared custody" before the court can order it.  I think that is probably wise as shared custody really takes two people who can agree on important issues.

 

In some states shared custody is seen as the ideal arrangment and the default unless there is a reason not to have it.

 

I think both of these are better than the older system of one parent being the default custodian because of gender (often with younger children) or because of financial ability (often with older children.)

 

Family law is far from a perfect system for families.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am far from expert, but the cases of divorce I know of - both my own family and friends when I was a kid and adult friends now - where there was shared custody it was mostly a negative in the long run. That divorce case I mentioned above where the kids needed a lawyer, is a total nightmare, in part because it's clear the parents can't rely on each other to fulfill the terms of the custody. I think both are probably decent parents - when every decision isn't a complete fight. Another divorce I knew of with shared custody was okay... but also stopped the parents from moving on. They were constantly all up in each other's business and while it was mostly cordial, it was strained and not really fair to them or the kids in the long run.

 

The cases I know of where one parent had custody but the other had clearly marked out visitations - every other weekend, these particular holidays, this month in the summer, etc. - seem, on the whole, so much happier. The times are more set than in joint custody, where it seems like they change much more easily. Even in cases where the parents still drive each other nuts, they aren't just constantly at each other because they're still having to co-parent so many things. Of course, some people are determined to use their kids as pawns in a continued game against each other... but they're going to do that nonsense no matter what sort of custody agreement happens.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can so clearly see both sides of this shared custody vs custody/ visitation model.

 

I have sole custody. And xh stopped making ds even go for visitation a year ago ( ds was 14). So it has been great for ds and me. Xh was not an involved father, he abandoned the faith ds has committed to, he and ds just don't connect in general. If xh had fought for equal time I would have been devastated.....but I knew he couldn't really do that because ds had been homeschooled his whole life and changing all of that up would have been difficult.

 

Then I see my dh. He didn't want a divorce. He was a VERY involved father. He gave his boys their bath every night, said prayers with them, took them to religious service, all their doc appts etc. his then wife filed for divorce and got him removed from the family home. He was so stunned by the whole thing that he didn't fight like he should at several points. He did insist upon very liberal visitation.....and then she moved them an hour and a half away from him and the schedul was unworakable. The whole thing has almost killed my husband. Shortly after his divorce is when the standard became more for fathers to have equal time....which needs to involve parents committing to not moving out of the same area.

 

I know there are fathers who will fight for equal time to reduce cs or to punish the mom. Those are nightmare cases. Most are like my xh though...if they aren't that interested In equal time they will not fight for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister is in a divorce now. And with the new law it is automatically 50/50 split, even for little babies. So her 3 and 5 yr olds are in one house for 2 days, then another for 2 days, then another for 3 days. It's madness to do that to kids so young, I think. I get that fathers want time with their kids, I do, but stability is important too. I'm so glad my divorce happened before that. My mom has flat out said, if she was young now she'd get artificially inseminated rather than have a child with someone, because she couldn't handle having a baby taken from her 50% of the time. She says kids need their moms more at that age. Politically correct or not, I'm not sure I disagree. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister is in a divorce now. And with the new law it is automatically 50/50 split, even for little babies. So her 3 and 5 yr olds are in one house for 2 days, then another for 2 days, then another for 3 days. It's madness to do that to kids so young, I think. I get that fathers want time with their kids, I do, but stability is important too. I'm so glad my divorce happened before that. My mom has flat out said, if she was young now she'd get artificially inseminated rather than have a child with someone, because she couldn't handle having a baby taken from her 50% of the time. She says kids need their moms more at that age. Politically correct or not, I'm not sure I disagree. 

 

This is what we have in Florida (where I think you are).  My friend faced this.  Her DD was 10 months old and automatically was with her father 3 nights/week.  It wasn't so bad on her 5 year old, but on a 10 month old?  There is no room for negotiation in Florida basically.  It also means that child support is very low, even when there is a gigantic difference in standard of living.  Even in cases of domestic violence, this is the norm.   There has to be documented cases (usually more than one) with CPS regarding child abuse for any variation, and even then, the judge will likely give abusers some custody.  It is not right at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my jurisdiction half-and-half is the expectation, with variations for each case's individual characteristics.

 

I don't think that a baby or small child in shared custody experiences that as "instability" any more than daycare is "unstable". It's simply having more than one caregiver, complete with having more than one place to sleep.

 

I also don't think that fathers are less capable parents than mothers.

 

I think that it's primarily animosity and open conflict that disturbs very small children during/after divorce. They really don't have the point of reference that would make spending some days 'here' and other days 'there' particularly stressful.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case, the court ordered a kids attorney - an ad litem, after xh continued to escalate the custody battle.

 

Our ad litem evaluated me, my (then) husband, and us with the kids. He interviewed us together and separately. He did the same thing with my xh, his wife, the kids with them and separately. He then made a recommendation to the court. He was available for the kids if they wanted to talk to him. (None of them did, to my knowledge). I liked him, not just because he sided with me. ;)

 

It's been 5 years and I am still paying him.

 

The middle paragraph is mostly what our family court psychologist did. Having one of them is standard practice in family court cases, so maybe a court appointed children's lawyer is a different thing over here. Or maybe they do the same job and yay, you get to pay a new person to do what you've already paid some other bugger to do. Our family court psychologist was very unprofessional, and I don't just say that because she sided against me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that their split is difficult but I don't think the 50/50 split is "madness" or "politically correct". The judge is supposed to find a week on/week off solution, or what many people do is have the kids with mom "full time" but have dad do the pick-up and dinner to split the day.

 

My guess is that your sister said that the maximum she could be away for the kids was two days, which I understand, but that's what makes it so unstable. There are other ways to go about a 50/50 split, such as 3/4/ and then the one with the weekdays gets the vacations (because the one with the fours gets the weekends), or a weekday/weekend split that alternates every year, or awake time split, with children with mom in the mornings and dad in the afternoons until bed time, dropped off in jammies. The latter is, in practical terms, what many families like ours do anyway: one parent has one shift, the other parent has another shift, simply because they all have to work.

 

I support 50/50 all else being equal.

 

My ex-husband refuses to move to this state and also cannot manage to get the kids to school on time.  :001_rolleyes:  Or pick them up. Or manage extracurricular activities. Or clean clothes. Or homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there needs to be an understanding that past a certain point, you cannot force a relationship. It's one thing to require a five year old to visit the non-custodial parents. It's another thing for a nine-year old, let alone a sixteen year old. The judge should take into account the children's wishes, even if the reasons, to the judge, are irrational at this point in time. Better to preserve the relationship as is then burn it to the ground forcing the child to comply with edicts.

Edited by ErinE
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister is in a divorce now. And with the new law it is automatically 50/50 split, even for little babies. So her 3 and 5 yr olds are in one house for 2 days, then another for 2 days, then another for 3 days. It's madness to do that to kids so young, I think. I get that fathers want time with their kids, I do, but stability is important too. I'm so glad my divorce happened before that. My mom has flat out said, if she was young now she'd get artificially inseminated rather than have a child with someone, because she couldn't handle having a baby taken from her 50% of the time. She says kids need their moms more at that age. Politically correct or not, I'm not sure I disagree. 

