The Best Interest of the Abuser: GAL Julie Friedrich

(Dakota County, Minn: 9/05/2012) A deeper look into Dakota County Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, and her recommendation to remove the five Rucki children from the custody of their mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and place them into “foster care” so “de-programming” and “reunification” with David Rucki, an abusive father reveals how Friedrich, along with Judge David L Knutson and the family court professionals, conspired to give custody to a man accused of “sexual abuse and sexual assault” of children. 

The transfer of custody occurred in carefully planned phases, and escalated during a September 5, 2012  emergency telephonic hearing that resulted in removing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki from the family home (she was awarded during the divorce) and taking the five children out of her custody. The legal purpose of an emergency hearing is to protect children from imminent harm…not put them in harm’s way. This is just one of many ways the law was violated or perverted in the Grazzini-Rucki case. 

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/405350147/G168-1201-0006 

G168-1201-0006 by mikekvolpe

Let’s take a deeper look into the transcript from the Emergency Telephonic Hearing held September 5, 2012, which resulted in Judge David Knutson forcefully removing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki from her home of over 20 years, and removing the five children from her custody. The decision was made with the full support and input from GAL Julie Friedrich. There is a lot to say about this hearing, this article will focus on key statements from Friedrich, showing the conspiracy and that serious allegations of abuse against the Rucki children were ignored.

 The emergency hearing is initiated after two events: 

 1) After meeting, at the end of August, with Sandra and ALL five children for just 30 minutes, Dr. Reitman claims that Sandra is a parental alienator.The reason? The children raised allegations that their father, David Rucki, abused alcohol and abused them (and their mother).

 

 2) Calls were made to CPS, who determined that no abuse had occurred. An emergency hearing was the only other way to quickly take custody from mother, Sandra, and even less evidence was required since the family court judge, David L. Knuston was part of the scheme and will do to do whatever it takes - even break the law - to accomplish this goal. 

 

 “Unorthodox Decision By The Court”: No Evidence of Abuse When Children Removed, Children Traumatized By Family Court: https://dirtydakotacounty.blogspot.com/2019/11/unorthodox-decision.html  

 

During the hearing (page 13) the Court aka Judge Knutson acknowledges that he is aware of serious abuse allegations raised by the children against father, David Rucki,”We have got to get to the bottom of these issues that are going on. These new allegations, particularly with regarding sexual abuse and sexual assault, which this court has never been aware of or heard anything about prior to this report from Dr. Reitman….” Let that sink in - the children disclosed sexual abuse to Dr. Reitman who called CPS on the mother, Sandra, accusing her of “parental alienation” while ignoring the identified perpetrator and risk of harm to the children. Dr. Reitman then calls GAL Julie Friedrich (a mandated reporter) who sympathizes with the alleged perpetrator. Friedrich then actively works, alongside the family court, to take the Rucki children from their protective mother, and home where they are safe, and give custody to the abuser. The “de-programming”would erase memories of abuse and program the Rucki children to accept a relationship with their father, the abuser. Reunification is just a fancy word for trauma based mind control. These poor children would be mentally raped by the Dakota County family court system.

 

 Page 4 - Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Julie Friedich says “As far as placement for the children, I’ve been in touch with social services…” That statement alone tells you there was a plan in place involving family court services to remove the five Rucki children from their mother’s custody that was set in motion BEFORE the “emergency” telephonic hearing, or the purpose of Sandra meeting with Dr. Reitman was to create legal justification to remove her from the home and remove the children from her custody. Friedrich reported Sandra to CPS for "parental alienation" but did not say a word to CPS about abuse allegations of sexual abuse against the father. Friedrich goes on to say, “It does not sound like something they (Dakota County social services or CPS) would take, as far as a foster home, it doesn’t sound like that would happen through Dakota County…” Meaning Dakota County will not put children into foster care since CPS screened out the report Friedrich made against Sandra regarding "alienation", and felt no reason to place the Rucki children into foster care.

