The following is statement analysis of the words of Judge Lisa Gorcyca.
Should this news article prove to be false, all the analysis should be discarded.
I write this because of my years of experience in investigating child abuse claims and my subsequent time in court.
It is challenging to believe that these quotes are accurate. Even with "two sides to every story" it is still challenging.
Statement Analysis is in bold type.
Judge compares Bloomfield Hills children to Charles Manson, sends them to Children's Village for refusing to speak with father
An Oakland County circuit judge who sent three children to a juvenile detention facility for refusing to speak to their father compared the kids to cult leader Charles Manson.
Oakland Circuit Judge Lisa Gorcyca declared the children of Maya Tsimhoni in contempt of court last month and ordered them held at Oakland County Children’s Village until they attempt to have a relationship with their father or they turn 18.
The three — ages 9, 10, and 15 — have been incarcerated for more than two weeks.
Court clerks for Gorcyca said Wednesday the judge would have no comment because the case was ongoing.
The children were taken into custody during a June 24 hearing.
“I do apologize if I didn’t understand the rules,” said one boy, 15, “but I do not apologize for not talking to him because I have a reason for that and that’s because he’s violent and I saw him hit my mom and I’m not going to talk to him.”
Note the order:
1. He's violent
2. And I saw him hit my mom
Note that "he's violent" came before hitting mom, which is to make a conclusion.
Note that he does not say "He hit my mom" but what he said was that he "saw" him hit his mom.
Although this is not enough to conclude possible coaching, it is something to consider.
The father has not been charged with a crime.
Gorcyca called the boy a “defiant, contemptuous young man” and asked him if there was anything he’d like to say about being sent to Children’s Village.
This is to impugn his character. It is not known if she said this within his earshot.
Note that "defiant" came before "contemptuous." We need to learn who was defied by him.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” the boy said.
“No, you did,” Gorcyca said.
“I ordered you to talk to your father. You chose not to talk to your father. You defied a direct court order. It’s direct contempt so I’m finding you guilty of civil contempt.”
Note that she began with the pronoun "I", but later referred to it as a "direct court order."
Expected is: "This court ordered you" or "The court ordered you" or "You were ordered by this court..."
The use of the pronoun "I" tells us that this is a very strong, and very personal statement by the judge to a child. This judge has an acute need to be obeyed and has taken a child's disobedience as a personal affront.
This is a key element behind child abuse, where parents do not understand children's nature, and instead of correcting a child, they feel personal insult, and act out in their own selfish anger. This can be startling.
Child protective caseworkers ask parents of newborns, "how do you disincline your baby?" with the only expected hopeful response of laughter and "you don't discipline a baby."
The responses heard over the years is frightening.
When a parent tells the worker that the newborn was disobedient, it is a red flag for abuse.
Young parents have said to me that their baby "cries on purpose" and "knows what she is doing" and "he just does that to get on my nerves", showing not only a lack of realistic expectations of a child, but a personal affront.
This is where a frustrated parent shakes a child to stop crying and the child never wakes up.
That the judge used the pronoun "I" rather than describing her order as "the court", is very alarming. Once you have read more of her statements, you will see that this is no different than the abusive parent who thinks the child is crying purposely to "interrupt mommy time" for the young parent. This child is at risk, just as the child in court, before this judge, is at risk.
The boy responded: “But he was the one that (did) something wrong. I thought there (were) rules .. for not hitting someone.”
The child defies the judge in argument, but is powerless in not simply persuading her, but stopping her. Because she began with the pronoun, "I", had I been the child's attorney and had I had the ability to do so, I would not have allowed the child to answer her as anything but submission would increase her illogical wrath against him. I wold have insisted on a Guardian Ad Litem, or at least a child therapist present to protect the child.
The child defied the judge in argument but did not make any childish taunts nor insults towards her. This is in contrast to the judge's words towards the child.
The judge insults the child:
“You’re supposed to have a high IQ, which I’m doubting right now because of the way you act,” Gorcyca said.
Here the judge does what teachers and parents know not to do: ridicule the child by bringing doubt, question, or ridicule to something the child cannot change.
