Thursday, July 9, 2015

Divorce Father's Statement About Pushing Mother

event from five years prior 
Although the father's statement is immaterial to the abuse he allowed the judge to heap upon his children, he was asked about hitting his ex wife.

Had the mother emotionally abused the children into hating their father; or had the father physically abused his wife before the children, neither abuse would justify what the judge did.  I submit the statement for analysis and interest in the case.

He was accused of hitting the mother where one boy said he saw it.  In his statement, he said that his ex wife accused him of pushing her but the police confirmed that nothing happened.

We will let his words guide us.

Here is the statement he gave media about it:

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

Here it is again, with analysis

Expected Versus Unexpected 

In Statement Analysis, we hold to certain expectations of what we expect an innocent person to say.  In this case, especially given the contemptuous divorce, we expect to hear him either say "I did not hit her", or an explanation of an altercation, which may have elements of minimization.  This is expected and normal. 

a.  "I didn't hit her"
b.  "I hit her but we fought"
c.  "I was defending myself"
d.  "I hit her but it was wrong..."


The one incident that happened was five years ago I had a five-hour unsupervised visit. 

He was asked what had happened that caused his kids to not speak to him for five years.  The one child said he saw his father hit his mother.  

Here, he calls it "the one" incident, which uses a numerical.  "The one" suggests that there were other incidents that he was considering, but he picked out a specific one to report.  "The" is an article, which is instinctive.  

He reports the length of the visit as "five hours", which is a long time.  

Please note that he calls this an "unsupervised" visit.  We would want to know if he had previously been given supervised visits, and if so, why would they be supervised.  

We were in a park and Maya was circling around the park the whole time, trying to sabotage the visit

Here, the word "we" is likely reference to himself and the kids.  This shows a closeness from his perspective. 

He reported that Maya was "circling around the park the whole time" which he attributes to "sabotaging" the visit.  He does not tell us how this sabotaged the visit, if the kids saw it, or what she did, other than circling, that would cause him to sabotage.  

Was she circling the park for five hours?  Was she in her car?  Was she making contact with the children, or attempting to?

We need to know what about this action caused sabotage?  If the kids saw her and became anxious, he would have to tell us so.  


Two hours into the visit, the children ended up in her car and she was trying to leave. 

Here we have another reference to time.  "Two hours into the visit", that is to say, two hours out of the five permitted or agreed to. 

Next note "the children ended up in her car" is passive language.  This does not tell us how they got into the car.  This is information that is withholding the responsibility for them getting into the car.  Did they go in themselves?  Did he put them in the car?  Did she?  We believe what one tells us, so we now see that he does not wish to give details on what caused the children to go into the car. 

"ended up..." also spans time, besides being in passive voice.  

"and she was trying to leave", has:

a.  "and" connecting the passivity of kids getting into the car, and the mother's attempt to leave.  What is missing is the precise information between the two events.  This should be considered withheld information.  

b.  "she was trying to leave" does not tell us how she was trying.  Was she behind the wheel?  Was she trying to get into the car?

I tried to prevent her from leaving because it was my time with the children.

Note:

a.  "I tried" means attempted and failed, as it is used in the past tense.  Since we do not know where she was, we also do not know how it is that he tried to prevent her. 

b.  "because"  Without being asked, "Why did you try to prevent her?" he offers it in anticipation of being asked, therefore, it is very sensitive information to him.  He justifies what he did because it was "his time" with the children.  This was not because he was father, nor because they wanted to be with him, nor to say because he wanted to see them, but because it was his time.  This is possession over time, with "my time" followed by the word "with" between "me" and the children, which is distancing language. 

c.  "with" between people indicates distance.  He began with "we" but here changed to "my time with the children."

While she was circling, the pronoun "we" was used, but now, with the kids in the car by withheld information explaining how, there is distance between him and the children. 

This distance is connected to his need to justify ("because") his action, which is thus taken with the missing information of passivity. 

What he did to the children's mother in attempting to prevent her from leaving is something that caused emotional distance between him and his children. 

 I was very careful not to do anything but she claimed that I pushed her. 

Please note that it is impossible to be very careful not to do anything, as children learn in playing games about standing perfectly still.  This is a statement:
a.  in the negative 
b.  with sensitivity 
c  it comes after the distancing language between himself and the children.  

Next note that he says "she claimed I pushed her" is the perfect time for him to say "but I did not push her."

He does not deny pushing her.  

If he is unwilling or unable to say it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  


She screamed at the children, ‘Call 911! Call 911!’ 

Note the inclusion of "at the children" with "screamed"

The police showed up and Maya was screaming and the police confirmed that nothing happened. But in the children’s mind, that’s what happened.”

Note the police "showed up", and not "arrived" or "came."  This is a less formal language. 

Note the police "confirmed that nothing happened" though he just told us that he tried to prevent her.  How was this done?  He stated that she claimed that he pushed her, but did not bring himself to say he did not push her. 

"That" is distancing language, and is expected. 

He brings up the accusation of pushing her, but does not deny it. 

43 comments:

Ellie said...

Thank you for analyzing this Peter. It is very helpful. I noticed that the father refers to "my time." Abusers often think their family members are possessions. Fathers' rights groups want what's 'theirs." This is about this kids, their time, what's best for them, not what either parent is owed.

Anonymous said...

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/07/09/children-detained-rejecting-dad/29935383/

Pontiac — The mother of three West Bloomfield Township children was warned nearly seven months ago that her children could end up in a juvenile facility unless they followed court orders to see and communicate with their father, according to court records.

