Protective Parent Attorneys Added to Tsimhoni Trial

In the upcoming Tsimhoni vs. Tsimhoni Family Law Trial, Maya Tsimhoni has brought in two pro bono attorneys through Child Justice, a non-profit protective parent organization. Child Justice has been known over the years to provide pro bono legal representation for protective parents. This was the original legal business model for the Protective Parent Cause which was thought to be outdated since protective parents normally have to engage in acts of civil disobedience to get representation. Surprisingly, the attorneys Gregory Jacob and Dave Dorey are lawyers at the firm of O’Melveny & Meyers.

In 2014, Child Justice partnered with the Boston University School of Communications (Garland Waller / in the Holly Ann Collins Protective Parent Case) in a Protective Parent Video about the Family Court System. The video is produced by Hothouse Productions (Garland Waller / Eileen King and Joyanna Silberg). Dr. Joyanna Silberg has is one of the expert witnesses with long ties to the Protective Parent Community (Leadership Council, Center for Judicial Excellence).

With the addition of Gregory F. Jacob (Partner) and Dave Dorey (Associate), it’s likely that Maya Tsimhoni will once again try and inject her custody case into the National Media. It is clear that she does not want to co-parent and she does not care the impact a trial and its related publicity will have on her teenage children. She will use it to once again disparage her former spouse. Let’s hope that the judge issues a gag order on all parties involved and locks the courtroom to the media which should be standard in any juvenile court case.

Jacob Gregory, Child Justice, Protective Parent Attorney

Jacob Gregory, Protective Parent Attorney

Dave Dorey, Child Justice, Protective Parent Attorney

Dave Dorey, Protective Parent Attorney

Eileen King, Protective Parent

Eileen King, Child Justice Protective Parent Organization

JoySilberg_042912_23-727x1024

Dr. Joyanna Silberg – Protective Parent Expert Witness

Garland Waller, Boston University, Hothouse Productions

Garland Waller – Boston University

Editor’s Note: It is shocking that the law firm of O’Melveny & Meyers would support Child Justice, a organization that is clearly against co-parenting. The statistics on the Child Justice website are similar to those misleading statistics used by Domestic Violence Organizations in the ’80s and ’90s. Child Justice claims that ten million children are exposed to domestic violence each year (in the United States/in the World?) and 58,000 children are living with an abusive, negligent or predatory parent. It is truly disappointing that the firm’s lawyers and clients would support the protective parent cause.

The Tsimhoni Case will be a precedence setting case for the Family Law Court System in Michigan. It sure sounds like the Family Court System is on trial in this case. The Protective Parent/Family Court Critic Network now has:

  • The Protective Parent Custody Case – litigant and protective mom Maya Tsimhoni who will do or say just about anything rather than agree to co-parent her children
  • The Protective Parent Attorneys – From O’Melveny & Meyers in Washington DC
  • The Protective Parent Expert Witness – Joyanna Silberg can’t wait to give hours of testimony about everything that has nothing to do with the Tsimhoni Custody Case
  • The Protective Parent Extremist Activist – Eileen King, her organization will do or say almost anything to promote their cause
  • The Publicity – Garland Waller did the video with Joyanna Silberg and Eileen King using Boston University students. Now is the time they can promote their video without regard to the Tsimhoni children’s privacy.
  • The Tsimhoni Teenage Children – Maya Tsimhoni is trying to make them poster children for this cause – maybe they should take note of Madonna’s son Rocco Ritchie and tell their myopic and narcissist mom to respect their privacy?
Advertisements

26 Responses to Protective Parent Attorneys Added to Tsimhoni Trial

  1. Margo/Mom says:

    Yes, it indeed looks like it’s going to be a real circus. According to the court website there has been a ruling on the Next Friend request by the maternal grandmother to provide attorneys for the children. But I don’t know if it was granted or turtned down. There is an amusing subtext to some of the comments on the various pro-mom pages indicating a belief that he who has the most attorneys wins. I don’t know if that is true–but it certainly drives costs up if one has a pro bono (supported by charitable contributions to Child Justice, of course) firm in their pocket with an ability to file motions needing response.

    Apparently O’Melveny&Meyers has a long association with Child Justice–on their FB page they cite several awards from Child Justice, going back a number of years.

    I agree that Mom has no intention of ever co-parenting. She is going for a win–which for her and her supporters clearly means no role whatsoever for Dad, with the possible exception of paying child support. Very sad that so many are willing to sign on to a scenario like that.

