MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015

[Margo/Mom]

I'm a family law attorney and well aware of the law. International kidnapping is a criminal issue in the United States. The FBI is involved in law enforcement. Civil remedies are also involved in international kidnapping cases and the FBI is not involved in those except they will give information and support. https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac/family-abductions

An analogy to what you're saying would be that the police department does not get involved in a murder charge because people are sometimes able to file wrongful death lawsuits or pursue other civil remedies stemming from a homicide. That doesn't make sense.



Its also interesting that anyone would call a parent who continues to fight in court for the right to be in his kids' lives, and who moves back from the country the parents are from and that the whole family lived in, giving up his new position to be closer to his kids in the process, has "abandoned" them.

Also, many people get remarried or create additional children after a divorce. Are they all abandoners?

Sometimes I wonder if people's own personal hatreds or unresolved traumas cloud their ability to apply logic when analyzing these cases.

BBM

I agree. I see folks lining up accordance to Mom's pathologies (zero sum game: either love me or love your father), as well as in opposition. But the overall playing field seems to divide primarily into two opposing teams.

While some of this is perceptual (as there are some folks who are not cheerleaders for either Mom or Dad), I am also seeing a lot of unresolved pain from personal experiences. In various posts (primarily elsewhere), I see a lot of people referring to their own losses, blaming an evil ex-spouse and a biased or corrupt court and CPS system. I saw the same thing in the Stanley case--which served as a magnet for others who had suffered the pain of having children removed. When I see the Dad in this case referred to as scum, having abandoned his children, an abuser or a batterer, it is clear to me that while there may be some evidence indicating imperfect parenting, there is also a lot of baggage being laid at his feet that do not appear to be supported in the record.

Likewise, I am aware that father's rights support groups have in fact tended to draw in or include some fathers caught in their own cycle of denial with regard to their own actions. Still, I would be cautious of categorizing them as nothing more than havens for pedophiles and abusers (as in fact some have).

End of the day, I remain committed to the belief that courts are really bad at parenting. Adults who choose to sever their relationship would be well advised to got the extra mile whenever possible to arrive at parenting decisions OUTSIDE of court. Even knowing that this is not always possible or realistic. But the reality is that judges do not go out recruiting families. Families bring their conflicts to the court for resolution. And courts then do their best to wade through the claims and whatever evidence is available in order to make decisions regarding how children will be impacted. And by their nature, courts end up choosing between options in such a way that one parent is likely to perceive loss while the other is more likely to perceive success (or both will end up dissatisfied).

Again--the only way around this that I can see is to keep your family business out of court.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Let me re-phrase my point. The children are only being disrespectful because they are strongly against seeing their father, not because of any disrespect for the court or the judge. If the judge is taking this personally, I do think she is getting too emotionally involved. The children are not incorrigible, just not fond of their father. IMO.

Sorry, that doesn't wash.

The children have a parent with physical custody who was ordered to bring them into court. Either she allowed/encouraged their courtroom misbehavior, or she lacks the ability to see that they behave properly in the presence of an authority. In the first case her behavior clearly indicates alienation, in the second their behavior meets the definition of unruliness. Who is driving this boat? Mom or the kids?

 

[MyBelle]

It's so important for her to have a relationship with a father that she hardly knows that she should be taken away from the mother who has taken care of her every day of her life? Thats cold.

Yep, parental rights are important in the U.S. That's reality. The mother doesn't get to decide. If the mother thinks it is cold, I can't imagine what she thinks the temp in the jail will be if the Judge decides to hold her in contempt.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

It's so important for her to have a relationship with a father that she hardly knows that she should be taken away from the mother who has taken care of her every day of her life? Thats cold.

I am an adoptive parent. Neither of my children has any memory of their biological families of origin. This, however, does not erase the importance of those persons to their development and sense of self. For both of my children there were powerful reasons why their bio-moms could not raise them. This does not mean, however, that my children have never perceived that trauma as loss and abandonment. And children do not effectively place responsibility of a missing (or even abusive) parent. That tends to be turned inward.

Severing a parental relationship should never be taken lightly. And you seem to be advocating that the relationship be severed in this case owing solely to the fact that she was young and probably doesn't remember him anyway. If that were the case, anyway, then to what do you attribute the supposed fear of her father?