The children — two boys, 15 and 10 years old and a 9-year-old girl — have been in Oakland County's Children's Village facility since June 24 after Judge Lisa Gorcyca found them in contempt of court for ignoring her instructions to have a "healthy relationship" with their father.

Their mother, Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni, 40, has filed a complaint alleging their rights are being violated and seeking their release.
The mother and her ex-husband, Omer Tsimhoni, 45, and their respective attorneys have declined requests from The Detroit News to discuss the case, which has received national publicity after Gorcyca removed the children from their parents and placed them in the juvenile facility, which houses a range of children from those being abused to those facing criminal charges.

Anonymous said...

According to court records, the children were sent to Mandy's Place, one of three settings inside Children's Village.

George Miller, director of Oakland County's Department of Health and Human Services, said Children's Village offers a safe and structured environment.

Mandy's Place, Miller said, is for emergency placement for children from birth to age 17, who either have no next of kin, no foster care designation or need temporary placement. It is set apart from detention and treatment.

Miller said Mandy's Place has single rooms and dorm rooms in a home-like setting. The facility does not have cells and is not a jail, he said.
A 25-page report filed in November 2014 by William Lansat, the children's initial court appointed guardian and legal adviser, provides a historical overview of the case, which started in December 2009 when Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni filed for divorce from her husband of 14 years.

The divorce was finalized in August 2011, but court records indicate the couple have been in court numerous times on dozens of legal issues pertaining to parenting time, court-ordered psychological evaluation, family and individual therapy and other matters involving the children.
The father, a General Motors engineer, lives the majority of time in Israel and because his ex-wife fears he might kidnap the children and take them out of the country, he has been ordered to turn over his passport during parental visits, according to court records.

In a Nov. 23, 2014, report to Gorcyca, a frustrated Lansat wrote that "the behaviors of these children toward their father over the years is neither normal nor acceptable."
Lansat said a two-day court appearance in August 2014 underscored his concerns.
"The children would not answer any adult; they huddled together as if they were sending messages/vibes to each other in some sort of Manson-like behavior," he wrote.
Lansat's comparison to Charles Manson and his followers would be repeated months later when Gorcyca suggested the children were engaging in Manson cult-like activity before he separated them from their mother and each other at Children's Village.

Lansat noted another mental health professional indicated she saw the children "tapping their feet under the table in the jury room as if they were sending Morse codes to each other."
Lansat wrote that parenting time scheduled for Aug. 21 and 22, 2014, in the court's jury room was disrupted by the children's behavior.
"When the children first came to the courthouse on that Thursday it took at least six deputies, a prosecutor ... various court personnel and finally the judge to get those kids into the jury room," Lansat wrote. "The court admonished Mother as to what the Court saw in the children's behavior on the record — at least twice. The three minor children sat outside the courtroom on the chairs. the children would not respond to me — but more important — either to the deputies or the prosecutor. For minor children to basically evade armed Sheriff's (deputies) is absolutely appalling.

"I advised Mother that unless she gets these kids off the bench, there will be grave consequences — such as placement in the Children's Village."

The oldest son apologized to Gorcyca earlier in the summer but refused to talk to his father, who he described as "violent" because he allegedly saw him hit his mother.
According to the Lansat report, on Aug. 27, 2010, the children called 911 on their mother's instruction after she alleged her husband was "pushing her around." The children also alleged their father "threatened to kill them while at a park."
Police investigated and did not find any injuries or probable cause for arrest.

Anonymous said...

Omer Tsimhoni denied making the threat and Lansat said the case was closed.
In a February 2012 incident when Tsimhoni attempted to pick up the kids at school for a supervised family therapy session, the school called Lansat to report "the kids were hysterical and would not go with their father," according to his report.
Lansat suggested supervised visits between the children and their father without their mother present. Or, in the alternative, something more drastic.

"Consequently, the Court needs to consider, if there is to be any progress, a draconian approach," Lansat wrote. "There has been no progress of any meaningful degree regarding Father's parenting time/relationship with his children since August of 2010. In fact, the situation is, quite frankly, worse.
"It is like a prolonged, pervasive toxic stream where a parent closest to the child behind closed doors either intentionally or unintentionally says things to the kids causing them to act in a certain way."

Ronn Torossian, a family friend of the father, issued a statement by email Thursday, saying that after more than five years in family court, more than 50 court appearances, and seven attorneys, "Ms. Eibschitz continues to endanger the children rather than serve their best interests. Mr. Tsimhoni is pained at all that has transpired with his children."
"This situation is traumatic for everyone involved, and it is unfortunate that the mother's actions have resulted in this situation. The children's best interest must be of paramount concern," Torossian said.
"Ms. Eibschitz continually alienates the children from their father, and has ignored countless court hearings and rulings. Mr. Tsimhoni has great respect for the court and the legal system. He is a loving, caring father who desires a healthy relationship with his children."

Sara said...

I too zeroed in on the "my time". My ex says this a lot to our kids. I corrected them and now they say "No, dad, this is My Time ". I wanted them to realize that this is their life, neither dad nor mom owns it...they own it.

Anonymous said...

Wow - is the child guardian and legal adviser trained in children's expressions of trauma? And is the judge trained in children's matters, like what is in their best interest? School principals and teachers know that it is futile to force children to do something against their will, and punishing them by detaining them accomplishes nothing. It is more effective to work with them, discover what their needs and concerns are and how best to address them. How on earth can you force someone to have a "healthy relationship" with another?

Anonymous said...