    • underwatch says:

      Margo, I agree with you that the mom and her supporters want to write the dad out of the children’s lives. This seems to be a tactic among protective moms and their supporters. I think many protective moms are myopic narcissists. They may even suffer from some form of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. In many of these cases as the evidence is unveiled, it is concluded that the real “abuser” is the protective mom. That said, the Family Court Trial will be less about the welfare of these teenage children and more about the Protective Parent / Family Court Critic Groups promoting their cause.

  2. Margo/Mom says:

    Here is an interview conducted by Dorcy Pruter, who has worked with this family. There have been a lot of attempts to discredit her. And it is true that she is not a therapist. However, she come across here as being both knowledgeable and empathetic–in contrast to the image of her as carrying out some sort of brutal “reprogramming” regimen:

  3. Margo/Mom says:

    According to posted documents in Oakland Country the Next Friend request was turned down (haven’t been able to access the actual document yet). I see this as a good thing (and I am very curious about the rationale used by the Judge in denying the request)–not only because there already seem to be lawyers aplenty lining up, but also because included in the rationale for making the request to hire attorneys for the children was in anticipation of them being called to testify.

    Personally I am opposed, in principle, to having children testify for or against parents, alienated or not. It puts them into a totally unfair position of having to side with one parent against the other. Not only does that come incredibly close to the very definition of alienation used by various therapists, but no kid needs to spend the rest of their life sorting out that THEY were NOT the cause of their parents inability to get along with one another.

    There are some puzzling references in some of the filings–having to do with experts who will or will not be called. If Mom’s attorneys intend (as they do) to go through with a Daubert hearing on the admissibility of any reference to alienation–I cannot imagine Dad’s attorney’s not calling expert witnesses in support. What I would suppose Dad is opposed to is calling any witness–expert or otherwise–who might lead to Mom bringing in the kids to refute anything (thinking about anyone who has worked with the kids) they have said about the kids. I am certain that there are some who will point to this and say he doesn’t want them to have their say (“listen to the kids.”). I would suggest that this is what a truly “protective” and responsible parent does.

    • underwatch says:

      In previous protective parent Family Court Trials, the protective parent attorneys will try and get the court to allow video depositions of the children. These attorneys will ask very leading questions to the children. Many protective parent attorneys know they can get a child to say just about anything in a deposition. If the children already have a GAL, why wouldn’t that be sufficient. I hope this judge maintains control of the trial.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        Judge Young does seem to be dedicated to keeping things very orderly. Made a point earlier that everything needed to be on the record (as opposed to out of court agreements arrived at and presented before the judge). She was also pretty clear that she didn’t intend to accept any filings in which the parties were disrespectful of one other or officers of the court (including the GAL).

        One additional advantage–Judge Young is slated to retire. This being something of her last hurrah means she has little to fear from some of the organized busybodies who have launched overt attacks on the careers of various players–Judge Gorcyca, Dorcy Pruter, the GAL and several counselors and therapists who have had contact with the children. There was at one point a motion to disqualify the GAL, but I believe that was dropped.

  4. Is your position any other abuse against a child is okay and a parent should still be around the child except for those who choose to protect their child whether it be a Mother or a Father? Let me guess if it was a Father that took off with his kid or seeked media attentiont to protect his child from an abusive Mother, you’d be okay with it and then want the children’s voices heard.

    • underwatch says:

      Amy, why not leave child abuse allegations to Child Protective Services and the Juvenile Courts? The Domestic Violence Community has played the Abuser card for too long in Family Court. You absolutely love calling men abusers using the stereotype that family violence may not be a two-way-street. In the same regard, it would be myopic to accuse a women of being a child killer because she is a women like Susan Smith. Michelle Wolferts has dedicated her life to trying to write her former spouse out of her children’s lives. The only good thing is that in several years when the girls turn 18, her quest should be over. Why not start de-escalating things now, for the benefit of her daughters.

      • Lorrie says:

        Omer Tsimhoni IS a substanciated abuser. (CPS who you would like to leave it up to says so.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        Lorrie–and yet CPS has NEVER recommended that this father be written out of his children’s lives. Nor have they recommended supervised visitation–that recommendation came from the GAL who says he was concerned about a proliferation of (false) reports. In fact the CPS case to which you refer was closed YEARS ago. And despite multiple more recent attempts to involve CPS, there don’t appear to be any further findings and certainly no actions.

        While I can only conjecture on the current court order regarding mediation, based on Dad and his counsel’s willingness in the past to back down where they could have pursued action (in the face of Mom’s refusal to cooperate with visitation orders), it is my belief that it is Dad who is willing to have another go at working something out. Not only does he have the life experience of being shut-out of the children’s lives and cause for empathy, but I do believe that he also is acting on sensitivity to what the children must be feeling. The oldest, who I understand to be a particularly sensitive young man, certainly cannot enjoy the publicity regarding his family. Adolescents typically don’t like to be associated with family on a good day. Having your friends read about what counselors say about you in the newspaper must truly be agonizing.

