Tsimhoni Vs. Tsimhoni: Full Court Documents In The Tale Of The Jailed Michigan Kids 4.14.15 [8 of 13] Read the full article recapping the case here: http://everything-pr.com/tsimhoni-vs-tsimhoni/258461/

1. 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
MAYA EIBSCHITZ-TSIMHONI,
Plaintiff,
v Case No. 09-766749-DM
OMER G. TSIMHONI,
Defendant./
MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LISA GORCYCA
Pontiac, Michigan - Wednesday, August 20, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: RENEE K. GUCCIARDO (P47884)
The Gucciardo Law Firm PLLC
30700 Telegraph Road, Suite 1580
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
(248) 723-5190
For the Defendant: KERI MIDDLEDITCH (P63088)
Alexander, Eisenberg, Middleditch
and Spilman PLLC
600 South Adams Street, Suite 100
Birmingham, MI 48009
(248) 358-8880
Also Present: WILLIAM LANSAT (P36752)
Guardian ad Litem
280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 250
Birmingham, MI 48009
(248) 258-7074
Transcript Provided by: Accurate Transcription Services, LLC
Firm # 8493
(734)944-5818
Transcribed by: Susan G. Johnson, CER 3511

2. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
WITNESSES
None
EXHIBITS RECEIVED
None offered.

3. 3
Pontiac, Michigan1
Wednesday, August 20, 2014, at 8:47 a.m.2
* * * * * *3
THE CLERK: The court calls docket number 11,4
Eibschitz-Tsimhoni v Tsimhoni, case number 09-766749-DM.5
MS. GUCCIARDO: Good morning, your Honor. Renee6
Gucciardo on behalf of the plaintiff, Maya Eibschitz-7
Tsimhoni.8
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Good morning, your Honor.9
Keri Middleditch on behalf of the defendant, who is10
present to my right.11
MR. LANSAT: William Lansat, GAL, your Honor.12
THE COURT: Hi Dad.13
MR. TSIMHONI: Hi.14
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Your Honor, this is the date15
and time scheduled for my motion.16
As the Court is well-aware, I was not here last17
week. My partner, Amy Spilman, covered for me; and the18
Court issued an order requiring, among other things, that19
mother provide when she purchased her flight information--20
provide her flight information, when she purchased the21
tickets, when she changed the plans, et cetera.22
To be specific, mother was to provide proof to23
the defendant and the guardian ad litem of when her August24
2014 travel arrangements to France were made, including25

4. 4
the date of purchase and any rescheduling, return date,1
and specific actual flight information by Monday,2
August 18, 2014.3
I did receive an e-mail from Ms. Gucciardo on4
Monday after five o’clock with what purports to be flight5
information. It doesn’t tell me anything. There is a6
date on here that says April 28, 2014, which I know can’t7
be true.8
I came back here a couple of days ago to watch9
the video from June 4th
when we were here. And on June10
fourth, I’m sure you recall, I filed a motion to get my11
client some parenting time because he gave 45-days’ notice12
and Ms. Gucciardo said my client informed you--my client13
informed you that she was going out of town. And I said,14
that’s true, she did. My client responded he’s coming.15
And Dr. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni said, Sorry, I’m going to be16
gone the whole summer. And you said, No, he’s going to17
have parenting time with his kids. So he came in on18
June 14th
and he had parenting time. And as this Court19
well knows, it didn’t go well; we were back here a number20
of times while he was here at that time.21
Ms. Gucciardo had obviously spoken with her22
client and repeated what her client was saying, that she23
was supposed to be leaving June 14th
, she was leaving24
June 14th
and she was going to be gone for the rest of the25

5. 5
summer, her father was dying, they were going to Italy.1
Well, these tickets could not have been2
purchased on April 28, 2014, to leave August 9th
and come3
back August 20th
. Couldn’t have been. Couldn’t have been.4
It was contrary to the representations that plaintiff made5
when she was here on June 4th
. Clearly she changed them.6
I don’t know when. She has not complied with the court7
order.8
And, and, so when I indicated to Ms. Gucciardo,9
I’m sorry, we’re still going to have to go to court10
because you have not complied--your client has not11
complied with the Court’s order.12
Now I talk to Mr. Tsimhoni, he was scheduled to13
be here until August 28th
. And he said he talked to Maya14
who said she was coming back here on the 20th
. Ms.15
Gucciardo represented to me that her client plans on16
flying to L.A. to see a melanoma specialist for her dying17
father. I have no flight information to confirm that. I18
don’t know when that ticket was booked. I don’t know why19
she--when she’s going, what--when she booked such travel20
plans. I certainly don’t understand why the three minor21
children have to go to L.A. to see a specialist for their22
grandfather’s cancer.23
So I said to Ms. Gucciardo in an e-mail24
yesterday: Could we at least agree on a couple of days of25