I believe he pushed her or shoved her or whatever he did to her; as Peter pointed out, since he didn't deny it. Further, I believe it wasn't the first time and that the kids have witnessed his abusive actions towards their mother before this. I think this is the primary reason they don't want anything to do with their father; also, it appears obvious that they are frightened of him, that he might turn his violence on them, or maybe he already has. I think there has also been a lot of threatening, cursing and verbal abuse in front of these children.

However, I don't think either of these parents have been fair in trying to shield the kids from the abuse they have witnessed, nor are they attempting to do it now. Considering all the many times these parents have been in court and have dragged their kids into court, it is obvious that neither one of these parents have been willing to take a step back in their aggressiveness towards each other to put the kids first in an attempt to spare them more mental turmoil.

Personally, I'd do whatever I had too to spare my kids from this kind of mental torment and emotional abuse. Spending time with the kids isn't worth it just to prove your point while you are damaging your kids psychologically and this is what I see happening. Heck, it isn't healthy to the parents either. One of them needs to throw in the towel and quit. Just QUIT and allow healing for all parties.

I wonder, is the father paying a large amount of child support to the mother, possibly alimony too and this is why he keeps exerting and demanding his rights?

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Megyn Kelly: 'There's No Excuse' for Obama's Silence on Kate Steinle's Murder

Megyn Kelly asked Thursday night why President Obama has been silent on the murder of a California woman by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco.

The murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle has sparked outrage about the sanctuary city policies in many U.S. cities.

The man charged with the murder, 45-year-old Francisco Sanchez, had been deported five times. Sanchez was in jail in April, but released by city authorities without notifying federal officials.

After Steinle was laid to rest earlier in the day, Kelly contrasted the lack of White House reaction to the president's direct comments on the deaths of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray.

She noted that Josh Earnest declined to comment this week about the murder, referring questions to DHS officials.

Kelly pointed out that administration officials went to the funerals of Brown and Gray, while the DOJ deployed to Ferguson and Baltimore to investigate.

"But for Kate Steinle? Nothing. No comments. No swarm of FBI agents. No DOJ investigation. Nothing. Why?" she asked.

Kelly discussed with Richard Fowler and Marc Thiessen, who said the silence from Obama is "deafening."

"In all those other cases he had liberal policy points he wanted to make. ... The policies he supports are the ones that got this woman killed," said Thiessen.

Fowler pushed back, saying he believes the president is "outraged" that Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform to deal with these problems.

Kelly continued to ask why the president has not even commented on Steinle's murder.

“Give an answer. You can’t, because there isn't one. There’s no excuse for it! He picks and chooses the victims he wants to highlight. And apparently, this victim wasn’t deemed worthy,” she argued.

Watch the full segment below and tune in to "The Kelly File," tonight at 9p/12a ET for a special investigation of the criminal case against the six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/10/megyn-kelly-no-excuse-obamas-silence-kate-steinles-murder

Peter Hyatt said...

Sarah,

please update.

Thank you.

John, the president is a racist. The victim was white; therefore, a life that does not matter.

Peter

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of things we don't have answers for, John, and we never will. Consider if you will:

Concerning immigration, there are some vital issues that many are failing to recognize, comprehend or speak out concerning; Just to name one and it is VAST; to wit: WHO will be planting, toiling and picking our lettuce, tomatoes, harvesting the corn, potatoes and you name it? Certainly not US with our many disabilities and bad backs and our uneducated youth who won't work, or our many young unemployed blacks and their pappys and mammys who got up out of the hot fields long ago.

And WHO but them are tending to our laborious landscaping needs all over this country at reduced rates day in and day out, while buying their own equipment and paying for their gasoline, which cuts into their earnings? It is our illegal immigrants doing our dirty work and being paid a mere pittance of it's real value for their slave labor in the hot sun from sun up 'til after sun down. If they have a drink of water or a bite to eat all day they have to bring it themselves;

while they live in broken down shanties for which they have to pay exorbitant rents, their wives shop at thrift store outlets for old worn out shoes and clothes, and their little kids go without in their filthy rags whose daddy can't afford detergents and only light bills sparingly;

and WE complain about their lack of medical insurance coverage that they would never in this life be able to pay for, like they could ever afford it; and whine about their food card supplements! Without them we would all starve to death; and without us no matter how meagerly they have to live, so would they.

And there you have it, the bottom line. We would NEVER be able to dump the only help we have in harvesting and bringing to market OUR food so we can all eat. We need to be glad, stop complaining and be thankful to God for any help at all.

As for Donald Trump: He has shot his wad. Nobody wants to hear his fat mouth breathing fire. If he doesn't stop it he's going to have a massive heart attack or a serious stroke. The body can only take so much self-inflicted punishment. He needs to sit down, shut up, and get back to figuring out how NOT to side step owing money to people whose properties he contracts for or obligates to construct; AND start decorating his ugly hospital-sterile-looking condos. Just in case he hasn't noticed; they are always furnished butt-ugly and all need a splash of bold color.

And this too shall pass! So you see John, some of us do have a few answers....

Sus said...

I could hardly stand to read the other post where the judge berated these children. It was flat-out abuse. Now I see that their court appointed advocate is just as bad - defining the children as Manson like because they sent "messages/vibes". The worst is where he says they defied everyone, even "armed deputies." (Paraphrased) Were they going to shoot the children?

Rather than trying to force their will upon the children why aren't they listening to the children? The children say their father threatened to kill them. I don't care if it was in frustration, in anger, in jest, or whatever he tries to say. Any father who says that to his children, or any children who believe their father would kill them, do not "force a relationship."

Anonymous said...

Sus, I agree with you 100%. This is a terrible thing for these children. Not a one of those responsible for their well being actually cares what happens to them. This judge was also WAAAY off base when she made the comment "..... everyone in this court room thinks you, bla bla bla......" What the hell does SHE know what everyone thinks? Just one of her many wrong and damaging comments.

Comparing these children to Charles Manson???! I tell ya, it made me feel sick reading this article, and I'd be willing to bet there are many judges treating children like these were treated in court rooms all over this country, AND sealing their records so the public doesn't know.

There is NO WAY these children should be forced to have a relationship with their father; in fact, he should have a restraining order against him preventing any contact with these children OR their mother; at least until the real facts are ascertained and not just some judge declaring that he is a nice man. For all we know, this b'tch judge has a close pay-back relationship with the lawyer for this father. She is NOT to be trusted, anyone who talks to these kids like she did.

Anonymous said...

Okay so here's a real life scenario.

On Tuesday my husband and I got into a huge fight. I wanted him to leave. He walked out the front door, then changed his mind. It my hand was stuck and hurt badly. Words were yelled and I called the cops for assistance to get him to leave. He left once he heard the cops were on the way with an ambulance.

Well ten cops show up. And the one small female cop says "let me see you hand", which I walk down my front steps to show her. She then Says"you tried to hit me!" The other cops looked at her like she had ten heads! Then she says I threatened her! And put me in cuffs!

I was not disrespectful and answered all their questions.

I did not threaten her and I did not attempt to hit her. I was showing her my injury

So one night in jail later I am in touch with a lawyer. Nypd is rude, has no respect and cares for no one. I'm white middle class and not that it should matter but this is why people hate cops.

Matt Whan said...

@Anon 8:34

What was the charge laid against you for the incident?

Can you describe what happened to your hand?

Can you describe what you were doing when the officer asked you to approach?

I'm not a lawyer, your statement raises more questions than it answers and I'm curious as to what might have contributed to your wrongful arrest. Also, I'm not sure if this happens in the US, but in Canada, as public servants, officers must involve their Supervisor upon request. Got pulled over? Request to speak to the supe, etc. Try not to let this alter your perspective and force you to believe that all cops are bad. Granted, it takes but a few to ruin the image of the whole.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Okay so here's a real life scenario.

On Tuesday my husband and I got into a (huge) fight. I (wanted) him to leave. He (walked) out the (front door), (then) changed his mind. (It my hand was stuck and hurt badly). (Words were yelled) and I called the cops for assistance to get him to leave. He (left) once he heard the cops were on the way with an ambulance.

(Well) ten cops show up. And the one (small) female cop says "let me see you hand", (which I (walk) down my front steps to show her). She then (Says)"you tried to hit me!" The other cops looked at her like she had ten heads! Then she (says) I threatened her! (And) put me in cuffs!

I was not disrespectful and answered all their questions.

I did not threaten her and I did not attempt to hit her. I was showing her my injury

So one night in jail later I am in touch with a lawyer. Nypd is rude, has no respect and cares for no one. I'm white middle class and (not) that it should matter (but) this is why people hate cops.

Russ said...

This story sounds like possible case of parental alienation, a nasty form of child abuse where the alienating parent consistently undermines the other parent through a variety of different strategies see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/caught-between-parents/201104/parental-alienation-prevention-is-the-key. It is commonly seen in parents with Personality Disorders e.g. narcissistic/borderline. In severe cases the children of an alienating parent will completely reject the other parent. They will also often back up the alienator’s claims of abuse even when those claims have been shown to be impossible. The alienator will continue to make false claims and engage in alienating behaviour even when the Court are well aware of what is going on – see https://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/ParentalAlienationSyndrome.html

One thing that made me suspicious in this case is why the mother was “circling around the park the whole time”. This is classic alienating behaviour. It is designed to sabotage (appropriate) the contact time the other parent has with his/her children. It is child abuse. No normal parent would allow a child to be placed in danger. If you knew that your partner might harm your children, you would not let them go with that person. You would not follow them around for several hours. That is abnormal.

Imagine trying to have a nice day with your kids when you have their mother, your ex-partner, who may have made up all sorts of lies about you in the past, spying on you the whole time. The father’s use of "sabotage" seems completely appropriate in this regard. That is not to say that he may himself have acted inappropriately later that day.

It would be interesting to hear from the Mother.

Anonymous said...

Anon Anon @8:34 pm. & 4:21 a.m., I am so sorry about your hand and for what you have been put thru, but it isn't just the NYPD who are treating people lower than dirt and in some cases beating or shooting them dead without provocation.

I have/had two grown sons. Eight months ago my youngest son who lived with me passed on suddenly of a massive heart attack. My oldest son was very close to his brother. At his burial service and the life celebration of my deceased son my surviving son who lives out of state, was totally inconsolable and was utterly distraught.

Since that day my surviving son has gone into an emotional downhill spiral to such an extent that he will not even talk to me, email or call me, nor will he take my calls, answer my emails or voice mail messages. I have known him to cloister and isolate himself before and I know this is what he has done. It's as if he hates and blames me for his brothers death, which of course, I know is not true.

I have been aware for several years that he needs counseling and have tried to help him but he is over eighteen, has refused, and I cannot force it. His father is deceased and I am his only close living relative, now he has no one. I witnessed him go through this before when he lost his step-father whom he deeply loved but eventually he made some progress at pulling himself together. He has exhibited mental problems over a long period of time and at one time I contacted an attorney to see if I could have him committed and found that I couldn't, he would have to go voluntarily which he would not do.

Here's the dilemma; in the out-of-state city where he lives the local PD have been known to shoot people dead who have an emotional problem. There has been more than one highly publicized case of LE being called to perform a welfare check on someone where that person wound up dead; in one case a mother called to have LE help her calm her son who was inside a closet jabbering and crying, having a reaction to his anti-depressants but was bothering no one, they jerked open the closet door and shot the poor young man dead on sight. And that's just one case.

I have been worried about my son Anon, as I know he needs help. I thought about calling LE to do a welfare check on him but I am afraid he might actually get shot, particularly if he should appear to be the slightest bit belligerent, which he very well could. Because of their reputation which I happen to know for a fact is true, I can't even have them check on him; and even if they did, what could they actually do other than straight-jacket him and use the Baker Act which is only good for a three-day evaluation, then he would be right back where he was, only worse in his anger against me and the whole world. He is not a stupid man, he has a very hi IQ and is well educated. He would know I was behind having him incarcerated even if only temporarily. I thought about sending a fiend to see about him but what could a friend actually do to help him, or that he would let my friend do? Nothing.

Due to LE in that area, and my knowledge FOR A FACT, as to how dangerous they are; my hands are tied Anon, there is nothing I can do, even knowing that my son is very sick emotionally and is badly in need of help. He could even go completely off the deep end and hurt somebody, or kill himself, yet I am too scared of what could happen to him if I tried to do anything. If I were well enough to travel I would go up there and see about him in person but I am not.

Just know, you aren't the only one with these kinds of horror problems. I wait and worry helplessly because of my fear of dangerous cops to see what will happen next to my son, knowing he needs help and there is nothing I can do but pray.

Anonymous said...

Good post Russ, but based on educated speculation and not proven facts. I was married to a highly degreed psychologist/psychiatrist and your objective analysis could be reasonable and true, the only thing; you are looking at the other side of the coin with no basis for reality; you are guessing based on psychological evaluation when you have not met, interviewed or counseled the parties involved.

Therefore, I submit to you: This judge does not have a degree in child psychology, nor does she have any training in child psychology. If she did have, she could not, WOULD NOT have talked down to them the way she did even if she had been right, affecting their mental health for the rest of their pathetic lives. She was/IS totally inept to make any ruling over these children. Ditto for the court appointed GAL. He TOO, is inept in making any charges against these children. YOU are following their assertions; when, as one who IS trained, you ought not be doing so.

Lastly, you have fallen prey to THEIR words to such an extent that 1) you have not considered the negative influence this judge has over every adult who is sitting in her court room; and 2) You are not terribly familiar with the 'good-ole'boy' pay back silent rule where the judge is a friend of the attorney representing the other party. You need to learn more about how our court system actually works where unethical judges (and there are many!) who favor their lawyer-friends who they owe favors too, before you make these kinds of statements in their favor that are against the innocent children (and quite possibly their mother) when you do not have the facts and never will. Other than that, your analysis could be right on.

Russ said...

Hi Anon,

You are right that I don't know anything about people involved, but as far as I can tell there is little information available on the details of the family. I was just raising a potential issue and providing a possible explanation for why the father behaved and spoke in the way that he did, before everyone condemns him. The point I was trying to make is that in many cases of alienation, the alienated parent is portrayed as a violent, dangerous monster and the children will back this view up because they believe it. On closer inspection, however, the allegations turn out to be lies, such is the power of the alternator, who exploits their position as a parent to manipulate, subvert and undermine the children. The children side with the alienator whose love is not unconditional (unlike the normal parent) but comes at a price (i.e. to do what they are told or else be rejected). The children are the victims and their relationship with the normal parent can be destroyed forever. Often the non-alienator is at his/her wits end because the child abuse (i.e. the alienation) is not overt but oh so subtle – no-one believes them and this can lead to intense frustration and anger. All I can say is that the Mother's behaviour on that day was not normal, and was typical of the behaviour of an alternator.

The Judge’s comments are a separate issue and I purposely did not comment on these in my post because I wanted to raise the specific point above. From what I can see, they are appalling. I'm surprised that there are not additional expert witnesses involved e.g. court appointed psychologists who could advise the judge as happens in the UK.

Russ said...

Ooops, that should have been "typical of the behaviour of an alienator" not alternator :)

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Okay so here's a real life scenario.

On Tuesday my husband and I got into a huge fight. I wanted him to leave. He walked out the front door, then changed his mind. It my hand was stuck and hurt badly. Words were yelled and I called the cops for assistance to get him to leave. He left once he heard the cops were on the way with an ambulance.

Well ten cops show up. And the one small female cop says "let me see you hand", which I walk down my front steps to show her. She then Says"you tried to hit me!" The other cops looked at her like she had ten heads! Then she says I threatened her! And put me in cuffs!

I was not disrespectful and answered all their questions.

I did not threaten her and I did not attempt to hit her. I was showing her my injury

So one night in jail later I am in touch with a lawyer. Nypd is rude, has no respect and cares for no one. I'm white middle class and not that it should matter but this is why people hate cops.


How you hurt your hand is passive. Explain how. This is important.
"Words were yelled" is passive. What was said, and by whom?
Was there another reason for calling the cops?

Why did you walk down steps to show her?

"You tried to hit me" indicates failure to hit her.

Ellie said...

Hey Russ, can you tell me where to find Parental Alienation Syndrome in the DSM?

What if, instead of speculating on what we don't and can't know about the parents, we focused on what we do know? The judge's behavior is abusive. The father's statement doesn't make sense.

Russ said...

