 | |
| 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 5th - 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:
SamiRucki by mikekvolpe on Scribd