STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND FAMILY DIVISION MAYA EIBSCHITZ-TSIMHONI, ae ‘ante 09-766749-DM Plaintiff SA : JUDGE LISA GORCYCA ERSCHIZTSU y TsmHOMOMER OMER G. TSIMHONI, HON. LISA GORCYCA Defendant. / LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER, EISENBERG, RENEE K. GUCCIARDO MIDDLEDITCH & SPILMAN, PLLC By: RENEE K. GUCCIARDO (P47884) By: KERI MIDDLEDITCH (63088) Attorney for Plaintiff Attomey for Defendant 30700 Telegraph Ra, Ste. 1580 600 South Adams, Suite 100 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 723-5190 (248) 358-8880 LORANDOS JOSHI SCHNELZ WELLS, PC By: ANDREW M. BOSSORY (P74364) By: WILLIAM LANSAT (P36752) Co-Counsel for Plaintif Guardian Ad T item 3 2400 8. Huron Pkwy. 280 N. Old Woodward Avé:, Ste. 250, ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Birmingham, MI 48009 a (734) 327-5030 (248) 258-7074 38 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Ata session of said Court held in the City of Pontiac, County of Oakland ‘and State of Michigan on FEB 2 2 2015 ‘isa Goreves PRESENT: ieee CIRCUIT JUDGE his matter having come on before tue Cuuit upon the filing of Defendant's Verified Motion for Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff's Violation of this Court’s Orders, for Entry of an Order Regarding Joint Legal Custody and for Modification of Parenting Time, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises;NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff, MAYA EIBSCHITZ- ‘TSIMHONT, shall appear in person before this Honorable Court on Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 8:30 a.m., to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of Court for failure to comply with this Court’s Orders of July 24, 2013 and November 12, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order to Show Cause and the Defendant's Verified Motion for Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff's Violation of this Court's Orders, for Entry af an Order Regarding Joint Legal Custody and for Modification of Parenting Time, shall be served upon Plaintiff, MAYA EIBSCHITZ-TSIMHONI, by personal service OR upon RENEE K, GUCCIARDO or ANDREW M. BOSSORY, counsel for the Plaintiff, by e-mail and first class mail on or before seven (7) days of the hearing date, reyor CIRCUIT JUDGESTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND. FAMILY DIVISION MAYA EIBSCHITZ-TSIMHONI, Plaintisf v. Case No. 09-766749-DM OMER G. TSIMHONI, HON, LISA GORCYCA Defendant, 2 / LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER, EISENBERG, RENEE K. GUCCIARDO MIDDLEDITCH & SPILMAN, PLLC By: RENEE K. GUCCIARDO (P4784) By: KERT MIDDLEDITCH (P6308) Attorney for Plaintiff Attomey for Defendant 30700 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 1580 600 South Adams, Suite 100 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Birmingham, MI 48009 os (248) 723-5190 (248) 358-8880 2 LORANDOS JOSHI SCHNELZWELLS,PC 3) By: ANDREW M. BOSSORY (P74364) By: WILLIAM LANSAT (P36752) 53 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Guardian Ad Litem : 2400 S. Huron Pkwy. 280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 250% ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Birmingham, MI 48009 y (734) 327-5030 (248) 258-7074 eoiesaneat / NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant’s Verified Motion for Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff's Violation of this Court’s Orders, for Entry of an Order Regarding Joint Legal Custody and for Modification of Parenting Time shall be brought on for hearing before the Honorable Lisa Goreyca of the Oakland County Circuit Court located at 1200 N. Telegraph Road, Pontiac, Michigan, on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. ALEXANDER, EISENBERG, MIDDLEDITCH & SPILMAN, PLLC Byz ERI MIDDLEDITCH (P63088) ‘torneys for Defendant 600 South Adams, Suite 100 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 358-8880 DATED: February 2&, 2015STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND FAMILY DIVISION MAYA EIBSCHITZ-TSIMHONI, Ssure_ 09-766749-DM Pat CO v. JUDGE LSA GORCYCA EBSCHTZTSM v-TSRIHOMOMER OMER G. TSIMHONI, HON. LISA GORCYCA Defendant. / LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER, EISENBERG, RENEE K. GUCCIARDO MIDDLEDITCH & SPILMAN, PLLC By: RENEE K. GUCCIARDO (P47884) By: KER MIDDLEDITCH (P6308) Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Attomey for Defendant 30700 Telegraph Ra., Ste. 1580 600 South Adams, Suite 100 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 723-5190 (248) 358-8880 LORANDOS JOSHI SCHNELZ WELLS, PC : By: ANDREW M. BOSSORY (P74364) By: WILLIAM LANSAT (P36152) = Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Guardian Ad Titem g 2400 S. Huron Pkwy. 280 N, Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 250: ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Birmingham, MI 48009 (734) 327-5030 (248) 258-7074 DEFENDANT'S VERIFIED MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S VIOLATION OF THIS COURT’S ORDERS, FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER REGARDING JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY AND FOR MODIFICATION OF PARENTING TIME NOW COMES the Defendant, OMER G. TSIMHONI, by and through his attomeys, ‘ALEXANDER, EISENBERG, MIDDLEDITCH & SPILMAN, PLLC, by KER MIDDLEDITCH, and for his Motion, states as follows: 1. A Judgment of Divorce was entered in this action on August 8, 2011 (“Judgment”). 2. Three children were born to the parties, namely: ‘TSIMHONI Born MMMM Age 13 H'sIMHONT Bor Age 10 ['SIMHONI Bo AgeShow Cause 3, Atthe time of the entry of the Judgment, Defendant Father was residing in Israel 4, The custody and parenting time issues concerning these minor children since the entty of the Judgment has been very tumultuous, given Plaintiff Mother's uncooperative nature and the children’s father. 5. As this Court is well aware, Defendant Father has been diligent in his efforts to refusal to effectuate and encourage parenting time maintain a relationship with his children and come to the United States to see his children very often, 6. Unfortunately, Plaintiff Mother has been a roadblock to his relationship with his children, 7. Plaintiff Mother has consistently maintained that Defendant Father's parenting time be supervised, as she believes the children are. in danger from being physically harmed or kidnapped to places unknown, 8. Defendant Father has had to file numerous motions to enforce the Judgment and request his parenting time as Plaintiff Mother has flatly refused to cooperate or facilitate any relationship between the three minor children and their father, even leaving the country to avoid and obstruct Defendant Father’s parenting time, Y. Not only has Defendant Father had to file such motions, but the Guardian Ad Litem. has also had to file motions on behalf of the children to commence visitation with their father when he is in the United States. 10. At neatly every tum, Plaintiff Mother has been an obstruction to this Court’s Orders, and the Guardian Ad Litem’s recommendations about maintaining a healthy relationship between the minor children and their father. 11, Numerous experts have been appointed to help these children, given the parental alienation that bas transpired. 12, Plaintiff Mother has made it perfectly clear to numerous mental health experts that she is unwilling to follow or heed their advice and while she may appear to appease the Court and follow the direction in at least attending the appointments, her cooperation ends there. 13, This Court appointed Jennifer Hayes, a mental health professional, to work with the parties and their children.14. When Jennifer Hayes issued a recommendation that Plaintiff Mother did not like, on July 10, 2013, Plaintiff Mother promptly filed a motion with this Court asking that Ms. Hayes be disqualified from conducting any parenting time assessment. 15. Plaintiff Mother's motion to disqualify Jennifer Hayes was denied. 16. It was no surptise that Plaintiff Mother wanted Jennifer Hayes removed from the case as Ms. Hayes? report wes consistent with many of the other prior mental health professionals in the past, as it was scathing of Plaintiff Mother's actions, 17. It is obvious from Defendant Mother’s continuous actions that she is crusading to eliminate Defendant Father from the lives of their children. 18, To refresh the Court's recollection, as recently as 2013, Plaintiff Mother would not provide the home address of the children to Defendant Father, who has joint legal custody. 19. Defendant Father does not speak ill of the children’s mother in their presence, but the seme cannot be said for Plaintiff Mother, given the children’s refusal to even speak with their father during visitation, often staring at the floor or the ceiling, just to avoid eye contact with their father. 20. In fact, Jennifer Hayes prepared a recommendation and this Court, on July 24, 2013, adopted each and every recommendation of Ms. Hayes, requiring that it be implemented forthwith. See Exhibit A attached hereto. 21, Jenifer Hayes concluded in no uncertain terms that there were very clear dynamics of parental alienation and indicated that the children had not been appropriately supported by their mother in maintaining a healthy relationship with their father. 22. Its Plaintiff Mother who is directly responsible, via her own attitude and actions, that have given rise to this alienation. 23. To refresh this Court’s recollection, Plaintiff Mother claimed that she needed an interpreter with Jennifer Hayes, which was nothing short of rubbish. 24. At that time, it was all documented in Jennifer Hayes’ report that there were ‘multiple cancellations of parenting time visits that Plaintiff Mother was responsible for and that the children continued to be resistant to parenting time with Defendant Father. 25. Jennifer Hayes’ report cautioned very strongly that Plaintiff Mother’s actions are causing significant emotional pain to the children and could very likely lead to future dysfunction and continued emotional suffering with a very negative effect on each of these children.26. Jennifer Hayes was not slone in her assessment of the situation of Defendant Father and his children but merely echoed the same sentiments of Dr. Katherine Okla in her report that was authored March 14, 2011. 27. This Court plainly stated that if either party failed to comply with its Orders, the party would be subject to the contempt powers of this Court and be detained in jail for twenty (20) days for the first violation and forty (40) days for a subsequent violation. See July 24, 2013 Order attached hereto as Exhibit A. 28. Unfortunately, Plaintiff Mother’s tacties that strive to alienate Defendant Father from his children continue. 29. Given the long-standing history of Plaintiff’ Mother's actions and her significant efforts to foil the parenting time of Defendant Father, the Guardian Ad Litem filed an extensive Recommendation dated November 3, 2014 with this Court, See Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit B. 30. ‘The Recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem was scathing toward Plaintiff Mother and her actions. 31. The Guardian Ad Litem cautioned the Court at this time that letting Plaintiff Mother's behavior to go unchecked would be condoning her alienating and bizare behavior to have the children act in a cult-like fashion, 32. The Guardian Ad Litem's ultimate recommendation was that each child see Defendant Father separately to eliminate the cult-like behavior in which the children basically gang up on their father and won't talk to him. 33. In addition, the Guardian Ad Litem also recommended that I the parenting time supervisor, be present for no other reason than to protect Defendant Father from bogus allegations. 34, The Guardian Ad Litem also recommended that the parenting time exchanges for the initial pickups occur at the courthouse. 35. As this Court is well aware, the initial pickup at the courthouse on August 21, 2014 was a disaster that required numerous court personnel to intervene to require the children to even. speak with their father in the jury room with the assistance of the Friend of the Court Family Counselor, Tracey Stieb.36, Also following the Recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem, a hearing was held ‘with this Court where Plaintiff Mother’s behavior and words were reprehensible. 37. This Court ordered that Defendant Father would have parenting time with the minor children during his visit to Michigan which started on November 12, 2014. 38. Plaintiff Mother was ordered to follow the Guardian Ad Litem’s Recommendation regarding parenting time and that she was not allowed to be a part of the parenting time between Defendant Father and the children. 39, The parties were last before the Court in November 2014, and the Guardian Ad Litem has made every effort to facilitate parenting time, and while he has set up the parameters pursuant to this Court’s Orders, Plaintiff Mother continues to make up her own rules as she goes. 40. Plaintiff Mother repeatedly fails to follow the plan outlined by the Guardian Ad Litem in conjunction with the parenting time supervis r 41, The manipulations are almost too numerous to mention, 42. One particular example would be the most recent parenting time in January 2015 which required the transition at 4 p.m. 43. When the parenting time supervisor spoke with Plaintiff Mother, she moved the time to 4:30 p.m. and said she might be a little late. 44, When Defendant Father appeared for parenting time at 4:30 p.m. Plaintiff Mother had arrived at 4:15 p.m, so the children were waiting, as if Defendant Father was the one who was late. 45, Plaintiff Mother has stayed during Defendant Father's parenting time, claiming that she is trying to facilitate the parenting time but only aggravates the situation. 46. ‘When Plaintiff Mother does leave, the children follow her and Plaintiff Mother does not do anything to encourage them to stay with their father. 47. These antics continue as the parenting time supervisor's reports indicate. Please see attached Exhibit C. 48. Unfortunately, since Jennifer Hayes’ report in July 2013, not much has changed. 49. One would think that by February 2015, there would be some’ significant improvement in the matters surrounding Defendant Father's parenting time.50, Plaintiff Mother continues to violate the Court’s Orders to the detriment of the parties’ minor children and should show cause as to why she should not be held in contempt of Court for same. Sl, Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff Mother should be detained 20 days in jail since she is not following any of the Orders and only contributing fo the parenting time difficulties of Defendant Father. Custody/Parenting Time 52. Pursuant to the terms of the Judgment, the parties share joint legal custody of their three minor children. 53. The Judgment also contemplates a parenting time schedule when Defendant Father is in the United States to see his children, which included weekday visitation with the children every day after school in some configuration, as well as weekend parenting time with all three children, 54, In addition, the Judgment accounted for some vacation parenting time but did not account for holiday parenting time. 55, Fortunately, Defendant Father was able to obtain a transfer with his employer and hhas now returned to the United States and, specifically, will be residing in West Bloomfield, Michigan, 56. Now, in light of Defendant Father's move back to the United States, a more normal parenting time schedule should be implemented forthwith to ensure the best interest of the children. 57. Defendant Father realizes that it may take some time to transition into a more regular parenting time schedule between divorced parents who share joint legal custody. 58. To begin with, Defendant Father proposes that he have a mid-week dinner with all three children on a weekly basis. 59. Defendant Father would also seek parenting time with one child every weekend beginning Friday at 4:00 pm, and continning until Saturday at 4:00 p.m., with the parenting time exchange occurring at the courthouse. 60. Defendant Father’s parenting time should increase with the guidance of the Guardian Ad Litem and the cooperation of Plaintiff Mother.61, Plaintiff Mother has denied Defendant Father standard information concerning the children as one would have as a joint legal custodian, 62, Plaintiff Mother has not only been reluctant but patently refused to provide information regarding the children asi relates to their education and extracurricular activities. 63, It took numerous emails from counsel for Defendant Pather to counsel for Plaintift Mother to obain minimal information about the children’s extracursicular activities, as well as the intervention by the Guardian Ad Litern 64, Defendant Father is fearfal that Plaintiff Mother will continue her alienation of the children from him as she has done so at the school. 65, A separate Order should be entered in this action which awards joint legal custody of the minor children to the parties and explains the meaning of joint legal custody. See proposed Order attached here as Bxhibit D. 66. Upon entry of such an Order, stid Order should be submitted to the children’s school(s) to eliminate further difficulties for Defendant Father. WHEREFORE, Defendant, OMER G. TSIMHONI, requests: the following relief: A. For an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff Mother should not-be held in contempt for her continued violations of this Court's Orders; B. For an Order compelling Plaintiff Mother to be detained in jail pursuant to the court's previous Order; C. For the entry of the Onder as fo joint legal custody; D: For a modified parenting time schedule which takes into cofsideration Defendant Father's retum to the United States, as well as holiday parenting time; E. _ For an award of atlomey fees and costs for having to bring this motion; F, For such other relief as the Cout deems just and appropriate, I DECLARE THAT THE STATEMENTS ABOVE ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KN Dated: February &. 2015Respectfully submitted, ‘ALEXANDER, BISENBERG, MIDDLEDITCH & SPILMAN, PLLC ‘Attorney for Defendant 600 South Adams, Suite 100 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 358-8880