      • lilly says:

        If Michigan CPS is so stellar at their jobs, why is there an order against which is still under an injunction?

        http://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/michigan/

      • Margo/Mom says:

        Lily–it seems that you and others are advocating is to just chuck it all, throw out any and all civilized and legal attempts to protect children and let mothers just universally be assumed to be in the right.

  5. Lorrie says:

    It’s clear that Omer Tsimhoni does not want to co-parent. He has kept the children from their mother and continually broken court orders. He got away with it when the tyrant, Judge Gorcyca was on the case. Now that there is a judge who follows the law, the kids will likely be returned to their loving mother.

  6. Margo/Mom says:

    Well, the first subpoenas are out. Thinking about what Protective Parents as a group have to gain from this particular involvement, it would seem as though they are gunning for Dorcy Pruter. They are casting an incredibly broad net–requesting any and all documentation of communication for several years not only with/about this family but a long list of others. Presumably two reasons. First, of course because she is such an easy mark, as an independent contractor, not affiliated with any larger protective associations–as would be therapists, docs, etc. And then one has to wonder if it is because she apparently gets some results–and they must truly regard this as a threat.

    The Mom supporters who claim to be operating wholly independent of Mom and her legal team (hence cannot be gagged by the court), have been buzzing for months making a lot of claims about forced torture, children locked away in strange hotel rooms with “a high school graduate” and on and on. Hard to tell, in terms of this case, what is to be gained in the current deep-sea fishing expedition via subpoena. But, in terms of national strategy, it would seem to make sense to paper her to death (or to bankruptcy). Looks like they are going after a nanny as well with the same overkill about any and all communication with lots of people who may or may not be relevant. Begins to look, to me, like harassment.

    • wolftertscase says:

      Yep!! Dorcy and Family Bridges are going down. And so sad you won’t get to see Childress up against Silberg. He can’t pass the first process cause he ISN’T an expert. And PA/PAS has no scientific evidence. The Nanny started working for Omer when Ben was born. Have you seen her behavior on social media? Would you not want all that has happened in the 9 months you didn’t see your children? It is called discovery and a trial. Due process is finally happening now that they have a real Judge. Funny how the 90 day ex parte motion was wrong just like we all said it was. Just read an article how Gorgyga is wanting her due process. That is so funny. Looks like everything you have fought for margo has been proven to be wrong. This case and the Wolferts is about to blow 22 years of fake science out of the courts. Dorcy was their face. Unfortunately Warshak and Rands deny her. Who knows who is telling the truth. Time will tell. Sorry you dual isn’t going to happen. Childress can keep ranting about flying monkeys and repeating himself. I about died laughing at Middleditch’s exhibit…..um click more. Wait aren’t you related to her?

      • underwatch says:

        It sounds like Joyanna Silberg has her critics out there. Her name appeared on the list at other protective parent trials. In past trials, the expert witness testimony usually does not reveal any new blockbuster fact about the case.

        https://underwatch.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/expert-witness-in-genevieve-kelley-trial-joyanna-silberg/

      • Margo/Mom says:

        Talk about people “going down” is sadly typical of the bullying attitude of folks who have organized to separate these children from their father. Bully the judge, bully the interventionists and counselors, the GAL, attorneys, social workers and anyone who dares to challenge that goal.

        You may choose to call it fake science, but the behavior exhibited by these children was clearly clinical in a number of observed instances–affirmed by the observation of an array of evaluators.

        Apparently wolfertscase is a friend of the mom’s in order to claim an inside track on who served as nanny to the kids’ step-brother. But I believe that the person being subpoenaed was head of the nanny referral agency. Based on their website it would appear that a nanny was sought exclusively for the older children–so perhaps the info about the other nanny is not quite pertinent.

        I’m not an attorney, so I don’t know much about the overall workings of the court. But, I had thought that the issue before the court in June was Dad’s request for full custody based on Mom’s unfitness. As a non-attorney, I would expect the hearings to center on that. Perhaps some attorney-types could respond here. It looks like Mom’s side is geared up to side-step the issue of her own fitness and launch a full-on attack at Dad, instead. Is that usual? Permissible?

      • underwatch says:

        Yes, I too thought the comment about people going down was sophomoric. In following many of these cases that do go to trial, the expert witness testimony is less relevant than testimony of the protective mom. These moms like Maya want to tell their story and want to take the witness stand. The experts usually know very little or have no first hand knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case. In some of the Family Abduction Trials, the testimony of the emotional impact of the abduction on the children was more relevant since experts rarely testify on that subject.

