If the alternative is taking the kids from their home and putting them in the custody of the state? Absolutely.
I’d be surprised if there were no level of miscare at which you would agree they should be removed from their mother’s custody.
You and I draw the line for that at different points.
That doesn’t bother me and I have no interest in trying to convince you my opinion is better than yours.
Perhaps the judge felt that if she behaved like the villain in a terrible third rate 80’s kid’s movie, the parents would come together to rescue the kids from the high-security detention facility and realize they still loved each other somewhere near the end of the training montage, right between practicing ninja wall climbing and learning how to pick ridiculously oversized padlocks.
There is certainly such a level of “miscare.” I don’t know that poisoning a relationship with a parent or otherwise being unfair to the other parent would ever rise to the level where the kids must be put in kid jail.
Why didn’t the judge just give father full custody? Still better than jail. And I’m assuming parental alienation is a process, it won’t happen in a day. Since the judge has been looking over the case for 5 years now, why didn’t she just give father full custody in year 2 of the divorce and supervised visit from the mother?
So, how many of you have tried to MAKE a 14-year-old do anything s/he doesn’t want to? You can’t pick the kid up, force him in the car, and force him into the restaurant. It doesn’t work.
Crikey. I’ve got to go on the lam, if that’s the case.
I’m really uncomfortable with assuming the mother is poisoning the children’s minds in some way. It’s an accusation leveled at (mostly) women far too often when the (mostly) fathers are total dickbags and don’t get their way. Speaking from personal experience too, I’m on the mother’s side on this. I know my kid is going to refuse to see my ex some day and I know there is some childish hissy fit from him coming my way with similar accusations, but the only poison my kid gets is from personal observation of my ex being a shitty person and a shitty father.
Sometimes it’s not a parent trashing the other one. Sometimes the parent is just trash. Kids aren’t stupid. They can tell.
When the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child, an outcome often is that innocent parents lose parental rights when their children have been poisoned against them. Happens all the time in Australia.
Exactly, and it’s too bad for them, but the interests of the child are above all else. The child has no legal power on its own, so deserves the best possible protection, even at the expense of one or both parents.
The judge wanted to get the kids and the father together to meet in a safe place. The little brats wouldn’t even agree to a public meeting like at a restaurant. So the judge decided it was time to intervene. Get their attention.
Sometimes that’s necessary. The person at fault is mom who turned these kids against their father. Hopefully the judge can get some kind of relationship reestablished. Even if it’s only at a very public and safe meeting place. That at least will be a positive step forward.
You begin your screed with a promise of delivering “facts” to those who ignored the facts.
Let’s examine your facts.
Except you said you have the facts.
No facts there. Not one. Just questions and wild opinion.
A question. No fact there. Opinion, however, is about to capsize the query.
Why should anyone present a “viable option” but the judge? Your “viable option,” along with the judge, is to imprison children, one as young as 9, who have done nothing to deserve it and are the victims. Children are placed in foster homes all the time, especially in emergencies. If they aren’t, they’d all be in jail. There is nothing here but more opinion. It’s tough to place “sibling groups?” Like that’s a problem in jail, especially when the judge orders them forced apart. Oh, and no facts.
I think not. The case devolved into absurdity by a judge who should be removed from the bench for allowing it to happen then punishing the victims by jailing them.
Here’s the dictionary definition. Argue with that.
Again, no facts but rife with opinion, even a “probably.” One of the children is 14, not a pre-teen. That’s a fact. You’ve painted the jail as some 1930s co-ed Boys Town, complete with Mickey Rooney.
No shit, Sherlock. But there is no fact here, only opinion, which you even acknowledge. If your opinion made sense, it would suggest children are jailed all the time for the heinous crime of being the victims.
You’re right! A fact! They are 9, 10 and 14. That’s why they ended up in jail. Unless that judge sends babies to jail, too.
No, I don’t; her order was absurd and the repercussions she herself created insane.
No fact. Opinion; “perhaps” is a good hint.
No facts. Speculation.
I don’t trust your judgment. So far, your “facts” consist only of the children’s ages.
It was a real jail. No amount of gainsay changes it. The judge jailed children, one 9 years of age, another 10, neither of which is capable of adult comprehension because they are children and the victims of a toxic situation caused by a horrible divorce that ripped them away from their home. Then she orders a screw to rip them from their mother’s arms and forbids goodbyes, for Christ’s sake. Someone should swipe her strawberries and video the fun.
Wow. Another fact.
No facts. But never fear. The screws confiscated their suitcases.
More opinion. Anyway, it’s nothing less than a police state to those children victimized by their parents, the judge and the screw that dragged them out of the courtroom to jail without even allowing goodbyes. Pure Gestapo, but he was just following orders.
How do you know? That’s your opinion. Just because the screw didn’t break their arms (I hope) the children weren’t hurt by being dragged away from their mother? Must harm be physical in your world?
Children are safe in a U.S. jail? What planet are you from?
A child of 9! A child of 10! A child of 14! Have you been bitten on the neck under a full moon by Smapti?
You’re over the top. And around the bend. No lunch? Jail! Jail! Jail! What do you mean floggings are illegal!
You said you’d try one last time to change minds by presenting your facts. I’m still waiting.
There isn’t an eye-roll smilie big enough.
What are the next winning Powerball numbers?
You and I are in complete agreement that sending the kids to jail is wrong. We disagree on sending the mother to jail.
I’m not aware that “poisoning the well” and “brainwashing” are well-defined legal terms, much less that they are crimes.
Keep in mind the person accusing the mother of “poisoning the children against their father” is the same person who sent three children to jail for not having lunch with their dad.
I’m not inclined to accept her opinion of anything as being true. It might be but at this point I think the judge is cuckoo bananas and I’m comfortable disregarding anything she has to say about the “worst mother she’s ever encountered” the “shits rainbows and unicorns father” or the “you kids are like Charles Manson”.
A Washington Post story blows the lid off the judge (and her husband).
What a pair.
The little darlings have been released and are going to summer camp.
hopefully they learned a lesson. Next time the judge orders them to do something they better listen. That’s true of adults or kids. Judge gives an order, you darn well better do it.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-releases-3-kids-locked-failing-meet-dad-204510081.html#
I don’t think there are any facts that could ever justify a nine year old being brought before a judge for contempt.
While I think the orders where reprehensible, I don’t see how the judge is in any way responsible for what her husband may have done in the past.
Ultimately it’s the mom that is legally responsible for ensuring her children comply with the judge’s orders. It was her duty to sit those kids down and in no uncertain terms tell them what’s expected of them. Take care and take them to where ever the appointment was scheduled. I’d guess a court representative or a family services counselor would have been present at the meeting with the father and his estranged children.
I’m not sure why the judge didn’t hold the mom up for contempt. There’s obviously facts that aren’t yet known or reported.
Aceplace57, how do you reconcile this:
with this, which you said about two hours later:
The judge was trying to get the kids to realize the seriousness of the proceedings. Make them understand the consequences of disobeying a court order. They were held a few days, and even kept separate from the juveniles held for serious crimes. Now they are off to summer camp. They weren’t traumatized for life or anything.
The judge has limited options. She tried a stern lecture and that failed to get through to them. Her only other option is having people held in jail. Hoping that will get the message across.
If this still doesn’t work then its time to go after mom with a contempt charge. Thats the biggest grenade in the judge’s arsenal.