The behavior I see these children exhibiting is not one of fear or inconvenience. I see them carrying a lot of pain--and I would attribute that pain to them being placed in a situation demanding loyalty to one parent at the expense of the other. This is not only unfair to them in the short term, it is damaging in the long term.

 

[Margo/Mom]

This father accepted a job in another country, even though his wife apparently didn't want to return to Israel. If one has wife and 3 kids, it might be a good idea to make sure wife is on board when taking a job that involves relocation to another country. And yet we are supposed to believe that it's all his wife fault he is alienated? As I understand it, he was remarried in Israel and had another child. Where is his second wife and child? Is she in Israel, considering the father says he moved back to US? I am sure he wouldn't want his fourth child to be alienated, so is that child in the same country as father is?

Maybe.

I am not willing to go back and place blame for the divorce on one party or the other--not my business, and generally things aren't that clear. According to the Hague documents, Dad claims Mom had an affair. So perhaps one of the motivations for accepting the position and wanting to move the family (in addition to the benefits he saw of providing and international experience to the children growing up and having access to extended family on both sides) was to foster a fresh start with mom. I am just offering this up as another explanation for the same fact pattern. The reality is that the marriage failed--and marriages involve two adults. Punishing the children for that failure by creating a tug of war between parents is simply wrong.

And in fact, the divorce decree sought to ensure that this did not happen by outlining a dual-custody arrangement that spelled out specific roles and responsibilities. At the time of the divorce these children were about 4,5 and 8 or 9. Over the course of 5 years there have been repeated issues all surrounding the father's access to the children and his ability to participate in decisions surrounding their lives. And the reality is that Mom is the gatekeeper--these things, for better or worse, have been in her control. Her attempts to place responsibility for the denial of access on the children is reprehensible. We do not give children (or at least most of us don't) a choice in whether or not to obey reasonable demands/rules etc set in place by their parents. We don't give them the option of going to school, or going to the dentist--even though these things may at times be uncomfortable for them or they may be afraid. Most families don't re-arrange parental schedules because their children decide they don't want to spend time with the babysitter.

What I see operating here is a throw the rock and hide your hand strategy on the part of the Mom. She prefers that the kids don't see Dad--and somehow they manage to carry the responsibility for making that choice for them.

This, folks, is alienation in operation.

 

[gitana1]

Susan Powell case, where mother went "missing" yet father was allowed visitations and killed himself and his kids during one such visit? I am not following what that has to do with parental alienation syndrome. Who alienated who in that case?

It has nothing to do with parental alienation syndrome, which is a concept. But it has everything to with parental alienation - which is a set of behaviors.

Steve Powell, Josh's dad, was taken by his mother to another state when she decided to separate, when she made a "unilateral and secretive decision" to take the kids form their father. Later, he and his siblings were found or the mother brought them back, I can't recall which, and then he and his siblings were kidnapped by his father, who made a "unilateral and secretive decision", and lived in secret with his paternal grandparents for several years. He was not allowed to talk about his mother. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-behavior-leaves-a-legacy-of-harm.html?pg=all

Steve Powell became a twisted human being with sexual obsessions about unattainable women and girls and addicted to *advertiser censored*.

When he and Josh Powell's mom divorced, he used intensive parental alienation and got custody of most of the kids - Josh included. Josh's mom did what so many here are proposing and just went away and gave up trying to force her kids to have a relationship with her. We saw how well that whole thing worked out for josh powell, his wife and dead kids. He continued the parental alienation tactics learned over the generations and began trying to alienate his kids from Susan while they were still married. And then of course, when she tried to leave, he killed her. And later, when Susan's parents got custody, he killed his kids too.

Parental alienation is about control and possession - not love.

 

[gitana1]

This father accepted a job in another country, even though his wife apparently didn't want to return to Israel. If one has wife and 3 kids, it might be a good idea to make sure wife is on board when taking a job that involves relocation to another country. And yet we are supposed to believe that it's all his wife fault he is alienated? As I understand it, he was remarried in Israel and had another child. Where is his second wife and child? Is she in Israel, considering the father says he moved back to US? I am sure he wouldn't want his fourth child to be alienated, so is that child in the same country as father is?

Many spouses have serious problems in their marriages regarding new jobs and moves. Sometimes there are separations or divorces as a result. That doesn't mean that the parent who moves or accepts the new job should have his parental rights terminated or be deemed an abandoner.

