Kids sent to juvenile detention over cold shoulder to father

[General Zod]

The court has found evidence in the contrary with regard to the mother, not the father.

Like what? Being uncooperative with non-parents and a few strange mannerisms aren't evidence of cult-like behavior or manipulation by the mother. If you want to claim otherwise then I want a breakdown of the methodology that leads to that conclusion.

[General Zod]

Simple... The family has already been put through a vetted systematic approach.

This scenario that you are descried are things that you pulled out of thin air.

I'm not saying that the vetted systematic approach doesn't ever result in the wrong ruling... but if you are arguing otherwise you require substantiating evidence.

What vetted approach? Where's the breakdown of the methodology they used to reach their conclusion? Because so far I just see a bunch of people taking some lines from the judge and making assumptions.

[ArmorPierce]

The court has found evidence in the contrary with regard to the mother, not the father.

Like what? Being uncooperative with non-parents and a few strange mannerisms aren't evidence of cult-like behavior or manipulation by the mother. If you want to claim otherwise then I want a breakdown of the methodology that leads to that conclusion.

I am assuming there is more to it than that. If there isn't, given the amount of attention this story is getting, I imagine that we would hear of judges and experts being reassigned.

Simple... The family has already been put through a vetted systematic approach.

This scenario that you are descried are things that you pulled out of thin air.

I'm not saying that the vetted systematic approach doesn't ever result in the wrong ruling... but if you are arguing otherwise you require substantiating evidence.

What vetted approach? Where's the breakdown of the methodology they used to reach their conclusion? Because so far I just see a bunch of people taking some lines from the judge and making assumptions.

Cops have been involved, judge has a court appointed advisor, medical experts have been involved. It seems that this case has been worked on for several years... it doesn't seem to be rushed.

[General Zod]

I am assuming there is more to it than that. If there isn't, given the amount of attention this story is getting, I imagine that we would hear of judges and experts being reassigned.

Judges rarely get punished for oversteps of power and there's no real mechanism to remove them except for very specific cases. You're making a lot of assumptions of competency for a court system that's most likely over-worked and under budgeted.

Cops have been involved, judge has a court appointed advisor, medical experts have been involved. It seems that this case has been worked on for several years... it doesn't seem to be rushed.

That doesn't tell me anything about the methodology they used to reach the conclusion.

[TheHammer]

You're really fucking reaching here...

Are you going to actually explain how, or just be dismissive because you really don't want the dad to be the bad guy? How the fuck is it more of a stretch than "sending out some sort of code by tapping their feet?" Which sounds like conspiracy bullshit.

I need to explain how your extremely speculative unlikely scenario that "Everyone is just wrong and the mom is good and no one will listen" is a reach?

You're not talking about layman here. These are Family court judges and lawyers, and therapists trained in the field. Dealing with domestic problems is what they do, and chances are they have experience at determining which complaints are legitimate and which ones are not. Does that GUARANTEE they are correct in this case? Of course not, but it makes it a hell of a lot more likely than the reverse scenario you are advocating.

Remember "Satanic Panic" during the 80s and how it turned out to be complete bullshit? They had so-called experts there too. So far your entire argument amounts to "but, but, but, authorities said so!"

My argument is that people who are experts in this field, have five years worth of experiences with these specific children are in a far better position to judge the merits of the case than you, who has claimed no training or expertise, and has only the little information released in news reports.

Also, pretty convenient to cherry pick a line out of a much larger point, which is that the children don't seem to fear the consequences of defying their father or the courts, which might indicate they fear the consequences (from their mother) of compliance.

I didn't "cherry pick" anything, I wasn't responding to it but it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Did you notice that not a single word of my post was directed specifically at the children in question in this case? I was ONLY responding to your claim that all children will comply when they are scared, no matter the circumstances. I don't know enough of the details of these kids and their situation to have an opinion on that.

You can't grab a sentence out of context and then claim I'm saying anything. You also ignore the fact that in most cases scared children, particularly younger children, DO comply out of fear. You are bitching because I didn't qualify my statement to include the outliers. If that is your sole problem with the statement I've made, then I'll happily revise it for you without in any way changing the crux of my argument. I thought it was understood that when it comes to human behavior there are ALWAYS exceptions to the norm, however this case did not appear to be one of those. Sorry if my presumption of common sense on your part was misplaced.

And You've still failed to provide your credentials as some sort of expert in this field,.

OH and by the way ignore all the other amateur psychologists who have made a diagnosis of "CHILD SCURRRED" out of the fragments of information given to us.