Hey Ellie

Try reading my post more carefully before having a go. "I was just raising a potential issue and providing a possible explanation for why the father behaved and spoke in the way that he did, before everyone condemns him". We are all speculating here to some extent. Weren't you speculating in your post about the meaning behind the Fathers use of "my time" above, or do you know what was in the Father's mind? Incidentally, the Father was not talking to his children about "my time" but to the Court. Don't you think that this makes quite a bit of difference?

Secondly, there are clear issues that come from the Fathers statement regarding the behaviour of the Mother, which is not speculation. The police were involved when the Mother tried to take the children away in her car during contact time that was allocated to the Father. This is not speculation. The police did not arrest the Father (that is not to say that the Father did not push the Mother). What was the mother doing there? Following your children around when they are with the other parent is abnormal, abusive behaviour. This is not speculation.

Confusing two issues: the behaviour of the Judge and the behaviour of the parents is not helpful. This post was about the Father, not the Judge, which is why I posted it here rather than in the post on the Judge.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is not in the DSM, and if you look I did not use the term Parental Alienation Syndrome - the difference one word can make! However parental alienation is generally acknowledged and becoming increasingly recognised in the Court system e.g. see "Parental alienation. The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals. Charles C Thomas, Springfield". Furthermore child psychological abuse is a new diagnosis in DSM-5 it is defined as "nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child's parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child. It describes "parent-child relational problems" as "may include negative attributions of the other’s intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement.” There's a load of stuff about parental alienation and DSM on the web, but you may know that already.

Anonymous said...

Another good post, Russ. Ref my earlier post on 7/11 and your response @8:50 a.m., I knew what you meant in your misuse of the word 'alternator' and appreciate your objective response. No problem.

You are correct in your use of the theory Parental Alienation Syndrome above. There have been many proven cases of this pattern being used falsely in child custody and visitation, where one has severely damaged the relationship of an innocent parent with his/or her children on-going for years. This is very common.

However, we do not have the past history available to us concerning what kind of assertions have been made by either or both parents towards each other that may include negative attribution of the other's intentions, hostility, false accusations, blaming and scapegoating of one parent against the other parent.

While it may be true that this mother spent two hours driving around and around the park in a panicked frenzy while the father was attempting to have a peaceful visitation with his children; what we do not know is if she believed she had good reason that he might harm the children in some way, had threatened them or might even leave the area with them. We do not know how he may have tormented her in the past with harmful visits with the kids. We have only his word; we do not know what led her to do this. It sounds as if she was frightened for her kids safety and well-being that day; perhaps she had good reason to be.

For some reason that we have not been made privy too, those children despise their father and are fearful of him. Not only do they not want him around their mother, which very well could be for good reasons, but they refuse to be in his presence as well, even in a public place having lunch together. We could speculate that they have been totally brainwashed, however, we are not talking about toddlers or elementary-aged children, we are talking about children that are old enough to determine how they feel about their father, and why, particularly the older one.

If their feelings were all about being brainwashed by their mother, they would be leaning towards resenting her for robbing them of a relationship with their 'doting' father, particularly the oldest one who would be influencing the younger ones against their mother by this time, knowing that she had lied to them all these years; however, this is not what is happening here. These children are adamant that they want nothing to do with their father, even to the extent that they are willing to go to jail to avoid being in his presence.

Russ, there has to be more to this story than we know.

Anonymous said...

P.S... What I want to know more than anything else concerning this issue; is, where is the money coming from that is paying all these lawyers to keep this fight going on and on endlessly? There HAS to be a large sum of money involved here.

Is it the father who has the bulk of the money (my guess is that it IS him or his family) that is paying his pricey lawyers, plus gaining 'favor' with the judge;

ultimately hoping to gain full custody and be able to take the children with him to Isreal and cut her out entirely; or, is it the mother and her family who have the bulk of the money and he hopes to gain custody of the children, take them with him to Isreal, and cause her to have to pay HIM support?

OR, is the money trail between them such that they both are well-heeled and he hopes to split custody 50-50 and neither one of them wind up paying support to the other?

In any event, if you take a look at the possible money background, (IIF we can find it), it's a win-win for him no matter which scenario falls into place for him. If we knew where the money is coming from, I think we could quickly find the truth.

Anonymous said...

P.S... What I want to know more than anything else concerning this issue; is, where is the money coming from that is paying all these lawyers to keep this fight going on and on endlessly? There HAS to be a large sum of money involved here.

Is it the father who has the bulk of the money (my guess is that it IS him or his family) paying a handsome amount of support to her that he wants out of, and who is paying his pricey lawyers, plus gaining 'favor' with the judge;

ultimately hoping to gain full custody and be able to take the children with him to Isreal and cut her out entirely; or, is it the mother and her family who have the bulk of the money and he hopes to gain custody of the children, take them with him to Isreal, and cause her to have to pay HIM support?

OR, is the money trail between them such that they both are well-heeled and he hopes to split custody 50-50 and neither one of them wind up paying support to the other?

In any event, if you take a look at the possible money background, (IIF we can find it), it's a win-win for him no matter which scenario falls into place for him. If we knew where the money is coming from, I think we could quickly find the truth. IMO, this issue is about much more than just the kids; there's a large sum of money involved here, if there wasn't this would have ended long ago.

Anonymous said...

Ooops... Sorry. My post disappeared then showed up and posted anyway after I made a few corrections.... My bad.

Ellie said...

The father's use of "my" was with the reporter. Do we know what he said to the court?