  7. Margo/Mom says:

    In the examples that we have to date, Maya does not do well as a witness. Tends to ramble, evades direct questions, maybe even invents things. In the most recent example she claimed that the GAL had terrified the children by telling them that they were responsible for their grandfather’s death. Similar evasiveness has been noted in reports by several evaluators.

    I am not a diagnostician, but my lay observation is that the woman has an incredibly difficult time accepting responsibility for anything. Seems to be terrified, off the charts, of any suggested imperfection. Reading through emails with the parenting supervisor and GAL that have been put into evidence she seems to have a very strong need to control every single detail of the children’s interaction with their father. All couched in this sort of Mommy knows best kind of advice-giving.

    However, as the GAL noted (in exasperation), none of it has ever been successful. What all of the bending to Mom’s will/suggestions has done over time is to (as noted by one of the earliest evaluators) leave no available role for Dad. There is a rather poignant description of delivering the kids to a bowling alley (“they like bowling”), where the kids went into their predictable refusal to engage. Mom stayed and bowled with Dad (“look kids, see? this is fun?”), while the kids continued their thing–until the “visitation” was declared over and they left with Mom. How much better it might have been had Mom just left. Dad might have sat down with the kids and had a conversation about what they might rather do. Or maybe he would have just sat with them, or told them stories about his life or their grandparents, or what he had seen that day. In any case–it would have been HIS problem to solve, with the kids. Imagine if he was actually the person who was to give them a ride home (instead of the careful structure to ensure that they never have to get in a car with dad)–and they had to make a choice to let him drive them home or stay there until the cows came home.

  8. Margo/Mom says:

    According to court records, the parents arrived at a parenting time agreement through mediation, and requested that it be sealed to protect the children’s privacy. This would appear to be a very good thing–especially for the children. The seal, however, has not prevented the mom-specific advocacy groups from declaring victory and claiming to know that primary custody went to Mom. The Child Justice attorneys are cited as the source of info. One commenter noted that primary custody does not preclude 50/50 sharing–which has been the most recent situation. I would imagine that to be the case, and hope for some ongoing counseling.

    • underwatch says:

      1. This is the best possible outcome for this case for “the best interests of the children. It appears as if the parents have agreed to coparent.
      2. This high conflict custody case was at an impasse and the only way to encourage mom to the negotiating table was to remove the kids from her. What Judge G did by removing the contact with the mother to force her to negotiate has been done in other cases. And Family Court Judge Y was able to get the parents to reach an agreement.
      3. The winner here is the kids and the Family Court System. I would think the father can go on with his career, provide for his children and move his life forward with new wife. I would hope the mother and her supporters would do the same.
      4. I would think in the parenting agreement there are consequences to mom for leaking information to these advocacy groups and violating any of the conditions of the court order. I would think the judge has a plan for enforcing the gag order. These custody orders should have been sealed a very long time ago and it’s about time they were officially sealed in this new era of trying cases on the Internet.
      5. To those Family Court Critics – the end result of this case appears to contradict the rhetoric that the Family Court System does not work.
      6. If a individual or attorney is now caught disclosing sealed records, the court now has a path to prosecute those individuals.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        I wonder–can the Michigan Court’s jurisdiction reach as far as the out-of-state pro bono attorneys?

      • underwatch says:

        I have heard complaints filed against pro hac vice admitted attorneys. If anything, these attorneys would not be allowed to practice in that State again. I thought in almost all custody cases, both parties would agree to seal the records. I always found it odd in this case that there was so much of this case was online. I have seen courts takes precautions to ensure documents are sealed such as stamping them in a certain way. Again, it is hopeful that Judge Y has a plan to ensure the privacy of this case. These children and their father deserve to move on with their lives in a private manner. It will be up to the mother to prove she agrees with this.

      • You mean the girls and their MOM deserve to move on with their lives in a private manner? Thank GOD the reality of the situation and the inept “deprogrammers” Pruter et al were forced into an exposé that resulted in the right thing which was a settlement for the children to go back to their mom. Can’t wait to get more details on her mind altering tactics she attempted on these poor kids trying to force them back to their abuser.

      • underwatch says:

        It’s been said that one of the most horrific forms of Family Violence against a child is a parental kidnapping. In these case, the “real abuser” is the parental kidnapper. These proclaimed protective parent kidnappers never exhaust their legal remedies. They play judge, jury and executioner. The criminal courts are finally prosecuting them and sending to prison for their criminal acts of civil disobedience. It is unfortunate that the members of the protective parent cause does not have the intellect to understand the benefits of coparenting in the “best interests of the child”.

        The Family Abduction Community would like to see Michelle Wolferts be sentenced to prison. We would like to see other charges levied against her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: