(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
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/
