So now we have gone from two weeks’ imprisonment to a single night at a pyjama party.
But there’s no good reason for a child to have sex with an older person. For some situations, yes, it does make sense to take a kid’s wishes into consideration. Like who they want to live with. Or even medical decisions in some cases. A 14-year-old who wants an abortion should have that right even if her parents oppose it, for example.
In any case, even if the kids had given in, does anyone think that would have fixed things? Sure, some kids might give in and go to the lunch and even act polite/happy. But how do you know that it’s ever genuine? On some level, isn’t it all based on fear of a very frightening authority who could send you away for not doing as you’re told?
There is a good reason for the 14 year old… if they are wanting and consenting (which they can’t do and really don’t have the mental maturity to do). That’s the point. A “good reason” to a 14 year old in most cases does not come from an emotionally mature place and really needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
In this case there IS a good reason to make the kids visit the non-custodial parent. I find it troubling when I hear folks saying there is no good reason these kids have to have a relationship with their father because, in their immature adolescent brains, they don’t wanna.
This decision was not a one day thing. The case had been dragging on for 5 1/2 years with 400 plus court filings. Over that time, all the calls for abuse and mistreatment by the father were, at best, insufficient to terminate the father’s right to be a parent. At worst, there seems to be sufficient evidence, through the years and the demeanor of the ad litem and judge, that the kids had been poisoned by the custodial parent. Call it an internvention, call it deprogramming, call it what you want, but it seems the judge wants the kids to have some time wihtout the interference of either parent especially the custodial parent.
What is that reason? I don’t see one, personally.
Having a stable home life is shown to be good. Having stable and loving authority figures is shown to be good. But when you’re forced into a relationship how does that create a stable and loving situation? It doesn’t. The idea that relationships with blood parents are inherently always good for a child - I just do not believe that. So what reason do you have past that? We need to examine the situation it creates for the children and not just assume, “blood parent relationship = always good”.
What will these kids receive by being forced into this relationship? A reinforcement of authority against reason? Learning to deal with people you don’t like? There are better ways to practice this with than with the relationship you have with your parent, in my opinion.
So you are honestly telling me that there is NO good reason to have a relationship wiht both parents? None? Seriously? I struggle, really struggle, with this.
The reason they are forced is because they are children. Children without the mature capacity to make this kind of decision. It’s why children can’t legally drink, can’t legally have sex, can’t legally smoke weed, can’t legally do any number of things that the law has determined they are not maturely capable of reasoning.
This is ESPECIALLY true here with the evidence that their decision making has been clouded by the custodial parent as given by the ad litem in the case who, while not spelling out this specific path, advised a “Draconian approach” in his recommendation to the court.
The proven good reason to have a relationship with your parents is to have a stable, safe, loving home life with authority figures. That is great for children. But when the relationship with the parents does not fulfill these parameters then no, there isn’t anything inherently good in the relationship. If the child feels unloved or home life is unstable or unsafe, then the relationship can even be detrimental. Seeing as how these children are willing to go to prison rather than interact with their father, they’re not feeling loved or safe.
Just because they’re children and a parent can force them to do all sorts of things doesn’t mean it’s beneficial simply because they’re the parent. Parents don’t always “know what’s best” or always “do the right thing”. Parents are people and can be selfish and toxic. So no, I definitely do not believe that a blood parent relationship is automatically always the best thing. What matters more is who provides for the children best (and I mean that physically, emotionally, psychologically, etc)
But because they can’t reason, they can legally be sent to jail because they can’t reason.
The problem here is that there isn’t anything good BECAUSE of the custodial parent. The child CAN have a stable safe loving home life with both parents if not for the custodial parent. If the child has been absolutely turned againbst one parent for anger, resentment or vengeance, just throw up your hands and say “Sorry parent X wins. Sucks for you. Sucks for the kid.”?
In this case, per the judge, the court, the ad litem, etc, the one parent who isn’t fulfilling the parameters is the custodial parent. The custodial parent isn’t doing what’s best. The custodial parent is not providing for the children in their best interests. The non-custodial parent isn’t even being given the chance to fulfill said parameters. The children distrust the non custodial parent BECAUSE of the custodial parent. So we just throw our hands “Well, sorry dude, suck it up and move on.” That’s compeltely irrespoonsible and simply hands the children back to the person doing the damage.
I don’t think there is any definitive proof that one parent is “poisoning” the children against the other. The judge claimed something along these lines while also throwing out hyperbole and passing down a judgement I consider an abuse of power. I therefore have no reason to believe the judge is accurately conveying the situation. And so I can’t agree with what you’re saying since I don’t believe in your basic premise - that one parent is poisoning the kids against the other.
Furthermore, why is it a travesty if one parent is absent from a child’s life if the home life is otherwise stable, safe, loving, and with appropriate authority? And when introduced to their life causes instability by pulling them out for court dates, arguments, and interrogations?
People have to suck up and move on from a lot of relationships that might have been but never came to fruition, or worse, turned sour.
I have seen zero evidence beyond the judge’s say-so that the mother was “poisoning” or “brainwashing” the children. If she is indeed such a skilled manipulator that she was able to turn a wonderful and loving parent’s own children against him, shouldn’t she have been able to use her amazing powers to get everyone else on her side too?
What would it take to get your nine or ten-year-old to despise you so much they prefer an indefinite jail term over a meal with you?
Can you turn your own nine or ten-year-old against someone to this degree, based only upon your say-so?
They are thinking human beings, not idiots or puppets. If whatever mom said about dad in no way meshed with their observations, they would notice wouldn’t they?
From the Detroit Free Press(only used as quotes from the ad litem, William Lansat (who is the actual orignator of the Manson cult analogy), not necessarily an endorsement of the article as an opinion piece). It’s not just the judge. So unless you think there is some conspiracy…
“The behaviors of these children toward their father over the years is neither normal nor acceptable,” Lansat observed in a report submitted to the court last November. The report described supervised encounters in which the children refused to make eye contact with their father and recalled one occasion when they had resisted the efforts of multiple court personnel — including six sheriff’s deputies — to escort them to a jury room for a court-ordered visit.
Once inside the jury room, Lansat recalled, “The children would not answer to any adult; they huddled together as if they were sending messages/vibes to each other in some sort of Manson-like behavior.”
Lansat recommended that Gorcyca consider “a Draconian approach” to enforce her court orders mandating parenting time, and said he had warned Eibschitz-Tsimhoni that her children could be assigned to Children’s Village if they failed to appear for scheduled visits with their dad.
In an impassioned address to the court at Friday’s emergency hearing, Lansat said that Gorcyca should find another placement for the children, but defended the court’s decision to separate them from their mother.
“You can debate whether it’s legal or not legal, whether you can do it or not,” the court-appointed guardian told Gorcyca. “But they cannot go back to the mother.”
What is dad gonna do once his scornful, resentful, pissed off kids are finally in his company?
“So, kids, what’s new?”
crickets
IDK, what does one say to a victim of Stockholm Syndrome?
“I swear if anyone stops me from seeing you again, I’m gonna go mental and shoot everyone in here.”
You really can’t sort out that this is a process and that you have to start somewhere?
Bullies gang up on people all the time. It’s how they get away with their behavior, egging each other on.
Who cares if the kids “make eye contact” with someone? Is that a law now, mandatory eye contact?
How many kids are in jail for refusing to look in the ordered direction upon command?
Well good to see I’m in the fake part of Edinburgh.
That’s quite disturbing. Some kind of manipulation is going on in that family. If its really that bad then I can see the need to separate them from each other and their mom.
These kids need time to start thinking for themselves. Its going to take professional counseling to undo this damage.
I wonder if there are other family members that could help? Each take one kid. At least for a year. Remove the biggest issue they are fighting (seeing their dad) and get them away from mom’s influence.
I don’t see how that is manipulation and needing to be separated from their mother. I mean, that COULD be the case, but it seems to me that they’re traumatized by their father and terrified at the sight of him. Some people shut down when confronted by the cause of their fear, and that passage sounds like a description of that happening.
I mean, if the father was abusive to the mother and the children knew this from their own witnessing of that abuse, isn’t this a reasonable explanation for their behavior? I know that’s what I probably would have done as a child if that were my circumstance.
This goes along with the personal interactions with the custodial parent by the judge, the ad litem, the custodial parent’s seven lawyers, court room officers, multiple assigned hearing lawyers, etc. You can take one piece or one statement and say well it COULD be this but it could be that. The judge sucks, The ad litem sucks. This one comment means this,. This other comment means that. etc., etc.But to dismiss everything, in toto, over five and half years and 400 court filings and attribute it to some conspiracy or extrajudicial activism? I dunno, man. It’s a real stretch.
Not if the referee is nuts.
Ok, and the ad litem? and the childrens’ lawyers? and the court officers? and all the others who have been involved in the case who have come to the same conclusion in terms of the custodial parent? They’re nuts too? Sycophants? Conspiracy? Paid employess of the non-custodial parent? Anti-Semitic? Pod People?