Breaking: The Detroit Free Press Gets It Right About Judge Gorcya

Finally, a Columnist for the Detroit Free Press, Brian Dickerson is the first member of the media to correctly understand what went on this week with the Paul Fisher and Margaret Rynier of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission and their hearings against Judge Lisa Gorcyca with the Tsimoni Custody Case.

In the two days of hearings, Dickerson has been able to navigate his way through the political and personal agendas of what he is calling the Tsimhoni custody fire. He is also one of the first reporters to inject Lisa Gorcyca’s husband, the former Oakland County prosecutor into this story.

[Read More]

Source:

Judicial ethics cops pour gas on Tsimhoni custody fire by Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press Columnist 6/3/2016

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to Breaking: The Detroit Free Press Gets It Right About Judge Gorcya

  1. Margo/Mom says:

    Dickerson’s recent coverage has been excellent. I also note a growing number of attorneys speaking out. Examiner Fischer has several recent strikes against him. And there is some reasonable pushback against potential mission creep on the part of the JTC in the form of second guessing court findings–rather than using the appeals process of the courts.

    It has been my observation that while some of the pro-Mom base (Shawna Shakespeare for instance, who runs one of the FB groups) ate from out of state, there also seems to be a local core operating akin to a Bloomfield Hills mean girls alumni club on steroids. It seems likely that some of these folks have contact with Mom and are responsible for some clandestine communication with the kids.

    It is also these folks who authored the complaint to the JTC and organized letter-writing in support. I don’t know if they had any additional influence. Nor do I know if they had any notion of the hornets nest they were likely to be stirring in the legal community–which apparently already has issues with Fischer.

  2. Margo/Mom says:

    A Daubert hearing (on the admissibility of testimony/evidence regarding alienation–based on whether the expert opinion is generally accepted within their community of expertise) will be held on Friday.

    Apparently Dad’s counsel does not intend to call such witnesses as a major portion of his case–but wants to reserve the right to call them as rebuttal witnesses.

    Quite certain there will be a lot of interest in this.

    The motion as filed and amended strikes me as circuitous and overbroad. It seeks to ban not only experts who may offer support for the notion that the children have been alienated, but also counselors who have met with/evaluated/treated the children simply because they have associations with groups who are concerned about alienation (so-called “fathers’ groups”).

    • underwatch says:

      Hi Margo, we have seen these rebuttal expert witnesses in most of the Family Abduction Criminal trials. Usually the expert testifies in the rebuttal phase as to the emotional abuse of the Family Abduction on the children. I don’t recollect any witnesses being disqualified in the Daubert phase. There are often witnesses put on the list and there is no intention to call them. The debate over alienation or the emotional impact of the children on the divorce is certainly an relevant issue for this Family Law Hearing. The anti-Parental Alienation Syndrome groups tend to have their spin on this issue that seem to be more self promotion for the experts testifying. It’s difficult to comprehend how any Family Law Attorney or Child Professional would try and argue in this era of Family Court and Coparenting that it’s not possible for a parent to alienate their children against the other parent.

      The mother’s lawyers will use the Network of Family Court Critic Experts. This is the part of these trials that is disturbing. These experts will say just about anything in their testimony. They can be viewed as extremists and don’t necessarily believe in joint custody and coparenting.

      In one criminal trial, the District Attorney did not call any rebuttal witnesses and that ended up to be unfavorable.

  3. Margo/Mom says:

    There has been considerable effort to spin PAS through the media, labeling it as controversial, debunked, etc. And of course the radical lines (Gardner was a pedophile, PAS was invented by abusers to cover their abuse and use the courts to engage in abuse by proxy, etc). Fortunately custody is not decided by juries or these PR efforts would have a much greater impact.

    Biggest weakness I see in the filing from Mom’s counsel is that it doesn’t cite (from the literature) anything newer than 7 years–and most considerably older than that. Typically literature reviews are required to focus on a timeframe inclusive of the most recent 10, if not 5 years.

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: