Found Safe UT - Sydney, 15, & Danielle Wolferts, 14, Orem, July 2014

New Posts

Margo/Mom said:
Apparently there has been a ruling that the girls will return to their father in Kansas. Although from the article it would appear as though there may still be some live issues?

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...cle_a1b404ee-bf85-5695-9b3e-80eec6c9e6f8.html
Click to expand...

I read this article and the read the actual court document. It appears to me that they are still saying that Mom has abused these girls. It is not as one sided as this article makes it out to be. Also, if the oldest daughter actually had years of abuse recorded as she had claimed, I do not think that the girls would so easily have been "handed" back over to the dad. JMVHO
 
cocomod said:
I read this article and the read the actual court document. It appears to me that they are still saying that Mom has abused these girls. It is not as one sided as this article makes it out to be. Also, if the oldest daughter actually had years of abuse recorded as she had claimed, I do not think that the girls would so easily have been "handed" back over to the dad. JMVHO
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe it was a quote from the oldest daughter who said that there were emotional abuse findings "against" both parents. Considering her as the filter, this could mean a lot of things. Apparently accusations of physical and sexual abuse by Dad have been determined to be false. When it comes to emotional abuse (and I don't know if "abuse" was even the terminology used in the report) we could be looking at Mom's involvement in abduction and so forth--including involving the girls in making false allegations on the one hand and Dad maybe yelling at the girls in anger at some point on the other.

I'm not at all impressed by the older daughter's involvement and "concern"--particularly her latest revelation of "tapes" proving abuse????? Really?

The minor children are clearly going to need some major support/counseling at this point. And the older daughter, well, I can only hope that she eventually finds her way to some form of help.
 
The father filed a motion to limine using Linda Gottlieb's Amicus Brief to silence the girls. They mother was found for emotional abuse because she didn't encourage the girls to return. The father was found emotional abusive for the harsh environment which they lived in with him. There was not enough evidence for the sexual abuse. They Gal wanted the girls to testify. Dad stopped it. He has now been found guilty of 2 substantiated abuse cases. The first one he admitted to punching the mother and pushing her down the stairs when she she was 8 months pregnant. The girls have been sent to Dorcy Pruter. The dad is trying to silence everyone in this case. It's horrible.
 
The dad waited to file the ICJ until March. In February 2016, two very important rules changed. One was 6-105 which doesn't allow the ICJ to hold the girls for abuse. The other was 6-103(2)(b)(4) which allows the best interest of the child. He knew this would change and he used it to make sure they would have no jurisdiction. The day they were taken at 557am, dad went to another court and filed an ex parte motion for a tro. Off the the hotel with Dorcy they went. The Gal didn't know. She called Kansas CPS and they were not aware of the Utah findings. There is now an open cps case in Kansas.
 
Sky9333 said:
The dad waited to file the ICJ until March. In February 2016, two very important rules changed. One was 6-105 which doesn't allow the ICJ to hold the girls for abuse. The other was 6-103(2)(b)(4) which allows the best interest of the child. He knew this would change and he used it to make sure they would have no jurisdiction. The day they were taken at 557am, dad went to another court and filed an ex parte motion for a tro. Off the the hotel with Dorcy they went. The Gal didn't know. She called Kansas CPS and they were not aware of the Utah findings. There is now an open cps case in Kansas.
Click to expand...

Links?

Documentation?
 
Sky9333 said:
http://wolfertssisters.blogspot.com/?m=1

The blog has a document tab.
Click to expand...

I have read a lot of the court documents. Everything I read from the actual court and the original GAL says that abuse allegations were not proven. The allegation that she was pushed down when she was pregnant was only a statement from someone involved with the mom. It was never proven in court. She originally had custody, but she lost custody when the GAL said that SHE was alienating the children from the father. She was not following court orders.