6. 6
parenting time? Ms. Gucciardo responded to me yesterday1
evening at 8:30. I got the e-mail this morning. I2
contacted my client. Ms. Gucciardo said, Well, we could3
have a couple of days of parenting time; will you please4
remove your motion from the docket? No, I will not remove5
my motion from the docket.6
Dr. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni has not complied with7
this Court’s order. She hasn’t done it. And I want8
attorney fees. I want $3,000 in attorney fees. I’ll9
swear to the fees that were acquired, filing this motion,10
having to appear here last week, having to be here this11
week. It’s ridiculous.12
I never got my--My client never got, the13
guardian ad litem never got, an itinerary for the trip.14
She wasn’t even allowed to go because she didn’t provide15
it. I don’t care if Mom told--16
THE COURT: Any other relief besides the 3,000?17
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: I want the parenting time here18
at the courthouse for the next few days.19
I also want the Court to be aware that my client20
has had a number of conversations with plaintiff. And my21
client tells me that he told Maya: I’m willing to stay22
here, extend my trip, if you want me to see the kids when23
you come back from L.A. She insists that she is coming24
back September 1st
, the day before school starts. I’ve25

7. 7
seen no proof of a thing.1
So I understand that he didn’t give his 30 days’2
notice. All I ask is for some parenting time. And you3
know what? I never got an itinerary. She never said when4
she was going. She never, ever provided the details that5
this Court required, and that he’s entitled to as a joint6
legal custodian.7
MS. GUCCIARDO: Well, I wonder when an8
attorney’s word means something. That’s what I’d like to9
know. And when it means something when we’re in court and10
we make agreements and orders are issued, because when we11
were in court back in June, we talked about where Dr.12
Tsimhoni was going to be. And we said on the record that13
she was going to be gone until the end of July. Okay?14
And this Court said, and Ms. Middleditch said, I don’t15
care, she can be gone for the rest of the year, as long16
as--since he’s--since Mr. Eibschitz (sic) doesn’t live17
here, since Dad doesn’t live here, she can be gone for the18
rest of the year. It doesn’t matter ‘cause it doesn’t19
interfere with his parenting time.20
Now, Ms. Middleditch filed a motion last week.21
And under the court rules, she’s supposed to swear and22
confirm that the information is true. It says in23
paragraph 15: To date, plaintiff mother has not provided24
the trip itinerary or the Bar Mitzvah plans as required by25

8. 8
the Court’s order on June 14th
of--June 4, 2014.1
Now, that’s an interesting allegation ‘cause2
it’s presumed to be sworn is--is--as presumed under the3
court rules to be accurate. And I would note that back on4
June 6th
, two days after we were in court, I sent Ms.5
Middleditch an e-mail; and I said to her--I thanked her6
for providing the documents for--finally for Ms.--for Mom7
to secure passports for the children. And I said, Maya8
will be leaving with the children on June 28th
to meet with9
her dying father in Italy, and will be there for the10
duration of the summer. June 6th
this was sent.11
Now, Ms.--12
THE COURT: Where’s the itinerary?13
MS. GUCCIARDO: Hold on. Ms. Middleditch--14
THE COURT: I’m not--I’m not holding on.15
MS. GUCCIARDO: --Ms. Middleditch--16
THE COURT: I’m not holding--17
MS. GUCCIARDO: --writes back--18
THE COURT: --on. Where is the itinerary?19
MS. GUCCIARDO: I’m telling you. That’s what--20
I’m telling you. It’s in here.21
On June 8th
Ms. Middleditch, this was at 9:11 on22
a Sunday night, responds to me that she would like some23
clarification regarding the Bar Mitzvah. And her only24
response regarding where Ms. Eibschitz is going is, Will25

