“We Just Want People To Listen..”- Terrified Teen Reveals Why She Ran Away After Court Failed To Protect Her From Abuse

Public Domain Image: https://www.wallpaperflare.com/

An audio recording made by Gianna Rucki sometime shortly after April 19, 2013, describes the fear this teen girl felt witnessing her father’s violent behavior towards the family.

“Being in the house with my dad was really bad. He was abusive, had anger issues, always screaming, yelling, it was really bad and it put all of us in danger – me, my siblings, and my mom. And we couldn’t do anything to stop it. He’d just keep going off and off and off…”

“I really don’t want to be with my dad. I want to be with my mom 100%. My dad never really touched has never touched me like hurt, like physically punched me. But I have had that feeling where he if he’s next to me or he’s talking to me when he’s angry that he was about to just ready just to full-blown hurt me. And it was really scary. You should never feel like that but I did.  I don’t want to be with my father or his family at all… I don’t feel very comfortable and I don’t.. I’m scared out of my life…“

Gianna says when she told family court professionals about her experiences that she was not believed and instead, was forced, against her will, into therapy that promoted a relationship with her father (and his family) despite her concerns of safety.

“I have made it very clearly to the therapist, the judge, the guardian but they all believe that I should have  a relationship with my father and I don’t want to. I don’t want to have a relationship with my father. And when we were able to have the chance to have to talk to the judge and tell him what we wanted, I told him very clearly who I wanted to be with which was my mom. And I did not want to have a relationship with my dad at all. And he told me that we didn’t have a choice and that no child has a choice to choose who they want to be with. And i don’t believe that at all. I think that we all have a decision that we want to make and that was my decision. And he would not agree with me…“

Gianna says that when she and her sister, Samantha (Sami), ran away in April 2013 that it was a result of the family court failing to protect her from abuse, and a desperate attempt to save themselves after learning that the court was planning to place her in the care of a paternal aunt (as part of a plan to transfer custody to the father).

“I just was bawling in tears. I couldn’t believe it. And Dr. Gilbertson said that this was the plan from the beginning. Which i was so upset about because he told us that he didn’t know what was going to go on. And he hears us he believes us. And he’s going to try to get us with our mom. But clearly he said this is the plan from the beginning. So this has been planned for a while and I’m just so betrayed.

And when everything, when we were being brought to Tammy’s home, we were escorted by police and we were so scared. We didn’t know what was going to go on. And we wanted to get our stuff but we couldn’t (from Nancy’s). And we were brought right to Tammy’s.

And me and Sami ran. We were so scared. We know that what could have happened and what has

happened in Tammy’s care. And we were not going to let that happen to us. So we ran and we’re frightened. We don’t want to be with Tammy we don’t want to be with my dad.

And we’re totally afraid. We’re scared of our lives and we just want people to listen..”

 

 

Gianna was correct when she stated “this was the plan all along”.

Letter dated February 6, 2013, from court appointed therapist Dr. James H. Gilbertson, P.h.D. to court appointed Guardian ad Litem, Julie Friedrich, discussing plans to reunify Rucki children with their father despite allegations of abuse and expressing fear of him. Dr. Gilbertson also acknowledges the “volatile family history”, “the children’s painful memories” and that father needs to be accountable for his own behavior while the family was intact (prior to the divorce). These statements from Dr. Gilbertson imply that either abuse or trauma happened in the Rucki home, and involved the actions of the father.

More Info:

Michael Volpe: On Patriots Soapbox Talking CPS, Rucki, Diegel and More

(Nov 2015) Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns

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

Unqualified Administrator Made Rucki Custody Recommendation

Lying: A Weapon in the Grazzini-Rucki Case – Do Comments from Son Reveal Alienation or Abuse?

Are remarks Nico Rucki wrote on a facebook post evidence of parental alienation, as father David Rucki claims, or further evidence of abuse??

David Rucki read a victim impact statement at the sentencing of ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki that read, in part, “Nico was forced by Sandy to write a false statement on Facebook. They were not the truth they were his mother’s words....”

The statement in question included remarks from son, Nico, that stated Rucki is abusive towards him. It has since been removed from Facebook.  20/20 included a screen shot of that Facebook post in their coverage of the case in the episode “Footprints in the Snow”. What can be read on the screenshot includes: “My dad is a bad person, he is abusive, verbally and physically…” and “Has hit all of his children...” and “He doesn’t care for any of his children...” and “He’s a thief, a male (blurred out) and an unfit father.” and “He is currently fighting for rights of me and my (unclear)..” The screenshot featured on 20/20 has no date to indicate when it originated.