The new court documents state that both mom and dad are guilty of emotional abuse (likely alienation), but the courts are siding with dad. I have an emotionally abusive ex-husband, so I wouldn't easily jump to this guys defense. But, I do not think it is right that the mom took matters in to her own hands when the courts and the GAL continue to side with him. The GAL is supposed to look out for the best interests of the girls. I just don't believe the oldest daughter's claims when every single time the courts have dismissed the abuse claims against him. Instead the courts have again and again reprimanded mom for alienation and coaching the girls to say that their dad is terrible.

I honestly don't think he is a choir boy, but I have a really hard time believing the all of these claims against him.
 
I have read the transcript along with 350 pages of documents that Michelle has shared with me. The 2005 case was substantiated. And he did admit to punching Michelle. The Roby report is real. If you want to go with the DCFS report that was released on the 18th. Michelle was found for emotional abuse because she didn't encourage/ force them to return. They lived in federal domestic violence shelters. They have court on the 13th for the tro. This is a domestic violence case. This is far from abuse by proxy.
 
cocomod said:
I have read a lot of the court documents. Everything I read from the actual court and the original GAL says that abuse allegations were not proven. The allegation that she was pushed down when she was pregnant was only a statement from someone involved with the mom. It was never proven in court. She originally had custody, but she lost custody when the GAL said that SHE was alienating the children from the father. She was not following court orders.

The new court documents state that both mom and dad are guilty of emotional abuse (likely alienation), but the courts are siding with dad. I have an emotionally abusive ex-husband, so I wouldn't easily jump to this guys defense. But, I do not think it is right that the mom took matters in to her own hands when the courts and the GAL continue to side with him. The GAL is supposed to look out for the best interests of the girls. I just don't believe the oldest daughter's claims when every single time the courts have dismissed the abuse claims against him. Instead the courts have again and again reprimanded mom for alienation and coaching the girls to say that their dad is terrible.

I honestly don't think he is a choir boy, but I have a really hard time believing the all of these claims against him.
Click to expand...

The Gal actually fought for the girls to testify. She said they were in immanent danger. Dcfs asked for an additional 30 days to finish the case. The ICJ rule 6-105 would not allow the girls to stay longer. The Gal even prepared them to testify. The dad filed a motion to limine by Linda Gottlieb's Amicus Brief and silenced them yet again.
 
Sky9333 said:
The Gal actually fought for the girls to testify. She said they were in immanent danger. Dcfs asked for an additional 30 days to finish the case. The ICJ rule 6-105 would not allow the girls to stay longer. The Gal even prepared them to testify. The dad filed a motion to limine by Linda Gottlieb's Amicus Brief and silenced them yet again.
Click to expand...

I should also mention, the petition for abuse has never been heard in court. It was also just ruled that it wouldn't be heard because of jurisdiction.
 
I am not an attorney, but I would imagine that if the issue was jurisdiction, Utah's ruling would not preclude Kansas from hearing it--if there is supportive evidence.
 
Margo/Mom said:
I am not an attorney, but I would imagine that if the issue was jurisdiction, Utah's ruling would not preclude Kansas from hearing it--if there is supportive evidence.
Click to expand...

The problem is dad has filed an ex parte motion for a TRO in Utah district court. That hearing is set for the 13th. There is evidence to support it. I personally think Utah doesn't want to touch this case. They have made so many mistakes. I worry about Kansas because they do not do preponderance of evidence. But since there are recordings that validate the emotional abuse, it should help there. As far as I know they opened a case in Kansas now. Unfortunately dad will not disclose where the girls are. We know that Dorcy Pruter got them. We should know more after the 13th.

For what it's worth margo/mom, I appreciate your interest in this case. I ask that you don't allow this thread to be shut down like the tsimhoni one was. These girls are dear to my heart. Their lives are truly in danger. I am working on a google drive for the public to see the documents.
 