The IQ is not something the child can control, but the judge, instead of going after the child's argument, turns to the child's intellect to insult the child. This is not something the child (expected) did to the judge (not expected).
This is to personalize the 'debate' via insult, and use her superior discrepancy in sophistication to tear the child down, from within. It is not that the child 'did something' the judge goes after, but his intelligence level as measured by an IQ examination. It is an insult.
“You’re very defiant. You have no manners … There is no reason why you do not have a relationship with your father. Your father has never been charged with anything. Your father’s never been convicted of anything. Your father doesn’t have a personal protection order against him. Your father is well-liked and loved by the community, his co-workers, his family, his colleagues. You, young man, have got it wrong. I think your father is a great man who has gone through hoops for you to have a relationship with you.”
The judge continues to tear into the child. Was the father present? If so, did he stand up to tell her to stop?
Note "you have no manners", while the judge is exercising childish manners that need parental correction, including insulting the child.
Note the judge does not call the boy a "liar" nor affirm that the man did not his the boy's mother. Instead, the judge addresses the judicial conclusion of an assault, including charge, conviction and orders. She does not say, "he did not hit your mother." One may wonder why the judge denied the judiciary conclusion, or even the legal charge, but not the actions.
Note "well liked" comes before "loved" but in the same sentence. This raises questions.
Note that she calls him a great "man", and not "great person" or "great father" or even "great parent."
Question: Did the "well-liked and loved" father reveal his son's disobedience to the judge? Did he support this judge in her action?
What does the judge know about the father that he is liked, loved, and great?
This is another form of abuse as she builds up the abuser of the child's own mother, even if not true, as the child believes it is true.
The judge minimizes domestic violence, including the allegation that the child saw his father hit his mother, spoken without qualification.
The judge's background likely has some connection to domestic violence, which should also be explored.
Gorcyca said she appreciated that Tsimhoni told her son about the importance of having a relationship with his father.
“It probably was way too late,” the judge said.
This is to remove hope to the very element she wishes to appear to be establishing. This is not appropriate for a child to hear, and is actually counter-productive to restoring a relationship with the father, outside of such severe coercion.
But to the boy, the judge said: “You need to do a research program on Charlie Manson and the cult that he has … You have bought yourself living in Children’s Village, going to the bathroom in public, and maybe summer school.”
Note the inclusion of "Charlie Manson" who partook in murders in 1969 California.
What correlation exists between this boy and a murderer in the judge's mind?
Note next that the judge, in context of punitive action, tells the boy that he is going to go the bathroom in public, which is a naturally private activity to both adults and children.
What does this tell us about the psychology of the judge? This is to taunt, or frighten the child, and it employs language regarding sexual organs and privacy. This should be considered very alarming that this judge may have been, herself a victim of sexual abuse, and has unresolved issues in which she is now acting out, in her legal capacity, to taunt the child, inflicting emotional pain now, and at the time when privacy is needed.
Is she revealing anything disturbing about herself? Is this a form of leakage to tell us that this judge needs professional intervention?
We look for other quotes that may help us:
Gorcyca forbid the mother or anyone from her side of the family from visiting the boy.
A review hearing was scheduled for Sept. 8.
Even the most damaging parents get "supervised visitation", yet here there is none; not only for the mother, but for the entire family. What would cause this judge to deprive children of the natural connection to one parent? Has this judge further revealed her own early childhood trauma of abandonment?
“You are so mentally messed up right now and it’s not because of your father,” Gorcyca said.
Here, the judge uses the phrase, "mentally messed up", while ordering the child into incarceration. This is to cause a child to doubt his or her own mental health, and is also an insult that will require effort to rectify.
“And one day you are going to realize what’s going on in this case and you’re going to apologize to your dad … Dad, if you ever think that he has changed and he’s no longer like Charlie Manson’s cult, then you let us know and we can (review the case).”
(Does this affirm that the father approved of the brutal sadistically self-serving treatment of his children?)
Was there not a loved one, close to the children, of whom they could have stayed with while the divorce and subsequent custody issues were heard?