9. 9
you provide--Will you please provided--provided more1
details about the trip to Italy? My client is entitled to2
know where in Italy the children will be and where they3
will be staying. Last summer during your client’s travel,4
the children had no communication with their father. This5
cannot happen again.6
I respond to her on June 10th
, and I say,7
regarding the Bar Mitzvah--Now, remember, the allegation8
here last week is to date plaintiff has not provided any9
Bar Mitzvah plans as required by the June 4, 2014, order.10
Regarding the Bar Mitzvah, Maya agrees that Omer--with11
Omer that it’s very important that Liam have a Bar12
Mitzvah; however, due to her father’s grave health13
conditions, she does not have any immediate plans on when14
this will occur, as she needs to deal with her father’s15
health situation. Maya will keep Omer updated on the16
ceremony.17
So, here we go. So, first of all, allegation:18
never provided information about the Bar Mitzvah.19
Completely false. It was provided on June 10th
.20
Then I go on to say, Maya is going to be staying21
at Lago di Garda. As she has done in prior years, she22
will arrange an international access to her phone number,23
and provided the phone number, so that Omer may call the24
children, just as he has been able to do in the past.25

10. 10
Now, that was the end of it. There was nothing1
ever requested from the GAL or from Ms. Middleditch saying2
that’s not enough, I want more information. Nothing.3
That was it.4
So, based upon this, she provided the5
information; and she was under the belief that she could6
go. And pursuant to what was said in court and what was7
said in this June 6th
notification, she believed she could8
make plans for the duration of the summer.9
Now, her time was moved because, again, even10
though she had been the first person on May 1st
to give her11
plans for the summer, she was ordered by this Court to12
change her plans to accommodate Mr.--to accommodate Dad’s13
request that he be allowed to exercise parenting time with14
the children. So all that had to be changed.15
She abided by the Court’s order. She changed16
her plans. And Dad was allowed to have parenting time.17
Because of that, the father’s health condition declined.18
She wasn’t able to leave. And she was--they had to delay19
get--they couldn’t get out because of the war going on in20
Israel.21
Now, her sister had provided these--purchased22
these tickets for the family back on April 28th
; however,23
nobody knew because of the dad’s condition whether or not24
these--the mother and the children were going to be25

11. 11
allowed to go to France on August 8th
. But the tickets1
were purchased on April 28th
.2
Mom is required to provide the itinerary, which3
she did. She provided the itinerary. She advised that4
she was going to be out of town. She provided the5
itinerary on June 10th
. Nothing was objected to.6
Everybody knew she was going to be out of the country for7
the rest of the summer. And she made her plans8
accordingly.9
Now, should she have advised the father that she10
was also going to France? She should have. And she did.11
But this whole thing was manufactured by Dad because he12
knew, as of June 6th
, that Mom was going to be gone for the13
rest of the summer.14
Mom has a right to rely on what this Court says,15
what the attorneys agree to, what the GAL agrees to. All16
of this was put into writing. And she has a right to rely17
upon that and make her plans accordingly.18
Dad, again, throws a wrench in her plans, even19
though every single person, this Court, Ms. Middleditch,20
the GAL, myself, all said, yes, you have the rest of the21
summer with your children. She made the plans22
accordingly.23
She has fully complied with providing the24
documentation that she was ordered to provide. She25

12. 12
provided the itinerary. And her sister purchased these1
tickets on April 28th
. And she made plans to go to enjoy2
the rest of her summer, which was agreed upon back on June3
sixth.4
So, the motion says that no itinerary was given.5
The motion says information about the Bar Mitzvah was not6
given. That is false. If the GAL or Ms. Middleditch did7
not think that that was a sufficient itinerary back on8
June 6th
, then either one of them should have said, hey,9
not sufficient itinerary. They didn’t say anything about10
it. She was supposed to leave June 28th
. They don’t11
complain at all until Dad all of a sudden says, Oh, I know12
that Maya said that she’s going to be gone this summer,13
but I’m going to come in on August--in August and throw a14
wrench in this whole thing.15
I contacted Ms. Eibschitz. She’s over--She’s in16
Europe. She’s coming back on--today. I said, Will you17
agree to delay going to California, she’s a doctor, too,18
to talk with these specialists about your father’s19
condition? We agreed to do that so that Omer can have his20
parenting time, because that’s what Ms. Middleditch asked21
for. She sends me an e-mail: Will your client agree that22
Omer can see his children for a few days before this23
weekend? I say yes. Get rid of the motion. She says,24
no, we’re still going to be here. Why? To rack up more25

