While I may be critical of the way that the judge described Children's Village in order to communicate to the children the seriousness of the choice they were making, neither I nor the judge can do more than speculate with regard to the understandings they have been provided of what it would mean, who would be hurt or life might change should the sit down to a fairly normal meal within normal parameters of courtesy with their father.
I do not buy the excuse that they are "terrified" of their father, for multiple reasons. First off is that their behavior is not at all indicative of fear of any kind, but rather of the secure knowledge that someone powerful has their back in challenging, disobeying, disregarding and being rude to their father. Their behaviors over time have been recklessly and foolishly fearless in regard to not only their father, but also multiple counselors, court officials, attorneys appointed on their behalf, social workers and so forth. And frankly there is really only one possible source for that security in believing either that there will be no consequences for their actions, or alternatively that the consequences for normal respectful behavior would be far worse. But, second, we know a fair amount about what children who live in fear of a parent look and act like. And as the judge has pointed out--this ain't it kids. At least not with respect to their father. Children of abuse, in contrast to the image of these children as some kind of heroic freedom fighters, bring with them a very confused load of baggage, which tends to include guilt and the belief that they are somehow responsible for the treatment that they receive, loyalty to the abusive parent when that parent is faced with consequences (such as removal of the children or imprisonment), and while they may act out in situations where they perceive a lack of authority or possible consequences, they certainly have learned how to bow to authority. As regards their father, these children show none of that.
Further, over the course of five years the court (which includes now at least 3 judges, from the international tribunal down to family court, where Gorcyca is the 2nd judge to preside over the case), there have been a long chain of ordered interventions that would have allowed the children the kind of non-judgmental listening environment that you suggest that they need. And one after another these have failed following refusal to cooperate. If you look up the court documents, there is one that include's the Mother's affidavit of objection to one such professional, who acted on a court order to evaluate the family specifically regarding the shared parenting issues. Her objections were all couched in concern for the children, and how they were not being believed or listened to. Sadly the report of that professional is only referred to in the record--not appended--so we do not have her description. However, even without that professional eye, in reading the Mom's affidavit, it is very clear that she blocked at every available opportunity the introduction of the incident in the park as a topic of conversation. The specific objections had to do with the use of language such as "the children have formed a memory," and "tell the story of what happened that day." Mom found this non-judgmental language to be pejorative, as in her mind there is only ONE true story, the children have already told it (actually, the youngest, at age 4 refused to talk to the investigators) and this line of discussion was about telling them that they were wrong. The end result of Mom's melt-down, in sessions with each children individually, was to shut down the possibility of discussion, but also to move the focus away from the child and what they remember seeing, and onto Mom and her opinions and objections. I believe that this is an important insight that accounts for multiple accounts of the children being taken to counselors and refusing to leave the waiting room. Also worthy of notice is Mom's report via the affidavit of the information that she gleaned about the individual time each child had with the counselor (and their time with Dad and the counselor)--based on what they reported to her afterward. These are all behaviors that interfere with the provision of a safe listening ear for the children--and they all relate directly to Mom's behavior.
Clearly these children are watched carefully for any sign of revealing information not approved of by Mom, or acting out of the "family rule" (another term Mom objected to from the counselor) of not talking to Dad.
I wonder how some people think a judge might have acted differently in this case?