If the incident took place during the aftermath of the man claiming to be Clark Rockefeller kidnapping his daughter during a supervised visit, I can see how a mother might keep an eye on things. And "the children ended up in her car" is passive. He's not even asserting that she put them there. He didn't put them there. We can assume that they fled to her car.

Parental alienation is making the claim that the children are harmed by a lack of relationship with the alienated parent, the assumption being that the alienated parent is the ONE who is acting in the children's best interest. However, that doesn't happen here. The father does not stop the judge from bullying and abusing his children. He does not stop the judge from sending them to "jail." He is allowing the judge to torture his children in order to exact revenge on them for defying her. This is not a protective parent's response. That behavior is further alienating him from these children that he claims to dote on.

Russ said...

Hi again Anon, I agree there is much more this story than we know :) Sadly such cases are often terrible for everyone concerned, especially the children.

Russ said...

There's a useful link here with Court findings and more details.

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

Peter Hyatt said...

Russ,

anything within it reach out to you worth sharing? Or, is it something more detail orientated?

thanks,

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

After 2 1/2 hours of work yesterday on the Nancy Grace transcripts of missing 35 year old, I asked another analyst to look it over, in the 'preview' section.

yeah, it went, 'poof.'

oy,

Peter

Russ said...

Hi Peter, there are 60 or so points of which I've picked out the following:

That numerous doctors and court-appointed mental health professionals have indicated that the mother is causing "significant emotional pain to the children, which could likely lead to future dysfunction and continued emotional suffering with a negative affect on each of these children".

That there are "very clear indications of parental alienation".

That the Mother has "made it clear to numerous mental heath experts that she is unwilling to heed their advice."

That the mother has repeatedly disobeyed Court orders by obstructing contact and preventing the children from seeing their Father.

That the Mother stays during parenting time the children do have have with the Father claiming that she is trying to facilitate parenting time, but only aggravates the situation.

It is worth reading the report just to see the extent that an alienator will go to. This behaviour has continued over at least 5 years, since the parents divorced in and has not been hidden from Medical or Legal professionals.

Just a couple of points I'd like to make. Firstly, the childrens' behaviour in no way excuses the Judge for the way in which she spoke to them. The children are the victims, and their behaviour is a consequence of the abuse they have received. Secondly, parental alienation is not gender specific, both men and women can be abusers.

Anonymous said...

Who is paying for "Everything PR"? Is the PR statement worth analyzing? Does the PR statement's claims match up the documents released? There are claims that records are private; yet some records were released. What records weren't released? Why? Are the only records released the ones that vilify the mother?

I agree that there's nothing that justifies the judge verbally abusing the children.

Anonymous said...

Reading about this case just breaks my heart. It's absolutely a clear cut case of parental alienation. If the mother was so concerned about the children being abused by their father then she should have requested sole custody with supervised visitation during the FIRST hearing.

In regards to the fathers use of the words "my time", he used them after how many years of either interuppted visitations or missed visitations because of the mother. It's not him being possessive. It's out of frustration that yet ANOTHER visit was sabotaged my their mother. My question is this, what is the mother trying to hide by brainwashing these kids into hating their father? What scare tactics had she used to prevent them from speaking to him?

And before people start thinking I'm a spurned father, I happen to be a mother of a 16 year old girl who has a wonderful relationship with her father that I am no longer with. I watched him fight, both mentally and financially, with his ex-wife just to be able to see their daughter one week out of an entire year. I even flew down to Florida as a character witness during one visitation hearing. She had this child believing that he was incarcerated for murder and that was why he wasn't around to see her.

I will admit that the judge putting the children in Juvenile Hall was a bit excessive but she had to have read the case file from start to finish. Page after page of clear violation of the court's ruling by the mother and brainwashing of the children. She acted out of emotion using the only means in her power of separating the children from the one person who was poisoning them.

If the next article I see about this woman is that she has disappeared with the three kids, I won't be surprised.

Anonymous said...

He slammed my hand in the door. That's how it got hurt. The glass broke around it. I told him in so many expletives to stop your hurting me and I'm calling the cops. She said come here, show me your hand. I was standing at the top step she was on the bottom. 5 steps total.

As I put my hand out, other officers who were closer to me. Like a foot away from me about two of them were there when I walked down the stairs to show her my injury. That's when she yelled. You tried to hit me! And when I said are you serious? I'm i. Pain I need help she said I threatened her. The look on the other cops faces were shocked. But she must have rank over them cause they handcuffed and shackled me.

Sus said...

The article Russ is referring to was put out by the father's PR team. Yes, he hired a PR firm.

The article lists the father's complaints to the court about the mother. So when Russ lists the 60 points, they are not court findings, but the father's complaints. In my opinion most were stated unprofessionally and simply the father's opinion. I am shocked by this court and how bias they seem to be in favor of the father.

I'd like to address some of those complaints.
Russ mentioned the mother staying at father's time. The mother stated she does it to facilitate, but they don't feel she really does. Interesting that the next point states that when the mother does not stay, the children follow her out. It sounds to me she damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

Another complaint was that the mother won't share her home address. Pick up is at the courthouse. She does not need to share her address with someone she claims abused her and wants to kidnap her children.

Father complains that the mother will not share school and extracurricular information with him. It is not her job! He should have a flow set up with the school.

Reading the court documents is total frustration to me. I get the feeling of a father who was not involved in his children's lives, dropped in once or twice per year, yet expected those children to have a relationship with him. I get the feeling he expected his ex wife to facilitate that for him. These are bright children, gifted even. The oldest is fifteen. They can make their own decisions. I am shocked so many are blaming the mother for what the father, lawyers, court advocates and a judge could not make them do.