13. 13
attorney fees? To again try and vilify Maya in front of1
you because she knows that every time she comes in here,2
she gets crucified.3
I don’t understand how it is that we have very4
specific orders that were put in place regarding traveling5
plans, regarding what’s said on the record when people can6
travel, and how Mom is supposed to comply to the “t” about7
these, but Dad can do whatever he wants. Orders are8
changed. She has to change her vacation plans over and9
over again. And yet she’s the one that’s required to pay10
attorney fees. She’s the one that’s vilified. And Dad is11
given a medal of honor for violating orders time and time12
again.13
And again, I want to know when officers of the14
court’s word mean something and when our client--my client15
can rely upon what is said in open court, when her16
attorney gives notice and nobody gives--objects to the17
notification, and when she can rely on those things to18
make plans, because, obviously, my word with her is nil,19
because I told her you can go for the rest of the summer.20
And that’s not true. So I would like some clarification21
on that. Or does it just mean that Mom is held to the22
orders but Dad can do whatever he wants?23
And I want attorney fees for being here, because24
this is absurd.25

14. 14
THE COURT: Ms. Middleditch, you or Mr. Lansat?1
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Can I just briefly respond?2
When my client told me he was coming in this3
time, he told the guardian ad litem, we sent it to Ms.4
Gucciardo, and we sent it to--the guardian ad litem, I5
didn’t, sent it plaintiff. She never responded that she6
was going to be gone. Never said it. In fact, my client7
talked to her and said I’m coming here; you know, I’m8
looking forward to seeing the kids. She never said a9
word.10
Her saying that she’s going to Italy and staying11
at some hotel is hardly an itinerary. Hardly. I never12
got flight information. Nothing. And I first requested13
it. And when Ms. Gucciardo responded, all she said was a14
hotel. That’s not enough. And I don’t have to keep15
asking 57 times for her to comply with the court order.16
I’ll file a motion. I’m done.17
Secondly, she never provided flight information18
until Monday after five o’clock that she’s in Paris? It’s19
the first I’m hearing of it. Paris? This is ridiculous.20
I want $3,000 in attorney fees.21
THE COURT: All right.22
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: This woman plays with the23
system.24
THE COURT: Mr. Lansat?25

15. 15
MR. LANSAT: Your Honor, you ordered on August1
13th
--You didn’t say she couldn’t go. You ordered an2
itinerary to be provided. You ordered it on August 13th
.3
THE COURT: Actually, I thought I ordered it on4
June 4th
.5
MR. LANSAT: No, August 13th
was a subsequent6
motion--7
THE COURT: But I--8
MR. LANSAT: --because we found out--9
THE COURT: But I--10
MR. LANSAT: --she was going to be going away11
when he was coming in.12
THE COURT: But on June 4th
I ordered she is not13
permitted to travel out of the country with the children14
unless and until she provides the travel itinerary to15
father.16
MR. LANSAT: And then you (indiscernible)17
another order on August 13th
, following a motion. And18
that, I think, is what the dispute was last week, where I19
think the information was provided to you, and it--you20
said it wasn’t an itinerary.21
Having said that, I don’t know how in April she22
could have bought tickets for the recent trip when you23
didn’t even know she wasn’t going to go on the first trip.24
That’s just a little disconnect for me. I don’t know how25

16. 16
you explain it.1
Listen, this case for four years, due to the2
wonderful representation of Ms. Gucciardo, God love her,3
this woman should pay her $20 million. She’s never come4
to court until you told her to come to court.5
The parenting time is abysmal. It’s a joke.6
And all I want from this--You can decide this7
itinerary and the cost. That’s your call. I just want8
for the last--for the two days, Thursday and Friday, that9
this father gets parenting time, it’s done here with the10
monitor in the jury room, and be done with it. We’ve11
tried everything else. It isn’t working.12
And these kids should not come back the day13
before school starts, from L.A. or anywhere else. That’s14
ridiculous.15
THE COURT: All right. The Court agrees with16
you, Mr. Lansat. And the Court agrees with Ms.17
Middleditch.18
Mom was ordered by me in June to provide an19
itinerary. It was off--I--I--Dad should have known before20
April 28th
about these tickets being purchased for a trip21
in August. That was not told to this Court. It was a22
complete not representation by Mom when apparently we23
argued this and she never told anybody that--anything24
about France, anything about anything. I also ordered25

17. 17
that she should be here, she must be here, unless she’s1
excused. She’s not excused.2
MS. GUCCIARDO: She’s in Europe.3
THE COURT: She’s not excused.4
Ms. Middleditch, you are entitled to your5
attorney fees. Dad should not have had to spend one penny6
on this. Please provide a detailed billing to--7
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: I will, your Honor.8
THE COURT: --Ms. Gucciardo.9
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: I’ll provide it by the end of10
the week.11
THE COURT: Mom is to return and let Dad have12
the travel--the two days’ parenting time here in the jury13
room or wherever else Dad chooses.14
MR. LANSAT: Well, I think the only way it’s15
going to work is all these kids come up here with the16
supervisor, take one child into the room, lock the room17
with the supervisor, with the father, and have some18
meaningful parenting time. They’re not in school. It19
shouldn’t be today ‘cause the kids are obviously just20
getting back. That would not be fair, obviously. It21
should start tomorrow and Friday. And then if Mom wants22
to go to Los Angeles to help her father, she should be23
able to do that. That’s not an issue. I just don’t think24
the kids should come back the Monday before school starts.25

18. 18
MS. GUCCIARDO: You know what? She’s the1
parent. And she knows what her kids can and cannot do.2
So--And she knows that the kids are ready for school.3
That’s not up before the Court. The GAL hasn’t talked to4
the kids in years, with all due respect.5
MR. LANSAT: No, I did speak to the kids at--6
MS. GUCCIARDO: And he doesn’t know if they’re7
going to be capable of being ready for school or not.8
THE COURT: I think that--9
MS. GUCCIARDO: The mother, primary caretaker,10
knows when their kids are ready or not.11
But I do--I want to know--I want it addressed12
about the allegations to date, in this motion that was13
filed, on August 8th
: Plaintiff mother has not provided the14
trip itinerary or the Bar Mitzvah plans as required by the15
Court’s order of June 4th
, when this was provided, and16
nobody objected to it, nobody said that there was a17
problem, and the Bar Mitzvah information was provided.18
What is--When is it that an attorney’s word means19
something? And when is it that Maya can rely on what’s20
said in court? Because she provided the information.21
THE COURT: All right. Well, I’ve ruled.22
And Dad, I expect you to follow the court23
orders.24
I expect mother to follow all the court orders25

19. 19
and to re-read what joint custodian means. And Mom needs1
to have complete full disclosure or Mom is going to like2
this Court not at all.3
MS. GUCCIARDO: So--All right, so we--4
MR. LANSAT: What time do you want it tomorrow?5
MS. GUCCIARDO: --can just write whatever we6
want in motions, even though it’s not true?7
THE COURT: What time would you suggest?8
MR. LANSAT: And by the way, your Honor, I saw9
the kids in July in my office for about three hours.10
So what time do you want to have them here with11
the supervisor?12
THE COURT: What works for you, Dad?13
MR. TSIMHONI: Whatever works for them, I’ll14
clean my--clear my schedule.15
They’re coming in at 2:00 p.m., so I’d say16
probably tomorrow, not early in the morning.17
MS. GUCCIARDO: Have them be here at 10:00 a.m.18
Have them spend the whole day here. It’ll be great.19
It’ll do wonders for the relationship.20
MR. LANSAT: Your Honor, the relationship, it’s21
nonexistent.22
THE COURT: Dad, I give you a lot of kudos for23
continuing this horrible fight that you’ve been fighting24
all these years and such an uphill battle and a lot of25

20. 20
parents would have thrown in the towel. And one day,1
hopefully, you will have the relationship you deserve.2
MR. TSIMHONI: Thank you.3
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: So parenting time will4
commence at 10:00 a.m., both Thursday and Friday, here in5
the jury room?6
MS. GUCCIARDO: Have it go all day. Enjoy.7
It’ll be fun.8
THE COURT: That would be great if it is good.9
MR. TSIMHONI: Thank you.10
THE COURT: I hope that it does.11
I hope Ms. Gucciardo is honest when she says12
those things, and that that does happen. That would be13
wonderful for your children’s entire life to have a good14
relationship with you.15
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: I’ll draft the order, your16
Honor.17
THE COURT: And have a nice parenting time.18
MS. GUCCIARDO: It’ll be fun.19
THE COURT: Feel free if you want--We can give20
you an order, if you want to bring in, like, games or21
computer, or whatever--however you want to do it.22
I also want--23
You’re supposed to be having Skype. And it’s24
unacceptable when Mom goes to North Carolina and she25

21. 21
doesn’t have Skype because there’s no internet. So she’s1
going to have to buy one of those Hotspots, those routers.2
She’s been traveling all over the world. That’s lovely3
for the children. So she can definitely afford a $30-a-4
month fee. It’s a little HotSpot. You can get them at5
any cell phone company, Target, so that she--6
MS. GUCCIARDO: She’s been complying with Skype.7
THE COURT: --has--8
Well, in here I read in one of the exhibits that9
said she’s being--She’s being nice. I love--I think that10
was wonderful that Dad put that in there. But she--he11
wasn’t able to do Skype in North Carolina because she was12
traveling to a place that didn’t have internet. So if she13
had the Hotspot, she’d be able to have internet wherever14
she goes. Like, you can just put it in your purse.15
MS. GUCCIARDO: This Court will recall that Dad16
was supposed to have his computer checked by the court-17
appointed expert who was appointed by--18
MR. LANSAT: That was (indiscernible)--19
MS. GUCCIARDO: --the GAL and he refused to do20
it. Refused to do it.21
MR. LANSAT: That--22
MS. GUCCIARDO: So again, Dad gets to do--23
THE COURT: (Indiscernible) think about that?24
MS. GUCCIARDO: --whatever he--25

22. 22
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Actually, the guardian ad--1
MS. GUCCIARDO: --whatever he wants to do,--2
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: --litem could speak to that.3
MS. GUCCIARDO: --disregards court orders; and4
then all of a sudden, here we are, Mom’s getting in5
trouble again.6
MR. LANSAT: Mother hasn’t--7
MS. GUCCIARDO: Mom--8
MR. LANSAT: Mother hasn’t followed anything,9
either. The Skype thing--The expert--The expert--10
MS. GUCCIARDO: So Dad just gets away with it.11
MR. LANSAT: The expert was way back when. We12
put in Mr. Gallagher, the supervisor who’s here who13
authored those reports, to go to the home and determine14
what’s happening with the Skype. So there has been times15
when the Skype has been going. The independent thing16
doesn’t need to happen anymore because we have Mr.17
Gallagher there. And if thinks there’s a problem, then18
he’s going to tell both of them what needs to be done.19
THE COURT: This--Dad, there is another judge in20
this court that--courthouse that likes to say this story:21
She had a very contentuous--contentious divorce and Dad22
was vilified for years by Mom. And when the child turned23
sixteen, the child got his license and the first place he24
drove was to see that judge and say, Judge, my dad is not25

23. 23
horrible and I want to see my dad. So that’s a very1
interesting story that I think about a lot.2
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: The Hotspot is supposed to be3
a part of this Court’s written order?4
THE COURT: If North Carolina was because5
there’s no internet for anybody, no. But if North6
Carolina is--they--the hotel she’s staying at just didn’t7
have the access, yes.8
MS. GUCCIARDO: Well, I want to be able to9
respond to it.10
THE COURT: Yes.11
MS. GUCCIARDO: This wasn’t even brought up.12
THE COURT: Well, this is my--this was--13
MS. GUCCIARDO: And it puts me in a--14
THE COURT: --this was--this was mine.15
MS. GUCCIARDO: --terrible position ‘cause I16
have no idea how I’m supposed to respond to that.17
THE COURT: Well, I would like Mom not--If Mom18
is going to travel where there’s not internet access,19
she’s going to have to get that little router so that20
there is internet access, because otherwise how can she be21
having--how can he be having Skype? So she has to have22
Skype.23
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Thank you, your Honor.24
MR. TSIMHONI: Thank you, your Honor.25

24. 24
THE COURT: We’ll see you tomorrow, Dad.1
And if you need an order to bring anything in,2
so . . . Yeah, you can just do--You can just write on the3
order that Dad is allowed to bring--4
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Electronic devices in?5
THE COURT: --electronic devices in.6
Just no weapons, Dad.7
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Okay.8
MR. TSIMHONI: I don’t have (indiscernible).9
THE COURT: Or like food or something fun.10
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.11
(At 9:11 a.m., proceedings concluded)12
* * * * * *13

25. 25
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
COUNTY OF OAKLAND ) ss.
I certify that this transcript is a true and accurate
transcription to the best of my ability of the proceeding in
this case before the Honorable Lisa Gorcyca, as recorded by the
clerk.
Proceedings were recorded and provided to this
transcriptionist by the Circuit Court and this certified
reporter accepts no responsibility for any events that occurred
during the above proceedings, for any inaudible and/or
indiscernible responses by any person or party involved in the
proceeding or for the content of the recording provided.
Dated: September 1, 2014
___/S/ Susan G. Johnson_____________
Susan G. Johnson, CER 3511