Since you utterly lack reading comprehension, I'll have to spell it out for you. None of the other people in this thread have made absurd blanket statements like the one you made that I responded to. I don't care what their opinions are on the children in question (which is why I never addressed that issue at all), and I don't care what your opinions are on the children in question. I am only responding to your broad claim that all children will comply when they are scared, which is in direct opposition to the entire field of psychology. Clear enough for you?

So you're basically saying you've wasted everyone's time by making a huge deal out of the fact that my statement didn't include "exceptions to the norm". Reading comprehension means you read something and understand it in context. Since you failed to do that with my statements, I'd say the failure is entirely yours.

Not making a blanket assumption.

Now you're just lying. You said in the post I responded to:

Also, "scared kids" don't act defiant as these children have acted. They comply out of fear.

You are implying that these children could not possibly have been scared, because children always comply when they are scared. That's a blanket statement. And an absurd one. Maybe these kids were scared, maybe they were brainwashed. I neither know nor care which one. But to claim that they weren't scared because scared kids never act that way is simply factually incorrect, because your belief that scared children will always comply is unfounded.

I mean, I was very specific in quoting only the part of your post I was objecting to, and never in my previous post did I address any other issue than that one specific sentence, so I don't see why it is so difficult for you to understand that I was speaking in generalities, in no way specific to the children in this case.

You want to nitpick the statement without doing jack shit to the argument. Okay, fine I'll change it and the statements I made still stand in context:

"scared kids" typically don't act defiant as these children have acted. In most cases they comply out of fear.

Your nitpick should now be satisfied, and you may return to the peanut gallery.

We STILL have scenario where they most likely were not acting out of fear, at least not of the courts or their father, and speculation that they are afraid flies in the face of the norm. Thus such speculation should not be the presumed true without further information. That, taken in light of the fact that the courts and all of its experts do not believe the children fear their father, nor the courts, should lead one to believe that this is not any sort of outlier.

[General Zod]

I need to explain how your extremely speculative unlikely scenario that "Everyone is just wrong and the mom is good and no one will listen" is a reach?

Now you're just being pedantic. I'm saying that anything going on is probably easier to explain than some stupid theory about cult indoctrination.

My argument is that people who are experts in this field, have five years worth of experiences with these specific children are in a far better position to judge the merits of the case than you, who has claimed no training or expertise, and has only the little information released in news reports.

Do you accept the words of all authority unquestioningly without wanting to know the details behind their judgment? You're clearly unwilling to listen to any alternative explanation for their behavior or accept the possibility that someone along the chain made a mistake that may have propagated.

[TheHammer]

I need to explain how your extremely speculative unlikely scenario that "Everyone is just wrong and the mom is good and no one will listen" is a reach?

Now you're just being pedantic. I'm saying that anything going on is probably easier to explain than some stupid theory about cult indoctrination.

You really need to let go of the "cult indoctrination" brain bug. You're cherry picking a few colorful references various people have made in a much larger context. The core issue here is the fact that the mother seems to be willfully alienating these children from the father. That's what the people actually working this case have repeatedly circled back to.

My argument is that people who are experts in this field, have five years worth of experiences with these specific children are in a far better position to judge the merits of the case than you, who has claimed no training or expertise, and has only the little information released in news reports.

Do you accept the words of all authority unquestioningly without wanting to know the details behind their judgment?

Of course not, but we don't have the details due to the nature of family cases. That being said, when multiple authority figures and experts, who have little if anything to gain by any conspiracy towards the mother, have reached consensus on the issue after extensive time working on it, then I'd say its far more likely that their conclusions are accurate than the reverse.

You're clearly unwilling to listen to any alternative explanation for their behavior or accept the possibility that someone along the chain made a mistake that may have propagated.

I'm willing to listen to any alternative explanation that has supporting factual evidence. All you've got is a hypothetical scenario you've pulled out of your ass, and a highly unlikely scenario at that. To be true, it would require significant failings on the part of multiple people (police, therapists, court officials) to do the basic functions of their jobs. So while your alternative explanation is possible, it is highly improbable.

[General Zod]

Of course not, but we don't have the details due to the nature of family cases. That being said, when multiple authority figures and experts, who have little if anything to gain by any conspiracy towards the mother, have reached consensus on the issue after extensive time working on it, then I'd say its far more likely that their conclusions are accurate than the reverse.

So we don't have the details . . . but you're willing to accept the authority's claims at face value? Do I have to point out how many criminal cases have had multiple "authorities" claiming something was true when it wasn't? The fact that multiple "experts" claim something is true doesn't increase its truthfulness unless the methods they used to reach that conclusion were valid.