 

Dakota County Child Protective Services had, in fact, received a report concerning Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and determined that the children were not endangered, and declined to take any action. So WHY then is GAL Julie Friedrich continuing efforts to remove the five children from their mother’s care? There is only one answer -- she was part of a coordinated effort to give custody to father, David Rucki, who was also accused of serious acts of child abuse. 

Also note - Dakota County said they would NOT take the children into foster care. Foster care would be hard to obtain for five siblings. The children would likely be sent to different placements and separated from each other. If a home could not be found, the children may have been placed in an institution or group home. This while the children had a loving, responsible mother who was their primary caregiver since birth. The children also had a home. They attended church, had friends in the community, and were doing well in their present environment.The ONLY concern was the father’s drinking and abusive (violent) behavior. The parents had divorced and father was no longer in the home. There was NO reason to take the children from Sandra and put the Rucki children into foster care, which would only create further turmoil in their lives. There was, however, reason to take action to protect the children from David Rucki..which did NOT happen. 

 

Friedrich recommends 3 placement options for the Rucki children, ALL of which are closely connected to and benefit father, David Rucki. One option was Rucki’s sister, the second was someone described as a “very good friend of David”. Note how Friedrich is on a first name basis with Rucki. Friedrich says about placement with Rucki’s friends “but I haven’t had a chance to speak to them.” Meaning Friedrich recommended placement of five children with people she had never met and had never even inspected the home to make sure that it is suitable for children! There have been several cases reported in the news of children who are abused in foster care when GALs and social workers fail to properly investigate the background or fitness of the potential providers. Some of these children have even been killed as a result. NOT saying this is the case with the potential family involved but evidence does show that as a result of Friedrich’s recommendation of temporary custody with the maternal aunt the Rucki children would later run away from placement because they did not feel safe…on TWO separate occasions! 

 

The third option was Sandra’s sister but they were not close or in contact with each other. Which is also interesting because David Rucki has been accused of using the divorce and family court proceedings as leverage to later improperly take money from the Grazzini family trust. The legal battle surrounding that trust is why Sandra did not have a close relationship with her sister at the time. SO it appears Rucki is gaining an ally even if the children were placed in the custody of the sister. 

 

 Punished 4 Protecting: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Michael Volpe Continue to Expose Crime, Corruption in Grazzini-Rucki Case: https://justice4grazziniruckifamily.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/p4p-sgr-volpe/ 

 

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki: A Pauper Who Should Pay Child Support https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/09/sandra-grazzini-rucki-pauper-who-should.html 

 

This also means that taking custody of the children from Sandra - either using CPS or family court - would benefit David Rucki, and specifically enrich him financially and help him regain control of the family home, marital assets and even a large portion of the Grazzini family trust. ALL 3 options suggested by Friedrich were people allied with Rucki, and who would serve his interests. 

 

The devastating result of family court proceedings: Sandra would become homeless after being forcefully removed from the only home she ever knew, and then was robbed of all her property and even her portion of the inheritance her parents left for her (and the children). Sandra was banned from any contact with her children unless approved by the court ordered therapist. As a result of the court ruling she would become estranged from her own children, never to see them again. 

 

 The Rucki children were traumatized by the court’s actions. According to therapist Dr James Gilbertson," Gilbertson also found that the children were traumatized by actions of the family court: “As I surveyed the situation, it appeared that my role was to address the trauma and the issues these children were experiencing in the upheaval of their custodial home and their family and this somewhat unorthodox decision by the court.” And,”They (the children) are puzzled on why the family has been so separated and what can be done.” Instead of enjoying childhood, the Rucki were de-programmed at critical years of their growth and development; forced into a cruel and unethical therapy forcing them to confront fear of their father (again, from Dr. Gilbertson's notes). The Rucki children would be robbed of their mother’s love and care, never to see her again. Now, as adults, the Rucki children continue to remain under their father’s control; evidenced by the various lawsuits he is filing in their name (the Rucki children never appear in court or make independent statements, it is unclear if they willingly agree to various lawsuits filed in their name). 

 

David Rucki raked in millions of dollars of money, property, public assistance by using the family court system to issue orders in his favor and to protect him from any legal culpability. To this day, Rucki continues to file lawsuits seeking even more money. He continues to seek revenge against ex wife,Sandra.

Minnesota’s troubled Guardian ad Litem program has been subject to complaints since it’s first audit in 1995, in both the CPS and family court cases it is involved in. 

How Julie Friedrich can continue to be employed as a Guardian ad Litem in itself shows a serious problem exists within the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem program. There is overwhelming evidence that Friedrich violated her mandated duties and not only failed to uphold the Rucki children’s best interest but also placed their lives in danger. As a result of Friedrich’s involvement, the Rucki children ran away from the placement she recommended with a maternal aunt (who previously lost custody of her own children due to maltreatment) on two separate occasions.The first incident occurred after this emergency hearing when Julie Friedrich recommended that maternal aunt Tammy Love be awarded temporary custody.Immediately after the Rucki children became aware of that decision,they all ran away - citing fear for their safety. Again, in April 2013, Love was awarded temporary custody. Despite measures put in place to prevent the Rucki children from running away, the two older girls actually succeeded. They remained in hiding for nearly two years before being discovered; then forced into de-programming against their will, and under court order, and "reunited" with father, Rucki.

In the past, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, herself, has lodged complaints, and included letters written by two of her daughters, with the Guardian ad Litem program managers and Board to no avail. All avenues for justice within the legal system have been exhausted because the system is rigged against her and enabling her abusive ex-husband. Sandra continues to fight for her survival.

Julie Friedrich has worked with the GAL program for over 25 years and also works side jobs as a family court ADR specialist. She has gained seniority and appears to be protected by the system that fails to protect the children it is supposed to advocate for. 

A 2017 evaluation by the NCSC recommended that the GAL Board discontinue the use of Guardian ad Litems in family court cases,”The GAL Board should consider limiting the appointment of GAL program guardians to child protection cases and develop a separate system for family law cases outside the GAL program. The GAL Board should consider identifying alternative methods to provide best interests advocacy in family law cases…” 

 Assessment of the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Program: Final Report https://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/assets/2017%20NCSC%20FINAL%20REPORT_tcm27-299253.pdf 

 

The Guardian ad Litem program has not implemented any significant changes and currently rests blame on it’s failures as a “lack of funding” or simply blames parents as the cause due to the adversarial nature of family court proceedings. The Grazzini-Rucki case is one tragic example, of many, as to why serious reform is needed in both the Guardian ad Litem program and family court, overall.

 

 Samantha Rucki in her own words - speaks out about abuse and treatment by the court, GAL, etc - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCulTBdqHQ

  

 

Uniting Against Court Corruption (Older article, offers a look at Minnesota's failures in family court) - https://civilrightsinfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/uniting-against-court-corruption/

Judicial Warfare: Anomic Age Interviews Michael Volpe on Tragic Family Court and CPS Cases

 

(10/16/2020) Journalist Michael Volpe shares his story of how he began reporting on real life stories of families impacted by failures and corruption in the family court and CPS, and discusses several cases, in an interview with “Anomic Age”.

Michael Volpe On Anomic Age

 Some of the cases discussed:

1) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/08/california-cws-takes-three-year-under.html A California, John Barton, man says he three-year-old son was unjustly taken into state care by local Child Protective Services (CPS) on July 31, 2020. Barton believes his son may have suffered abuse in foster care. Barton and his wife are both products of foster care when they were growing up, and thinks makes him a target when dealing with social services. Barton was denied custody because social services determined that because he struggled with homelessness that he is neglectful of his son. 

Note: Family First Act was applied into law on February 9, 2018, as a part of the Bipartisan Budget Act (HR. 1892). The Family First Act implements reforms to the child welfare system to better meet the needs of families by keeping children with families whenever possible, and using foster care or state placement as a last result. FFA offers support and resources for families to achieve this. It is unclear why John Bartonand his ex partner were not offered help, including securing stable housin, before their son was taken into state care. The FFA is designed to support parents like Barton, who is a loving,involved father who has been able to adequately provide for his son and is just in need of some additional assistance to help get through a challenging situation.

2) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/09/explosive-audio-reveals-details-behind.html Volpe investigates the unsual circumstances on how a local Minneapolis reporter gained an interview with the Rucki girls shortly after they ran away in 2013 (the girls ran as a direct result of the family court attempting to reunite them with an allegedly abusive father).

3) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/09/judge-uses-arbitrary-and-capricious.html Haley Luttrell, a mother from Kane County, Illinois, says she unjustly lost custody of her son in family court and her rights have been violated in proceedings. Luttrell was once a primary caregiver to her son and due to the court order, she has become forcibly estranged, and denied contact. Luttrell sought to improve her life, and that of her son, by entering law school, so that she could obtain a career that provided stability and increased financial resources. When Luttrell petitioned the court to temporarily move out of state in order to attend school, it triggered a series of events that resulted in her losing custody.There has never been any allegations or findings of maltreatment against Luttrell. She is now fighting to regain custody of her son, who she has not seen since before the pandemic began.

4) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/09/joannas-incredible-international.html Joanna Shugar was born in England. Her birth mother was a vulnerable teenager living in a group home in England; Joanna was conceived through rape, when her mother was only 13 years old. Authorities pressured the mother to abort but she refused. After birth, social services seized the baby. Joanna was later adopted an American couple, who severely abused her, until she entered Florida's chaotic foster care system.

5) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/10/tarrant-county-courts-examination.html An indepth look at Tarrant County' Taxas judicial and CPS system. 

6) Volpe discusses idea on how to improve the family court and CPS system. He also reveals efforts to establish a website dedictedto reporting more in-depth on cases involving unjust family court and CPS cases in order to raise awareness and give victims a voice. Get Louder Fundraiser

“Unorthodox Decision By The Court”: No Evidence of Abuse When Children Removed, Children Traumatized By Family Court

Image by Okan Caliskan pixaby.com public domain

Records Reveal:

When forced out of family home in September 2012, and five children removed from her custody, there was NO evidence of abuse against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and NO evidence the children were in danger. Dakota County social services told Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich that the children did not qualify to be taken into “therapeutic foster care”, meaning there was no need for out of home placement. CPS also cleared reports filed against Sandra made by Friedrich, court professionals prior to the emergency hearing used to take the children.

After the children were removed from Sandra’s care, and she had no contact with the children, they were examined by court appointed therapist, Dr. James Gilbertson. Records reveal that Dr. Gilbertson, found NO signs of alienation in the Rucki children but rather diagnosed them with “adjustment symptomolgy”.

Gilbertson also found that the children were traumatized by actions of the family court: “As I surveyed the situation, it appeared that my role was to address the trauma and the issues these children were experiencing in the upheaval of their custodial home and their family and this somewhat unorthodox decision by the court.”

And,”They (the children) are puzzled on why the family has been so separated and what can be done.”

Here’s what happened

Social service records reveal 3 “child maltreatment”reports were filed with CPS in regards to the Rucki children less than a week before the telephonic hearing that resulted in Judge David L Knutson forcibly removing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki from her home in September 2012. In each instance, Dakota County Social Services screened out ALL allegations, finding no evidence abuse had occurred, and NO evidence the children were in danger while in their mother’s care. This means the family court, presided by Judge David L. Knutson, had no legal grounds to hold an emergency telephonic hearing, and no legal grounds to remove the children from Sandra’s custody.

A deeper examination of court records and documentation suggest a financial motive behind the actions of ex-husband David Rucki fueled the custody dispute. Rucki’s court filings for custody of the children happened amidst efforts to strip ex-wife Sandra of property and financial assets; the events of the custody case made it possible for him take not only the children but also of everything Sandra owned, and her portion of a family inheritance. 

Court records show that during divorce proceedings, Rucki admitted to mastermind what he calls a “divorce on paper”. A large volume of documentation and evidence gathered from this case shows the “divorce on paper” worked as an elaborate financial and real estate scheme that involved filing for divorce and using legal proceedings in order to seize (through court order) the assets and property of ex-wife,Sandra, including her share of the multi-million dollar Grazzini Family Trust, an inheritance passed down from her parents. Records also show unusual property evaluations and real estate transactions involving property owned by Rucki, and how he took ownership of the family home that was awarded to Sandra during the divorce then transferred back to Rucki by Judge Knutson in October 2012.

It should be noted the events leading up to Sandra being falsely accused of “parental alienation” and losing custody of her children also involved transfers of property and assets to David Rucki at the same time. Rucki used the family court to gain legal ownership of property and assets that he had no legal rights to. And as a custodial parent of 5 children who were also beneficiaries of the Grazzini Family Trust, Rucki could also claim the children’s share of the inheritance and control their assets. Rucki’s “divorce on paper” scam gave him millions of dollars in business assets, real estate, property, financial assets, and claims to Sandra’s earnings and even her retirement fund. Incredibly, after this happened, Rucki has claimed pauper status and collected public assistance benefits, including help from the County in seeking child support meant for impoverished families on assistance.

Sandra, in comparison, became homeless,destitute, unable to earn any income (when working, pay was garnished and wages transferred to Rucki) and permanently banned from any contact with her children as a result of the”divorce on paper”.

Image Source: Public Comment, Twitter

 August 28,2012- Hearing in regards to property division. The original divorce decree is overturned by Judge Knutson. During the original divorce decree, Sandra was given sole custody of all 5 children. When the decree was overturned, Judge Knutson put custody “on reserve”, meaning the former order was completely erased and he would issue a new custody order. At the time, there was no legal grounds to remove custody from Sandra.

Sandra is given a post-it note from Judge Knutson instructing her to see Dr. Paul Reitman the next day, and to bring the children for psych evaluation.

In regards to property and assets:

During the property division hearing, Judge Knutson ended all obligation for Rucki to pay spousal maintenance and child support. Rucki was the owner of a multi-million dollar trucking business whose income had supported the family during the marriage. After the divorce was contested, Rucki told the court that Rucki Trucking was worth quote “$0.00” and the single piece of property owned by the business, a dump truck, was worthless. Rucki did not produce a single piece of documentation to prove his claims. Rucki Trucking was then transferred into the name of employee Nelson Kang while still being controlled and run by Rucki himself. It remains unclear why anyone would want to buy a multi-million dollar trucking company that had become worthless overnight, and allow the owner-operator who drove the company into ruin to still manage the company. Also note - Nelson Kang is not a wealthy man, he had his own family to support, and and by all appearances did not have the assets or income available to purchase Rucki Trucking let alone take on it’s massive financial failures and revive the company. Rucki continued to maintain and use the Rucki Trucking checking account for personal use even while the company was owned by someone else.

Sandra was primarily a stay at home parent,with a small income coming from work as a flight attendant (the job was like a hobby and the hours were not regular enough to support a family of six). Judge Knutson not only ordered that Rucki would not have to pay spousal but also put child support on “reserve” meaning he would not have to pay towards the care of his own children. Sandra was left without any income to support the children and did not have a job that would meet expenses. This hearing left her financially devastated. Next, Judge Knutson ordered that if Sandra was not able to make payments on the Ireland Place home and pay the $20,00 owed on the mortgage within a month, he would award the property to Rucki, and put Sandra (and the children) on the streets.  

Property Agreement 8/28/2012  scribd.com/document/413879369/Order-for-Property-Division

Dr. Paul Reitman. Source: http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com

August 29,2012 - The day after the property division hearing, Sandra and the children are court ordered to undergo psychological evaluation with Dr. Paul Reitman, court appointed examiner.

After meeting with Sandra and the children for half an hour (5 minutes per person!), Dr. Reitman claimed Sandra was a “parent alienator” and 4 of the children suffered from the effects of alienation. One of the children, Nico, was found to be perfectly healthy and not suffering from alienation or anything else (how that is possible is never explained).  Dr. Reitman referred colleague Dr. James Gilbertson to the Grazzini-Rucki case to provide therapy for the children.

The results of Dr. Reitman’s assessment (“parental alienation”) was used to remove custody of the children from Sandra and give custody to father, David Rucki.When Rucki gained custody of the children he not only demanded child support from Sandra but also sought access to the Grazzini family trust by claiming the children needed the money.

August 30- September 4, 2012- Reports of alleged abuse were filed with CPS in the days after Sandra (and the Rucki children’s) appointment with Dr. Reitman. Each allegation was screened out. When CPS failed to intervene, and take the children into state care, Judge Knutson held an emergency telephonic hearing to do the job himself.

8/30/2012 10:14 am

Intake method: phone

Presenting problem: Alleged child maltreatment

Description of problems: Caller reported concerns of emotional abuse. Reviewed case with Cory and Barb. Not enough information to rise to the level of maltreatment. Screened out at intake.

Close date and time: 8/31/2012 at 9:37 am

Screen out reason: No allegation meets maltreatment criteria.

Number of alleged victims: 4 (again Nico Rucki not included)

8/30/2012 at 10:05 am

Intake method: phone

Presenting problem: alleged child maltreatment

Gun Nico incident “Nico (age 16) stated to the reporter today that “one time” father held a gun to the child’s head when he was 8 years old.

Since Nico was found NOT to be suffering from parental alienation syndrome, does this mean that the allegation he made about his father holding a gun to his head is actually true?? Note Judge Knutson, Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich, Paul Reitman and James Gilbertson ALL believe that an unfounded and unproven allegation of “emotional abuse” poses a more serious risk of harm to a child than a parent who is alleged to have pointed a gun to a child's head.

September 4, 2012 - Child Maltreatment Report

Intake Workgroup name: Grazzini-Rucki, Sandra CP intake 9/4/2012

Intake type: Child maltreatment report

Intake method: fax

Date and time received: 9/4/2012 11:27 am

Source :Blocked out

Caller: Blocked out

Presenting Problem: Alleged child maltreatment

Description of report: Received written report from (blocked out). Reviewed with

Carol Duerr (Social Services Supervisor, Dakota County).

No maltreatment, case closed at intake.

Program: Child protective services

Close reason: Screened out maltreatment report

Close date and time: 9/5/2012 9:22 am

Number of alleged victims: 4  

Reason: “No allegation meets maltreatment criteria.”

Is any child in imminent danger? No

Guardian ad Litem is the reporter - note Julie Friedrich admits during the telephonic hearing that “As far as placement for the children, I’ve been in touch with social services. It does not sound like something they would take, so as far as therapeutic foster home, it doesn’t sound like that is something that would happen through Dakota County.” 

Julie Friedrich

The reason why Dakota County social services declined to take the children into foster care is because there was no evidence of abuse, and no indications that the Rucki children were in any danger.

This also means that Judge Knutson, cannot hold an Emergency Telephonic Conference if there is no risk of imminent danger to the children. Which means the telephonic conference was held illegally, that it was also illegal to remove custody from Sandra and to force her out of the home (that she was awarded possession of during the original divorce!). In Minnesota an emergency hearing can ONLY be held when there is  imminent risk of harm to the children.

CPS determined the allegations against Sandra do not meet the criteria for abuse - her name was cleared even before the Emergency Telephonic Conference began.

September 5, 2012 -  Emergency Telephonic Hearing

Sandra forcibly removed from her home.

Lakeville police report filed that day and call to 911 made that day after the Rucki children attempted to run away after having mother removed from the home, and being placed into the temporary custody of a paternal aunt Dr. Tammy Love. Police report states the youngest daughter told police that Love had mistreated her in the past. Children also stated they did not feel safe with Love and they are “just going to run away”if placed under her care.

Samantha and Gianna Rucki, the oldest sisters, also ran away that day - going to Lakeville police. Both girls stated they wanted to be with their mother, raised allegations of abuse and stated they did not feel safe with Love. Seven months later, Samantha and Gianna would run away again when the family court continued to ignore allegations of abuse and again gave Tammy Love custody with the intent of transferring custody to father, David Rucki.

ALSO on September 5^th - Rucki motioned that his child support obligation be discontinued. After Sandra was forcibly removed from the family home, Rucki would regain ownership of the home, and ALL of it’s contents inside, within weeks. The strange occurrences in the transfer of property are noted

Dr. James Gilbertson

September 5, 2012 -Progress Note Dr. James H. Gilbertson

“I received a call from Ms. Friedrich, guardian ad litem to a family matter in which five children are now separated from both parents by order of the court. My name has been recommended as a therapist and Ms. Friedrich is inquiring whether I had time and availability to be such. I informed her I would.”

Julie Friedrich, GAL, tells Dr. Gilbertson that it is a complex case involving allegations of parental alienation.  

“The court previously ordered all five children to remain in the custodial home under the care of their paternal aunt, Dr. Tammy Love. However, the children refused to stay, a crisis worker from Dakota County was involved, and there was a recommendation that the four children be allowed to go to their maternal aunt’s home, Ms. Nancy Olson.”

“Ms. Friedrich reports that there have been two previous attempts for therapists to work with these children that have been unsuccessful. The children were transported to the therapist’s office but ran away as soon as they go there.”

This is a key statement:

1) Therapy to reunite the Rucki children with father, David, was “unsuccessful” and as a direct result of  the court trying to force a relationship with father. Therapist records show the children raised allegations of abuse from their father, witnessing violence towards mother, and other frightening behavior from father while in session. The children attempted to run away on 2 separate occasions when the court used therapy to force the children to visit father. 

2) The children running away on these two occasions was NOT attributed to parental alienation or anything mother, Sandra, did.

3) The Court, the Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich and the therapist Dr. Gilbertson ALL failed to investigate why the children were running away. It is clear, however, the Rucki children ran away from an environment where they felt unsafe and ran to an environment where they thought they would be protected. 

October 29, 2012 - Dr. Gilbertson meets with Sandra and requests a $1,000 retainer (and that does not include hourly fees). Sandra has been forcibly removed from her home by order of Judge Knutson, and has lost all of her possessions. Sandra is childless, homeless, without income and uncertain of her future when Dr. Gilbertson demands payment.

Notes do not indicate when Dr. Gilbertson first met with David Rucki.

November 25, 2012 - The family court held an ex parte emergency hearing to take custody from Sandra, claiming the children faced imminent harm then waited two months before the children saw the court ordered therapist. Gilbertson’s first meeting with 3 of the Rucki children.  Dr. Gilbertson does not visit Nico until December 2012, that’s 3 months later! Dr. Gilbertson’s note indicate it took him even longer, at 4 months later, to visit Samantha.

According to therapy notes, which have been made publicly available, abuse allegations were raised to Dr. Gilbertson by the Rucki children. The children also expressed concern that the professionals concerned were not listening after they spoke out about abuse. The children also worried that they would be forced to visit their father because they did not feel safe.

The children also tell Dr. Gilbertson that they miss their mother and want to see her again. “She reported that she ‘broke down’ when her mother has to leave as she did not want her to do that…She reported that she missed her mother.”

After just one session of meeting with 3 of the Rucki children, Dr. Gilbertson diagnosed the children with ‘adjustment symptomolgy”. He ruled out serious clinical problems, including depression, anxiety and PTSD. Dr. Gilbertson does NOT make any findings of parental alienation in the Rucki children.

Dr. Gilbertson also said the family court, presided by Judge David Knutson, traumatized the Rucki children, “As I surveyed the situation, it appeared that my role was to address the trauma and the issues these children were experiencing in the upheaval of their custodial home and their family and this somewhat unorthodox decision by the court.”

And,”They (the children) are puzzled on why the family has been so separated and what can be done.”

Read More:

 David Rucki Commits Apparent Mortgage Fraud

David Rucki constantly foreclosed on but somehow buys property back

 

David Rucki "Paper Divorce" Scam

September 5, 2012 Emergency Hearing

Dr Gilbertson Therapy Notes

 4 Separate Docs - Gilbertson Notes

Mortgage Fraud Complaint Letter Against David Rucki

Paul Reitman Had Recently Been Released from Suspension When Appointed to the Rucki Case

 Punished 4 Protecting: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Michael Volpe Continue to Expose Crime, Corruption in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Reitman Claims Court Bias Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Rucki Social Service Notes, CPS Reports

RICO Allegations in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Why is David Rucki taking money from Albert Grazzini's Trust?

SamiRucki by mikekvolpe on Scribd