This is emotional abuse of a child by the judge, projecting some serious psychological issues upon children.
It is difficult to imagine these statements to be true, difficult to imagine no one stopping her, and difficult imagine a social worker or police officer actually taking these children to incarceration.
To continue the emotional abuse, and exert her control issues over the children:
Gorcyca refused to allow Tsimhoni to say goodbye to her son or to convince him to speak with his father.
Tsimhoni’s two other children had a hearing later in the day, during which the 10-year-old boy did speak briefly to his father.
“Judge, I’m sorry for my behavior, and dad, I’m sorry for my behavior,” he said.
“Dad, the judge wanted me to talk to you so here is something about myself ? I enjoy soccer and I hope to be on the soccer team.”
The child reveals no desire to talk to the child, but fearing the judge. This appears to be what the judge had intended; to be feared and respected above all that is decent, employing even verbal and emotional abuse to reach satisfaction for herself, and her own need for recognition.
A girl, 9, was asked if she would also like to apologize to her father, but she had no audible response.
“I know you’re kind of religious,” Gorcyca told the girl.
Here the judge brings the topic of religion in her address to the 9 year old girl. Will this be a positive affirming statement?
“God gave you a brain. He expects you to use it. You are not your big, defiant brother who’s living in jail. Do you want to live in jail?”
She used it to indicate that the child has not used her brain, while, to the young girl, deriding her own brother. This is emotional abuse as well as the other statements.
In exploring the root causes of the judge's abusive treatment of the children, sexual abuse by a religious person should be explored. Anti-semitism should also be explored.
The girl said she would try to work with her father during visits, and Gorcyca told the children to go to lunch with their father.
“Let’s see, you’re going to be a teenager,” Gorcyca told the girl.
"Let's see" is a form of a pause. Given the acid statements of the judge thus far, I wonder what insult she had in mind that caused her to pause? She does not make me wait long to see what emotional pain she might inflict, as she searches for the vulnerability of the child:
“You want to have your birthdays in Children’s Village?
A child's birthday is a day in which the child is celebrated as special and unique. The judge uses this to turn it into a nightmare.
Do you like going to the bathroom in front of people?
This is the most concerning and is likely linked to sexual abuse in childhood. The introduction of "bathroom" and exposure of private sexual organs before others is a humiliation she uses to taunt the child. It is likely the the judge, herself, has unresolved issues of sexual shame, as well.
Is your bed soft and comfortable at home?
I would not like this judge even thinking about where my children lie down to rest and refresh themselves for the new day. This is to enter into a private place of repose, and cause anxiety, perhaps even childhood nightmares or night terrors. Bringng up the bathroom and bedroom were both acts of cruelty.
I’ll tell you this, if you two don’t have a nice lunch with your dad and make this up to your dad, you’re going to come back here (after lunch) and I’m going to have the deputies take you to Children’s Village.”
Imagine the terror the child feels, and now the resentment the child will have towards the father who holds this nightmare over he child's head in the cruelest of coercion. How did a father stand for this?
The father suggested eating in a cafeteria at the courthouse, and the boy was asked what his thoughts were.
Think the child is traumatized at the courthouse? The child answers the question for us:
“I’ll go with my brother (to Children’s Village) then,” he said.
As she claims to be fighting alienation of a parent, she alienates the child further from the father, and then alienates the children from each other, as well as the mother.
The abuse continues in the order.
Gorcyca said the boy would not be allowed to contact his brother at Children’s Village.
The girl was asked whether she would eat lunch with her dad and she said no.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Gorcyca said.
please note what she said, in the negative, as very sensitive.
I believe that her use of "never" is very sensitive in that she has, in fact, seen some elements exactly the way her own words projected upon the children.
“One day you can watch this video and realize that you two have been brainwashed. Your dad is a good man … This is not normal behavior. No adult in this courtroom, except one, thinks this is normal. Every single adult in this courtroom thinks you have been brainwashed.”
We may have to remind ourselves that this judge, as insulting as she is, is addressing children, and not hardened adults.