Russ said...

Thank you Sus for pointing out my mistake. Yes, the pages I was quoting from was the Father's Order to Show Cause rather than the Court Order itself. The Order to show provides useful context, but as you point out it is the Father's application to the Court. The Court order is provided, and orders that the Children be allowed to attend summer camp where they will receive parental alienation counselling with only supervised visits by either parent being allowed.

The thing that strikes me most about this case is how it divides opinion. Every blog/news website that allows public comment, contains posts from those who vilify the Mother and those who vilify the Father.

Anonymous said...

Sus, I don't always agree with you but I certainly do in this case. You are dead on right. Further, there is deliberate conspiracy by the father against the mother in and the court (favorable, co-conspirator judge) is prey and beneficiary to it.

IMO, there are many coins jiggling somewhere in somebody's pocket in this case and it is coming from the father. Can we prove it? No. The tentacles run deep are are well concealed. We won't know the truth either after the parental alienation counseling is completed in summer camp; those records will be private and sealed.

It is obvious that the father has made his ex-wife's life and that of his children a living hell for the past five years while his lawyers continue to make hefty deposits to their bank accounts and the judge repays a favor she owes to at least one of those lawyers. You can believe it or not; but this IS the way the court system frequently works while the innocent party(s) suffers for the tricky legal maneuverings and deceit.

Where are all the depositions that were given by the ex-wife and mother of the children; stating the facts concerning the hostility and threats this woman has endured all of these years? We don't even begin to know the hidden facts in this case. There is no doubt in my mind that these children despise their father and for good reason that goes way beyond any parental alienation.

Sus said...

Russ,
I'm well aware that the courts are more accepting of parent alienation now. It is telling that the psychiatric community is not as certain and refrained from including parent alienation in the most recent DSM manual.

A good lawyer (by good I mean "anything to win") will will use any means including accusing the other party of parent alienation. The concept is being used quite frequently to force children to visit with their abusers. As a matter of fact, the creator of the term "parent alienation" coined it to do just that. He believed chikdren were not truly harmed by abuse and the other parent should refrain from speaking poorly about the offending parent.

From all accounts the children are happy, bright well-adjusted kids. (Or were till this sick judge and court advocate got ahold of them) They have friends and family they are not allowed to see now. These children were denied their rights. No one truly listened to them.

Russ said...

This is my last post on this case, because we're going round in circles. I've already commented on parent alienation and the DSM above. Incidentally, you are wrong about its "creator". There has been much misinformation put about because many people think that by denigrating the messenger they are discrediting his ideas. Yet even if it were true that he was thoroughly despicable and everything that he has been accused of, rejecting his theories on these grounds is just illogical and lazy. By all accounts, Isaac Newton was neurotic, unsociable, proud, vindictive and thoroughly nasty to everyone including his scientific peers, but he could still explain why an apple falls on your head rather than flies off into space.

Sadly alienation has become a highly political issue and children suffer as a result. In the most extreme cases, parents abduct or even kill their children to satisfy their view that they should be kept from the other parent by all means possible. Often abusers are narcissists with all the associated behaviour patterns (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201405/narcissistic-parents-psychological-effect-their-children). In this particular case, court-appointed medical advisors and the court-appointed guardian are so concerned about the behaviour and welfare of the children that they have advised they be separated from both parents for alienation counselling. Yes the Judge was completely out of order in the way that she spoke to the children, but are you really saying that all of the other Court-appointed experts are deluded too?

Jeff Gaynor said...

I've never known a comment to change anyone's opinion, but ...

1) This case does bring out divisive comments - with conclusions based on one's previous experiences and beliefs.

2) I have made no final judgment on the judge's behavior; it is not the focus of these comments.

3) Both parents have high paying jobs: he's an engineer and she's an eye surgeon - money is not an issue for either one.

4) I find the comments by Russ to be perceptive and valuable (see point 1 above)

5) Sus says, " I am shocked so many are blaming the mother for what the father, lawyers, court advocates and a judge could not make them do." --- But this is just the powerful nature of Parental Alienation. If the father had been abusive, they would have cause. If the father wasn't - and in 6 years of court testimony, this hasn't been mentioned, other than the one statement from the 15 year old, and the father's statement - then it points to the mother's influence.

6) There are dozens of ways to influence a child to be fearful of the other parent. Here are just a few:

a) Tell your child, when the family is still living together, "if your Dad ever tries to take you somewhere, you can go up to your room and lock it; or go across the street to (a neighbor)."

b) Telling your Children that you had to go to court to get parental support - when this is standard procedure with Friend of the Court.

c) When your children are with your ex-, during his parenting time, call the police (a few times) and send them to check on the welfare of the kids. The Dad looks surprises, invites the police in and he sees the kids playing, talking, eating, etc. and reports nothing is wrong. But the children associate the Dad with the police being needed to keep an eye on them.

d) Telling the older child that she has to protect the younger one when they are at the Dad's house.

e) Showing your kids court documents - but only your accusations of the other parent's misdeeds - such as accusing him of assaulting you (even though this never happened.

f) Telling your children, "Your Dad doesn't love you; he is going to court over and over to get more parenting time just to get back at me."

And yes, my children have experiences all of these, and many more - so yes, this is why I focus on parental alienation.

g) Here's one more: When your child does something wrong, say, "You are just like your father"
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e-IPsibMJc

Peter Hyatt said...

Jeff,

Even if both parents are Mr. and Mrs. Frankenstein,
it does not justify the judge's behavior and words.

Peter Hyatt