Based on the multiple minor's counsels, and mental health professionals who have evaluated the parents in this case, it is clear the mother is not a truthful and has abused her children with alienation tactics and false allegations.

The story notes that multiple mental-health professionals, kids’ lawyers and more noted that the mother had endangered the children’s interests. In an impassioned address to the court at Friday’s emergency hearing, the lawyer for the children said that the judge “…should find another placement for the children, but defended the court’s decision to separate them from their mother. They cannot go back to the mother.
What many media pundits fail to note is that every single person who has seen the kids – as well as the judge have said, “She dismissed Eibschitz-Tsimhoni’s allegations that her ex-husband had threatened his children, insisting that in 51/2 years, she had seen “no credible evidence that the father has ever done anything to harm them.” http://everything-pr.com/maya-tsimhoni-lawyer-nambla/258447/

So perhaps we should not take her version of events regarding the move to heart. We have no idea what conversations or agreements or arguments they had about it. Perhaps she totally agreed and approved the move until suddenly she did not, but it was too late - he had accepted the job, put the house up for sale, etc. We don't know. We do know that she eventually did move there with the kids.

 

[AliceInPain]

This is very common (imo) for women who are abused. Go with them, then when he does it again, make a decision to leave, go back because he's so convincing, he does it again, make another decision to leave... bla bla.
I have never been in that situation but my mother was and I could never understand why she didn't just leave.

eta:I was responding to someone and their quote disappeared! jjenny I think was the poster, sorry I don't know how to bring her post into mine.

 

[LinasK]

This is very common (imo) for women who are abused. Go with them, then when he does it again, make a decision to leave, go back because he's so convincing, he does it again, make another decision to leave... bla bla.
I have never been in that situation but my mother was and I could never understand why she didn't just leave.

eta:I was responding to someone and their quote disappeared! jjenny I think was the poster, sorry I don't know how to bring her post into mine.

Except that in this case, the wife was never abused. It is she who is emotionally abusing her children.

 

[BlueShoe]

Sorry, that doesn't wash.

The children have a parent with physical custody who was ordered to bring them into court. Either she allowed/encouraged their courtroom misbehavior, or she lacks the ability to see that they behave properly in the presence of an authority. In the first case her behavior clearly indicates alienation, in the second their behavior meets the definition of unruliness. Who is driving this boat? Mom or the kids?

I don't know enough about the situation to know who is driving the boat. All I know is that this seems to be a situation where the children are being punished because of problems their parents are having. I'm not a defender of the mom, by any means. I think these people may be like most--both parents are a mixture of good and bad qualities. I'm no expert, but I've had enough life experience with various divorce and custody battles to know that the judge may not always judge in the children's best interests. Perhaps this judge is attempting to. I'm not sure. As far as GAL's go, I've known some who are terrific and wonderful and others who are dismal failures. If the mom is putting the children up to their behavior, she should be the one punished, not they.
Simply my opinion.

 

[NSS]

After Susan went missing in 2009, Josh had uncontested custody of the boys. In fact, he moved them from Utah to Washington in order to be closer to his relatives. It was not until Susan's family was successful in obtaining custody and the court ordered visitation and a psychosexual assessment of Josh that the boys were murdered. Josh did everything in his power to keep the children from Susan's family for years.

Like many abusive personalities, his violence escalated when confronted with the loss of control - we see the same thing when domestic abuse victims pluck up the courage to leave their abusers...which may very well be why Susan went missing in the first place.

JMO

So if Susan Powell had kidnapped her children to escape Josh, she would be a criminal - under US law that would be child abuse.

Instead she is gone, the children are gone and dad is a criminal. Did the system that put Josh rights as a parent above the childrens rights to a safe place to live, by awarding him visitation, fail these children.

Maybe Susan was too afraid to 'escape' earlier because the FBI would have arrested her?

 

[LinasK]

So if Susan Powell had kidnapped her children to escape Josh, she would be a criminal - under US law that would be child abuse.

Instead she is gone, the children are gone and dad is a criminal. Did the system that put Josh rights as a parent above the childrens rights to a safe place to live, by awarding him visitation, fail these children.

Maybe Susan was too afraid to 'escape' earlier because the FBI would have arrested her?

But Susan didn't kidnap her children. She stayed in an abusive marriage because 1) she was a battered woman, and 2) she was a Mormon dedicated to making her marriage work. Why are we blaming the victim here??? Josh Powell committed murder x3/suicide. He killed her and disposed of her body in a mine shaft (on his "midnight camping trip" with his sons in the snow) before he killed his kids to keep his in-laws from getting custody. Josh Powell was the epitome of selfishness! Also, his visitations were to be supervised. When he killed them, he ran ahead and locked out the supervisor.

 

[gitana1]

So if Susan Powell had kidnapped her children to escape Josh, she would be a criminal - under US law that would be child abuse.

Instead she is gone, the children are gone and dad is a criminal. Did the system that put Josh rights as a parent above the childrens rights to a safe place to live, by awarding him visitation, fail these children.

Maybe Susan was too afraid to 'escape' earlier because the FBI would have arrested her?

It is legal to take ones kids and leave in the absence of court orders. But it is illegal to hide them from the other parent indefinitely without obtaining court orders. Susan Powell was not afraid to leave. She was actually afraid to stay. I read her emails and letters and a video she made. I think she was concerned about the ensuing legal battle though and I think her religious views made her really reluctant to give up on her marriage.

There is recourse for abused spouses. I represent them regularly and have never seen one, or any victim I've observed in court, act like these women or the kids. This is simply not typical behavior for victims of domestic violence. Not even close.
What abused women can do is leave and then get help from domestic violence organizations and shelters who will help her file for restraining orders and custody. To my knowledge this woman didn't start out with allegations of abuse. She started to claim he was abusive to her to gain more leverage and when that didn't work, she suddenly alleged her husband began abusing the kids during supervised visits. Which defies logic.

If one cannot see how nonsensical and irrational that is, that a man suddenly begins abusing his kids during litigation and at a supervised visit, I don't know what else I can say.

This is woman is defiant, ridiculously angry, irrational and super self destructive. The best she could do if she was credible is have a psychologist treat her kids because they are mandated reporters and it is a perfect venue for the kids to expose any abuse. But she has been stubbornly against any treatment or evaluations. Why? Because she knows it's nonsense and not one qualified expert has found the allegations to be credible thus far.

If Susan Powell had, as her parents and even bishop encouraged, stayed in Washington with her folks and her kids during many f her trips to see them, and started the legal process, she would've been able to secure orders for custody based on what everyone observed and knew. She would not have the FBI after her if she did that.

 

[gitana1]

So if Susan Powell had kidnapped her children to escape Josh, she would be a criminal - under US law that would be child abuse.

Instead she is gone, the children are gone and dad is a criminal. Did the system that put Josh rights as a parent above the childrens rights to a safe place to live, by awarding him visitation, fail these children.

Maybe Susan was too afraid to 'escape' earlier because the FBI would have arrested her?

Kidnapping would be if she took off, hid forever and never responded to subpoenas or summons. But leaving the state with ones kids before filing and lying low until you can start court proceedings safely, is not kidnapping.

The court didn't put the children's rights to a safe place to live below the dad's rights as a parent. They gave temporary custody to the grandparents which is unusual and gave him only supervised contact pending extensive and highly intrusive psychosocial testing. Very rare. They actually ordered he undergo tests involving putting something around his penis to see if child *advertiser censored* aroused him! They did the right thing although in retrospect, having visits in a secure facility or with an armed supervisor would have been better. But his visits were still super restrictive considering there were no allegations he ever harmed them.

But let's not get hysterical here. Josh Powell was the alienator. He was the one alleging abuse by Susan's parents. And his wife disappeared, was presumed dead and he was the prime suspect. In his case, the experts were worried about him as was the judge. In this case, multiple experts have found no evidence of abuse. Oh and the father here is not walking around with the taint of being the suspect in a murder.

A little perspective would be nice.

 

[MyBelle]

So if Susan Powell had kidnapped her children to escape Josh, she would be a criminal - under US law that would be child abuse.

Instead she is gone, the children are gone and dad is a criminal. Did the system that put Josh rights as a parent above the childrens rights to a safe place to live, by awarding him visitation, fail these children.

Maybe Susan was too afraid to 'escape' earlier because the FBI would have arrested her?

No, the FBI would not arrest Susan or any other victim of domestic violence from protecting their children. Billions of taxpayer dollars support a wide program of support services to aid such victims.

Victims of domestic violence are usually exempt from prosecution under federal parental abduction and child custody statutes if they remove the children in order to protect them. But, of course, they must eventually show actual proof of the threat of violence beyond accusations. False claims of domestic violence seriously clog the system and hamper the delivery of aid to real victims.

JMO

 

[lisalei321]

Can we please discuss this case and take the Powell's discussion to their thread?

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

 

[Margo/Mom]

It is legal to take ones kids and leave in the absence of court orders. But it is illegal to hide them from the other parent indefinitely without obtaining court orders. Susan Powell was not afraid to leave. She was actually afraid to stay. I read her emails and letters and a video she made. I think she was concerned about the ensuing legal battle though and I think her religious views made her really reluctant to give up on her marriage.

There is recourse for abused spouses. I represent them regularly and have never seen one, or any victim I've observed in court, act like these women or the kids. This is simply not typical behavior for victims of domestic violence. Not even close.
What abused women can do is leave and then get help from domestic violence organizations and shelters who will help her file for restraining orders and custody. To my knowledge this woman didn't start out with allegations of abuse. She started to claim he was abusive to her to gain more leverage and when that didn't work, she suddenly alleged her husband began abusing the kids during supervised visits. Which defies logic.

If one cannot see how nonsensical and irrational that is, that a man suddenly begins abusing his kids during litigation and at a supervised visit, I don't know what else I can say.

This is woman is defiant, ridiculously angry, irrational and super self destructive. The best she could do if she was credible is have a psychologist treat her kids because they are mandated reporters and it is a perfect venue for the kids to expose any abuse. But she has been stubbornly against any treatment or evaluations. Why? Because she knows it's nonsense and not one qualified expert has found the allegations to be credible thus far.
If Susan Powell had, as her parents and even bishop encouraged, stayed in Washington with her folks and her kids during many f her trips to see them, and started the legal process, she would've been able to secure orders for custody based on what everyone observed and knew. She would not have the FBI after her if she did that.

BBM

Thank you--that is an important insight.

 

[NSS]

Hi all,

Let me begin by saying I apologize for straying from the topic here and I will attempt to get back on track.

I just wanted to clarify a few things concerning family courts and custodial issues. I interjected after someone ELSE suggested she should have abducted her children. It was pointed out that the FBI would jail the mother. I was just trying to show that this is not often true. I just checked numbers for the past year and 100,00 children were abducted by a parent Internationally. (NCMEC stats when they hosted a Hague Convention meet in Texas in May). The FBI currently has 12 parents wanted for this crime and they date back as far as 1987.
All parents rely on laws and rules to prevent such things from happening to us. However the FBI is NOT your first port of call in a parental abduction if you want your child returned. If you want revenge/retribution against your partner, then go for it, track down the ex, have the ex extradited, and have the ex jailed for up to 6 years. Thats a lot of work and it won't guarantee you get to see your children. In fact, if you are, or later use the Hague Convention to return your child, Most countries will not order the return if it means the returning parent would be criminalized/jailed.

I am not advocating abduction, just sharing my personal story to highlight the fact that the oppositional stance of family courts in the US, work if you have a great lawyer and get to file first, but it works against you in many International abduction cases.

I was trying to add to the conversation in general.

Gitana is the expert here on US family law and I agree with most of what she is saying. I agree with everything she says about US law on paper.
The harsh reality though is, we don't live black and white lives, and sometimes the 'system' just doesn't work properly. The result is hurting our children. We need to look at those broken parts and see if we can fix them, our children will be safer and happier because of it.

In this particular case the reality of the situation is, these children have grown to fear and dislike their Dad, how that happened is being hotly discussed but the fact is, it has been allowed to happen. The time to switch custody was waaaay before now. There is a risk now (since 1 child is already a teen) that forcing them to see or visit with Dad will lead them to hate 'authority figures' too. I think that Dad should be making videos and writing age appropriate letters to his children. Without blaming Mum, he could tell them how much he loves them, share how sad he is that they wouldn't lunch with him, let them know of some fun things he would like to be doing with them instead of having all this grown up legal stuff happening. Apologize to them that they are having to go through all this and that you hope that they will soon be able to get past the arguing.

The court may need to force Mum into making a similar video, giving the children permission to love their dad too, maybe letting them know how exciting it will be to have so many 'vacations' each year with Dad.

The court has a role to play too since the kids may need a neutral place to live for a while, a difficult choice but no worse than what has already happened. IF the family court agree that the childrens best interests are paramount, and that Mum is damaging their emotional health, the step up and limit or stop her contact with her children until she either clearly demonstrates that dad is a danger, or she allows her children to love each parent equally.

The Judge has probably lost control of this case by now, her outburst in this headline, whilst understandable, is beyond wrong and she has caused further emotional pain to these children. A new judge will mean fresh eyes at the 'pleadings and claims' but it may also be a chance at someone the children can grow to trust. The Judge has entrenched any 'us against them' position that Mum engendered.

Apologies again for allowing myself to become so distracted by the side issues here. I am so hurting for these children right now.

 

[MyBelle]

Hi all,

Let me begin by saying I apologize for straying from the topic here and I will attempt to get back on track.

I just wanted to clarify a few things concerning family courts and custodial issues. I interjected after someone ELSE suggested she should have abducted her children. It was pointed out that the FBI would jail the mother. I was just trying to show that this is not often true. I just checked numbers for the past year and 100,00 children were abducted by a parent Internationally. (NCMEC stats when they hosted a Hague Convention meet in Texas in May). The FBI currently has 12 parents wanted for this crime and they date back as far as 1987.
All parents rely on laws and rules to prevent such things from happening to us. However the FBI is NOT your first port of call in a parental abduction if you want your child returned. If you want revenge/retribution against your partner, then go for it, track down the ex, have the ex extradited, and have the ex jailed for up to 6 years. Thats a lot of work and it won't guarantee you get to see your children. In fact, if you are, or later use the Hague Convention to return your child, Most countries will not order the return if it means the returning parent would be criminalized/jailed.

I am not advocating abduction, just sharing my personal story to highlight the fact that the oppositional stance of family courts in the US, work if you have a great lawyer and get to file first, but it works against you in many International abduction cases.

I was trying to add to the conversation in general.

Gitana is the expert here on US family law and I agree with most of what she is saying. I agree with everything she says about US law on paper.
The harsh reality though is, we don't live black and white lives, and sometimes the 'system' just doesn't work properly. The result is hurting our children. We need to look at those broken parts and see if we can fix them, our children will be safer and happier because of it.

In this particular case the reality of the situation is, these children have grown to fear and dislike their Dad, how that happened is being hotly discussed but the fact is, it has been allowed to happen. The time to switch custody was waaaay before now. There is a risk now (since 1 child is already a teen) that forcing them to see or visit with Dad will lead them to hate 'authority figures' too. I think that Dad should be making videos and writing age appropriate letters to his children. Without blaming Mum, he could tell them how much he loves them, share how sad he is that they wouldn't lunch with him, let them know of some fun things he would like to be doing with them instead of having all this grown up legal stuff happening. Apologize to them that they are having to go through all this and that you hope that they will soon be able to get past the arguing.

The court may need to force Mum into making a similar video, giving the children permission to love their dad too, maybe letting them know how exciting it will be to have so many 'vacations' each year with Dad.

The court has a role to play too since the kids may need a neutral place to live for a while, a difficult choice but no worse than what has already happened. IF the family court agree that the childrens best interests are paramount, and that Mum is damaging their emotional health, the step up and limit or stop her contact with her children until she either clearly demonstrates that dad is a danger, or she allows her children to love each parent equally.

The Judge has probably lost control of this case by now, her outburst in this headline, whilst understandable, is beyond wrong and she has caused further emotional pain to these children. A new judge will mean fresh eyes at the 'pleadings and claims' but it may also be a chance at someone the children can grow to trust. The Judge has entrenched any 'us against them' position that Mum engendered.

Apologies again for allowing myself to become so distracted by the side issues here. I am so hurting for these children right now.

BBM. I'm now totally confused because the mother in this case took control of her children while the family lived in Israel. The FBI had no jurisdiction over her at the time. She did not file for divorce until after she arrived in the United States.


JMO

 

[NSS]

BBM. I'm now totally confused because the mother in this case took control of her children while the family lived in Israel. The FBI had no jurisdiction over her at the time. She did not file for divorce until after she arrived in the United States.


JMO

I may be wrong and they suggested Dad take them, or Mum do it now........ not going down that rabbit hole again. I agree it didn't even apply here, but I went off on a tangent that anyone not closely following could have misunderstood.