 

I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I leave my infant daughter (and left her older sisters during  their infancy) with her daddy and go work physician ED shifts. He happens to be a great dad and she is in great hands. I do think that she (and definitely her older sisters) grasped the concept that they had two parents much earlier than many other babies and the reality that daddy was there meeting their needs may have helped with that or maybe they are just bright, alert, thinking babies. In fairness, it is probably a mix of both. In full disclosure, my daughters' highly competent dad also happens to be my amazing husband so there isn't animosity to drive anything but perhaps in some of these situations that may be the point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what we have in Florida (where I think you are).  My friend faced this.  Her DD was 10 months old and automatically was with her father 3 nights/week.  It wasn't so bad on her 5 year old, but on a 10 month old?  There is no room for negotiation in Florida basically.  It also means that child support is very low, even when there is a gigantic difference in standard of living.  Even in cases of domestic violence, this is the norm.   There has to be documented cases (usually more than one) with CPS regarding child abuse for any variation, and even then, the judge will likely give abusers some custody.  It is not right at all.

 

Yup, Florida. And she gets no child support. Because if there is 50 50 split, they don't do child support. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my jurisdiction half-and-half is the expectation, with variations for each case's individual characteristics.

 

I don't think that a baby or small child in shared custody experiences that as "instability" any more than daycare is "unstable". It's simply having more than one caregiver, complete with having more than one place to sleep.

 

I also don't think that fathers are less capable parents than mothers.

 

I think that it's primarily animosity and open conflict that disturbs very small children during/after divorce. They really don't have the point of reference that would make spending some days 'here' and other days 'there' particularly stressful.

 

Well, I can tell you that isn't the case here. These kids are not happy. And yes, for kids too young to know days of the week, and read a calendar well, it IS confusing to not know which house you will be waking up in or going to sleep in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The middle paragraph is mostly what our family court psychologist did. Having one of them is standard practice in family court cases, so maybe a court appointed children's lawyer is a different thing over here.

 

Oh, we did that, too! When the ad litem gave his recommendation, and my xh and his attorney couldn't change his mind (they tried 4 times), my xh insisted on a full forensic psychological evaluation. The court said one was not needed, so if he wants one, he has to pay for it. He agreed (because NPD = the assumption that he is RIGHT and surely professionals will see that.) He had been unemployed for 3-4 years at that point but agreed to pay for the Psych Eval. It must have cost 8K or so. The psychologist did everything the ad litem did, but more indepth and with a more psychologcal bent and testing.

 

He came to the same conclusion. ;)

 

I am so sorry that your psych sucked. :(

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree dads are not automatically worse caregivers. But in my own personal history, the kids were bonded wiht mom more closely at very young ages, probably because of breastfeeding. And although I can get past that to some degree, I don NOT like these back and forth every 2 day agreements. In my sister's case no, that's not what she asked for. Her ex wants every other weekend, and the rest is how the court said to do it. I'd much rather see like someone said, one parent doing afterschool duty until after dinner several days a week, then alternating weekends. That's what my ex and I did for a while, then he was just doing every other weekend, and now that we live hours apart it is a bit less often. Of course, if he'd been more involved in the first place we may not have divorced. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the "standard" visitation that was part of divorce is inherently sexist. The model supports women as the assumed better parent and men as needing protection from impact of children on career/work.

 

The adversarial assumptions in the family law legal system only help the attorneys. Everyone else suffers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Tsimhoni case, the appointed GAL appears to be the other kind. Based on the court transcripts and documents I've read, William Lansat appears to have taken a strong dislike to the children, and he seems to be trying to punish the children on the father's behalf. Any GAL that advocates for children as young as 9 yrs to be sent to juvie until their 18th birthday as punishment for not having a good relationship with dad clearly does not understand children or what his role should be as the children's advocate. He needs to be removed from this case.

 

I've read that Lansat is a personal friend of the judge, which wouldn't surprise me at all. The whole situation just reads like a bad dystopian novel, and I feel so so sorry for those kids.  :crying:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sexist if both parents are adequate care givers. When one is a manipulative bastard ( sorry for language, but truly ) assumptions of equal care are cruel and traumatic.

 

Courts don't seem to do a great job of identifying clever NPD men who are manipulative bastards but are also experienced con artists.

 

 

The professionals in my case did, but it took *forever*. *Forever* at $350 an hour.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely stayed with my xh as long as I could take it to avoid some of this crap. He may have been a jerk but he was gone most of the time and I was able to mother my young son in peace. I balanced that with sending him off with xh and maybe a new girlfriend..,, .no easy answers.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I know of several men who like and do the 50% split not because they want ot hang out with their kids, but to avoid paying child support. They let their girlfriends deal with the kids. 

 

 

And I know of someone who stayed living in the house with his wife while the divorce was in process because their child was an infant and if he moved out he would have never had any chance at equal custody and that would have prevented bonding which in turn would have prevented sufficient custody or visitation in the future.  He was in fact the primary caretaker of that child.  But the court system would have had trouble recognizing that for a young infant/toddler.

 

There are bad parents on both sides of family law issues and it is a CHALLENGE for the courts to work out what the parties themselves couldn't work out.  The family court hardly ever creates a perfect solution...but if the come up with a better solution it is a win.

 

The reason there is no child support when there is a 50/50 split is the presumption that child support is for the needs of the child. And if the child is equally with both parents, then both parents are equally responsible for the costs of raising that child.  If a parent needs spousal support in order to move forward so that their needs are addresses - that is a different issue and one that is correctly separated from child support.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that Lansat is a personal friend of the judge, which wouldn't surprise me at all. The whole situation just reads like a bad dystopian novel, and I feel so so sorry for those kids.  :crying:

 

Yes, GAL William Lansat is a personal friend of Judge Lisa Gorcyca. He is known for his strong beliefs in favor of father's rights and "parental alienation syndrome". Judge Gorcyca appointed him to the case knowing these things. Several of the advocates who have been putting the court documents out on the web and trying to publicize the case claim to be former victims of Lansat. As in, Lansat was their GAL back when they were children in the family court system. Some of the stories they've shared about him are pretty shocking, but can't really be verified as fact.

 

Keri Middleditch (the lawyer for the dad, Omer Tsimhoni) is also a good friend of the judge. Middleditch endorsed the judge during her last judicial campaign, they have volunteered together in the past, and Middleditch worked with the judge's husband (a former prosecutor). There are also reports of numerous connections between the judge and the father due to the fact that Omer is a big-time executive for GM (although he is currently based in Israel), and the judge has families members that also work for GM. It is stunning that the judge has refused to recuse herself considering all the connections. 

 

The whole case is a huge mess, and the children continue to be the ones that suffer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sexist if both parents are adequate care givers. When one is a manipulative bastard ( sorry for language, but truly ) assumptions of equal care are cruel and traumatic.

 

Courts don't seem to do a great job of identifying clever NPD men who are manipulative bastards but are also experienced con artists.

 

Lets not be sexist....they aren't too great at identifying the clever NPD WOMEN who are manipulative experienced con artists who should be kept far, far away from their children either.

 

Women are not always the victims.  A fair share of them are actually the abusers. Why do you keep phrasing your comments to trash the men while calling foul for sexism in family court?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not be sexist....they aren't too great at identifying the clever NPD WOMEN who are manipulative experienced con artists who should be kept far, far away from their children either.

 

Women are not always the victims.  A fair share of them are actually the abusers. Why do you keep phrasing your comments to trash the men while calling foul for sexism in family court?

 

Yes, women can and do have NPD.  We have support threads here for people who deal with NPD Moms, etc.  But in terms of custody cases....and abuse....and domestic violence.... it is also often a case of having the funds to have a lengthy legal court case.  Regardless of what many of us wish, men still make more money than women in this country.  There is not parity.  It's still 77 cents for the dollar.  When we look at retirement savings, social security, etc. it is much worse for women who have been SAHMs or divorce.  And for those of us who give up excellent careers to homeschool our children, we are at an even larger financial disadvantage in custody cases and divorces because we simply do not have the reserves to fight such cases, and getting back into the workforce is extremely difficult.  Most studies have  shown that women never recover financially.  

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...