Note the inclusion of the word "normal" in her language.
Note hyperbole with "every single adult" indicating her own need to garner support.
Even if the mother was the worst mother in the world, why would the judge not give the children to the "loved" and "great man", instead of first tormenting them with incarceration and then following through with it?
Were there no teachers, friends, family, or anyone the children trusted, to stay with? Even a foster home, where they could stay together, would be better. If the judge felt that, somehow, they were not good for each other, three foster homes with supervised visitation is a better choice. This is unmitigated cruelty from a personal vendetta over the stress this case has caused her, and a defiance of the children to submit to her, personally, more than her authority.
This judge sought to inflict emotional harm upon the children and it is because of her own need to control. She has deep, psychological
What is the point to berating and threatening kids, even if the mother is a terrible mother, or even if the mother has 'brainwashed' the kids? The children are the target of not only insults, but dreadful taunts, where "bathroom" and "bed" are in their young minds, full of fear over what would happen.
How did such a "great man" allow her to continue in this theme?
The children have no rights in this case. Rights and responsibilities are to go hand-in-hand.
The judge knows the children have no rights here, yet still puts the responsibility upon their young shoulders. This is abusive. They cannot change their IQs, their relatives, and it is doubtful they know how Charlie Manson is.
but they will...and then they will grow up comparing themselves to a murderer because someone of extreme authority told them so. This may lead to self abusive and acting out behavior, later in life.
The children have been required to undergo psychiatric therapy while at Children’s Village and were to “be kept away from each other as much as possible,” according to a hand-written order from the court.
The judge classified the contentious divorce proceedings during a visitation hearing the day before the children were taken into custody as “tied for my worst parental alienation case.”
Five days after the contempt ruling, Tsimhoni’s attorney, Andrew Bossary, withdrew from the case, citing delinquent fees of $16,220.
Bloomfield Hills attorney Lisa Stern has since filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Tsimhoni’s behalf. The motion seeks to bring the children back before Gorcyca but it isn’t scheduled to be heard until July 15.
The documents ask that the three children be brought back before the judge in order to lift the contempt ruling or show why “they are being deprived of their liberty.”
Attorneys for both parents could not be reached for comment.
As to the father not intervening, if so, it represents an abandonment or abdication of his own role in protecting his children.
In the Solomonic wisdom of "cutting the baby in half", the truthful mother's own protective instinct caused her to give up custody rather than have the child suffer under the judge's sentence.
The judge reveals more than just an inappropriate losing of temper, but to project some serious psychologically unresolved issues upon children, which is in essence, child abuse.
She may have caused damage to these children far beyond perfunctory measurement, as she went through with the taunts and threats of terror (in a child's mind) including infusing abandonment into their lives, separation anxiety, and the overall tearing down of the child's self perspective in life.
Because she represents the ultimate authority outside of the home, she may have provoked the children to a life time of rebellion and contempt for authority, and may impact their grades, their views of their own value and worth, and how they view society, including distrust, anger, and resentment, which all may be exasperated by being taken away from both parents, and any recognizable faces, as well as each other.
It is impossible to measure the damage done to these children by the judge, as removal of a child from its home is to be an instrument of last resort. Judges, working with social workers, seek:
a. Can anything keep these kids in the home, including court ordered supports?
b. If not, can they stay with their "great" and "loved" father, rather than with strangers?
d. Close friends?
The last resort is supposed to be only have them removed if, within the next 24 to 48 hours, depending upon what State you live in, there is a serious risk of serious injury or psychological harm resulting in the need for professional intervention, likely to happen and there are no suitable family members, relatives, friends, neighbors, community members, of which the children may both stay with and stay together.
This is the mandate that most states follow .
Instead, the judge unleashed acute verbal abuse of the children, threatening them with an institution, only to follow up her threats with the loss of their liberties, with its attendant psychological injuries coupled with separation from their parents and each other.
These three children will likely suffer for a long time.
Next: the father's own statement about hitting or pushing the mother in front of the children.
Next: the father's own statement about hitting or pushing the mother in front of the children.