Sky9333 said:
The problem is dad has filed an ex parte motion for a TRO in Utah district court. That hearing is set for the 13th. There is evidence to support it. I personally think Utah doesn't want to touch this case. They have made so many mistakes. I worry about Kansas because they do not do preponderance of evidence. But since there are recordings that validate the emotional abuse, it should help there. As far as I know they opened a case in Kansas now. Unfortunately dad will not disclose where the girls are. We know that Dorcy Pruter got them. We should know more after the 13th.

For what it's worth margo/mom, I appreciate your interest in this case. I ask that you don't allow this thread to be shut down like the tsimhoni one was. These girls are dear to my heart. Their lives are truly in danger. I am working on a google drive for the public to see the documents.
Click to expand...

Tro against whom? If mom seems justified.

I did not shut down the Tsimhoni thread--directly or indirectly.
 
Update, hearing in Utah.

http://fox13now.com/2016/05/05/rall...s-hearing-regarding-wolferts-sisters-unfolds/

Unclear exactly what was considered or decided, given that the earlier decision reflected that jurisdiction rested in Kansas. Personally find the older sister's representations just a tad creepy. It's as if she thinks she is channeling the two sisters who ran away. Talks about how "we" want a relationship with Dad, but want it "on our own terms." This lady is an adult. No one is setting any parameters on how she handles her relationship with either parent. Beyond that, not certain how she comes to be speaking to a court in Utah about what her sisters, in Kansas, want in terms of a relationship with their father.


http://fox13now.com/2016/05/05/rall...s-hearing-regarding-wolferts-sisters-unfolds/
 
The GAL agreed that there had been abuse? First--not the GAL's role to make that call. GAL seemed to lean hard on her belief that nobody had yet listened to the girls. Not sure if that's true--given that there have already been multiple investigations--all closed. She was dutiful, it would seem, in recounting what the girls told her--which seemed to speak to a belief that there is some sort of evaluation, which if properly performed in a "neutral" setting by the right person that would reveal "the truth" to the world. Not surprising that some adolescents might believe this. Disturbing that there were adults who played along. The special master at long last managed to pin down some details about what they needed this miracle evaluator to do. Apparently they are looking for likelihood of impacts of alienation or (other) emotional abuse.

The judge was quite clear--in the absence of a CPS recommendation of imminent harm (and there has been none), she was not going to remove these girls from the custody of their father.
 
Margo/Mom said:
The GAL agreed that there had been abuse? First--not the GAL's role to make that call. GAL seemed to lean hard on her belief that nobody had yet listened to the girls. Not sure if that's true--given that there have already been multiple investigations--all closed. She was dutiful, it would seem, in recounting what the girls told her--which seemed to speak to a belief that there is some sort of evaluation, which if properly performed in a "neutral" setting by the right person that would reveal "the truth" to the world. Not surprising that some adolescents might believe this. Disturbing that there were adults who played along. The special master at long last managed to pin down some details about what they needed this miracle evaluator to do. Apparently they are looking for likelihood of impacts of alienation or (other) emotional abuse.

The judge was quite clear--in the absence of a CPS recommendation of imminent harm (and there has been none), she was not going to remove these girls from the custody of their father.
Click to expand...

The Gal was in juvenile court. Judge Johnson had never seen the dcfs findings when she signed the tro for Dorcy's threat protocol.

The girls said they were counting on repercussions for speaking to the GAL. They were still in the high road to reunification even after they had been ordered out. The petition of abuse is and will be heard. You can't leave a home state jurisdiction for custody and take away the juvenile jurisdiction. That is ridiculous. On top of that you cant be found guilty of abuse and the say the other parent was alienation. Even if you believe in pa. I have said thia to you before and I will say it again. This is not a case of he said she said. Brian admitted to domestic violence. His words. Not some finding. That would be considered founded in Kansas.

Good think Judge Gorcyca is in trouble. Interesting how quite Dorcy has been.
 
And fyi...the abuse was from their journals and statements before they ran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 136 more.
Total: 4,041 (members: 137, guests: 3,904)

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
3,904
Total visitors
4,041
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,566
Messages
17,971,112
Members
228,818
Latest member
TheMidge
Back
Top