[Ralin]

So we don't have the details . . . but you're willing to accept the authority's claims at face value?

Why...yes? That's generally the default assumption. That's why we have experts and authorities to begin with

Do I have to point out how many criminal cases have had multiple "authorities" claiming something was true when it wasn't? The fact that multiple "experts" claim something is true doesn't increase its truthfulness unless the methods they used to reach that conclusion were valid.

That's just silly. Of course experts saying something is true doesn't make it true. But in the absence of reason to the contrary it makes perfect sense to default to assuming their opinion is valid.

Seriously, I don't have a strong opinion on this case but you're really reaching here.

[ArmorPierce]

Generally when you are going to accuse authority figures, experts and professionals of wrongful acts you need motivation and/or supporting evidence.

Why is it felt that not only does the judge and experts not believe that the father is abusing the mother and children, but she is actually the source of the problems?

[General Zod]

Generally when you are going to accuse authority figures, experts and professionals of wrongful acts you need motivation and/or supporting evidence.

Why is it felt that not only does the judge and experts not believe that the father is abusing the mother and children, but she is actually the source of the problems?

Good question. Maybe you can share the details that led the judge and experts to that conclusion.

[TheHammer]

Father has filed for full custody. Full text of the motion can be found here:

http://everything-pr.com/omer-tsimhoni- ... dy/258489/

It contains details as to why the judge and experts have come to their conclusions.

[General Zod]

Now that's actually helpful. Aside from the rantings of the judge I'm inclined to side with the father on the issue after reading some of those pages.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, that was published literally yesterday- we didn't have access to it until then.

And people cautioned you on the 15th, before this was published, that maybe there was a reason that the judge and the legal guardian of the children both thought the children's behavior was strange.

And people cautioned you on the 15th that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't just a straightforward case of "scared kids afraid to see abusive ogre of a father while abusive ogre of a judge punishes them out of spite."

I was among those people who cautioned you in that way.

But you persistently dismissed those who were disagreeing with you on this matter. You used rather sarcastic and flippant remarks like "Because judges are never vindictive assholes when they think their authority is being questioned." And "Because so far I see a bunch of people willing to crucify the mother because they don't want the dad to be the bad guy."

It turned out we were right. There WAS other information involved. Information we were not privy to (like the part about the mother having gone through eight lawyers in six years and four lawyers in the past two years alone). Information that, it just happens, was publicly released yesterday.

But now, this information is released and you start sympathizing with the father.

Am I in any way misrepresenting the truth, Zod?

---

Because if I am NOT misrepresenting the truth, then perhaps this is a good moment for us to learn a valuable lesson. A lesson about jumping to strong anti-authoritarian conclusions. And about insulting those who are more reluctant to accept those jumped-to conclusions. And about making those jumped-to conclusions on the strength of minimal evidence, when further evidence is literally not available.

Maybe next time, everybody could try to make some allowances for the fact that we're usually drawing conclusions about these cases on the strength of fairly limited information, potentially from a source that is biased or does not have an incentive to reveal all the facts...

On which note, I am STILL uncertain about the merits in this case, because of arguments advanced in the comments thread of the linked article. Many of them appear to be the remarks of individuals who have reason to bring bias to the table in this case. One in particular seemed relevant:

"I’ve personally seen the medical reports detailing the injuries to the [10-year-old] after a visit in March in which his father beat him. The judge refused to consider his injuries as a reason why he hates his dad and refused to allow the ER physician to testify as to why the children refused a visit the next day. Instead she held the mother in contempt of court for not forcing the kids even harder to visit again."

If such a medical report exists, then Zod was right all along.

[ArmorPierce]

Why would it require a conspiracy? People simply aren't inclined to believe women when they complain about domestic problems as you're very adequately demonstrating.

This is a perfect example of why the presumption innocence needs to be maintained in the absence of evidence. One cannot simply rely on unsupported assertions as the truth and justify it by stating that h/she would not lie about it.

I find it amusing that me stating this seems to have illicit the implication that I am a misogynist, but hey, when someone is in favor of a logical and rational approach rather than jumping the gun there must be something wrong with his/her integrity. I am a minority, grew up in poverty, and regularly question authority... but I do it with the use of validated supporting evidence rather than relying on my 'gut feelings'.

[General Zod]

Thing is, that was published literally yesterday- we didn't have access to it until then.

And people cautioned you on the 15th, before this was published, that maybe there was a reason that the judge and the legal guardian of the children both thought the children's behavior was strange.

And people cautioned you on the 15th that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't just a straightforward case of "scared kids afraid to see abusive ogre of a father while abusive ogre of a judge punishes them out of spite."

I was among those people who cautioned you in that way.

But you persistently dismissed those who were disagreeing with you on this matter. You used rather sarcastic and flippant remarks like "Because judges are never vindictive assholes when they think their authority is being questioned." And "Because so far I see a bunch of people willing to crucify the mother because they don't want the dad to be the bad guy."

It turned out we were right. There WAS other information involved. Information we were not privy to (like the part about the mother having gone through eight lawyers in six years and four lawyers in the past two years alone). Information that, it just happens, was publicly released yesterday.

But now, this information is released and you start sympathizing with the father.

Am I in any way misrepresenting the truth, Zod?

---

Because if I am NOT misrepresenting the truth, then perhaps this is a good moment for us to learn a valuable lesson. A lesson about jumping to strong anti-authoritarian conclusions. And about insulting those who are more reluctant to accept those jumped-to conclusions. And about making those jumped-to conclusions on the strength of minimal evidence, when further evidence is literally not available.

Maybe next time, everybody could try to make some allowances for the fact that we're usually drawing conclusions about these cases on the strength of fairly limited information, potentially from a source that is biased or does not have an incentive to reveal all the facts...

On which note, I am STILL uncertain about the merits in this case, because of arguments advanced in the comments thread of the linked article. Many of them appear to be the remarks of individuals who have reason to bring bias to the table in this case. One in particular seemed relevant:

"I’ve personally seen the medical reports detailing the injuries to the [10-year-old] after a visit in March in which his father beat him. The judge refused to consider his injuries as a reason why he hates his dad and refused to allow the ER physician to testify as to why the children refused a visit the next day. Instead she held the mother in contempt of court for not forcing the kids even harder to visit again."

If such a medical report exists, then Zod was right all along.

I seem to remember being jumped on and called a delusional fuckwit for daring to question the judge's decision, so how about fuck you?

[ArmorPierce]

On which note, I am STILL uncertain about the merits in this case, because of arguments advanced in the comments thread of the linked article. Many of them appear to be the remarks of individuals who have reason to bring bias to the table in this case. One in particular seemed relevant:

"I’ve personally seen the medical reports detailing the injuries to the [10-year-old] after a visit in March in which his father beat him. The judge refused to consider his injuries as a reason why he hates his dad and refused to allow the ER physician to testify as to why the children refused a visit the next day. Instead she held the mother in contempt of court for not forcing the kids even harder to visit again."

If such a medical report exists, then Zod was right all along.

I am uncertain about the merits too but that does not mean one was right all along lol. Being right without any evidence is like a stock speculator guessing that stock will crash or will boom... he has a 50-50 chance of being right.

Secondly, it's not just whether the father is guilty or not... they actually went further than that and believe the mother is the instigator. The father may very well be dick-bag but they are not finding the mother innocent herself.

Further, you don't know who wrote that, it could have been any random troll. How does this one commenter have access to the medical records?

[General Zod]

On which note, I am STILL uncertain about the merits in this case, because of arguments advanced in the comments thread of the linked article. Many of them appear to be the remarks of individuals who have reason to bring bias to the table in this case. One in particular seemed relevant:

"I’ve personally seen the medical reports detailing the injuries to the [10-year-old] after a visit in March in which his father beat him. The judge refused to consider his injuries as a reason why he hates his dad and refused to allow the ER physician to testify as to why the children refused a visit the next day. Instead she held the mother in contempt of court for not forcing the kids even harder to visit again."

If such a medical report exists, then Zod was right all along.

I am uncertain about the merits too but that does not mean one was right all along lol. Being right without any evidence is like a stock speculator guessing that stock will crash or will boom... he has a 50-50 chance of being right.

Secondly, it's not just whether the father is guilty or not... they actually went further than that and believe the mother is the instigator. The father may very well be dick-bag but they are not finding the mother innocent herself.

Further, you don't know who wrote that, it could have been any random troll. How does this one commenter have access to the medical records?

I was basing it on the 15 year old's testimony, which isn't exactly "zero" evidence.

“I do apologize if I didn’t understand the rules,” the 15-year-old told the judge. “But I do not apologize for not talking to him because I have a reason for that and that’s because he’s violent and I saw him hit my mom and I’m not going to talk to him.” The father has not been charged with a crime.