Screenshot ABC 20/20

Rucki is pushing the narrative that Sandra forced her son to write this post doesn’t offer fact or evidence needed to determine its authenticity. It would be easy to claim this one Facebook post is a sign of “parental alienation” but looking deeper into the circumstances of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Nico’s own history suggests this Facebook post may actually validate that abuse has occurred.

Some additional information –

Parental Alienation or Abuse Excuse?

Dr. Paul Reitmann’s Faulty Diagnosis Does Not Meet

APA Practice Guidelines in Grazzini-Rucki Case

In August 2012, Judge Knutson ordered Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children to meet with Dr. Paul Reitman, a White Bear Lake psychologist specializing in parental alienation. Judge Knutson determined that Dr. Reitman was needed because supervised visitation between Rucki and the children failed, and that reunification therapy had not begun. There are allegations that emotional abuse and threatening behavior occurred in supervised visitation, and the reason it failed was because of Rucki’s abusive behavior towards the children.

Dr. Paul Reitman (Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com)

Dr. Reitman met with Sandra and the children for less than 30 minutes when he determined that the children were in need of “deprogramming”. That means Reitman gave 5 minutes or less to each member of the family, when coming to the conclusion that would ultimately destroy this family. Dr. Reitman conducted no tests, analysis or evaluation. He did not consider the evidence of abuse, the police reports, the OFP violations, Rucki’s criminal record and other evidence available. The way in which Dr. Reitman diagnosed the alleged “parental alienation” does not meet  APA established practice guidelines; it is not credible. American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines

There was no hearing, no findings, and no complaints that Sandra had ever harmed her children. In fact, the children have consistently begged to return to the care of their mother, the response from the Court and from their father, was anger, dismissal and forced reunification therapy. The cure for “parental alienation” in this case has been to induce alienation in the Rucki children against mother their under the guise of “therapy”.

Media descriptions about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki reiterate negative messages given to the children, these messages all originate back to David Rucki. The children are being forced to accept abuse, and told the mother who sought to protect them is mentally ill, unemotional, has abandoned them, and is a criminal. At the same time the media is refusing to present evidence suggesting that abuse has occurred, and has largely excluded Sandra’s side of the story from its coverage.

Negative messages given to the children were also revealed by S. Rucki who said in an audio message from April 2013 that Dr. Gilbertson, the Guardian ad Litem, and others made false statements on why she could not see her mother. The children were told that their mother went to Philadelphia, that she signed over her rights, and that she was committed to a mental health facility. S. Rucki says she did not believe them because “their lies would overlap“.

It is in this environment, under these pressures, that Nico Rucki has recanted abuse and then spoke against his mother and the “drama” he claims she brought to his life. 

Statements from Dr. Gilbertson

Validate Abuse Allegations

Statements made on the Facebook post are similar to findings made by Dr. James Gilbertson, a court ordered therapist.

Dr. Gilbertson was appointed by Judge Knuston. This is an important point to make, and an issue being brought up by those seeking reform in the family court system – family court judges, and Guardian ad Litems are personally choosing therapists and professionals to provide services to families. Often these professionals share social and professional relationships with the judge, and court players – they come onto these cases with bias, and profit when repeatedly appointed to family court cases.  Parents are being excluded from the decision making process, and these professionals hold massive power over their families, and their lives.

Parents who do not comply with the court’s directive, and who appear to resist therapy (or raise concerns), are often threatened with sanctions, loss of parenting time or loss of custody. Parents comply under duress, there is no therapeutic value in a forced relationship, that is based on the appearance of meeting the court’s demand.

Sandra found herself in a similar situation, when you hear attorney Lisa Elliott say things like “she did not want to go to therapy” or “she didn’t comply” or “she didn’t do what was needed to see her children”, those remarks are coming from this environment of coercion, where the therapists are working for the courts and not for the well-being of the family.

Dr. Gilbertson supported findings of alienation, and supported deprogramming, but statements he made in a February 2013 letter to Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich suggests abuse did occur. Statements Dr. Gilbertson made in this letter mirror statements made on Nico’s Facebook post.

Gilbertson wrote a letter from Feb. 6, 2013 that states, in part,  “At this time, it is my opinion that we need an assertive stance from the court to order these children to order these children to attend face-to-face sessions with their father. The children are of the belief and will state it openly that no one can force them to see their father if that is their choice.

“There are two prevailing emotional themes that these children speak to: One is fear of being in the presence of their father given what they allege to he being an angry and violent person. A second theme is the anger they have over his alleged mistreatment and a corollary of this, a belief that their father is morally flawed, i.e. womanizer, drinks too much, and is hiding money.”

 

Dr. Gilbertson’s “assertive stance” involved forcing the Rucki children to attend family court hearings, and listen to testimony and evidence as their parents battled in court. Certainly this information would provide the children with knowledge about the details of the custody dispute, and may shape their perspectives as well.   

Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD

Rucki’s Threatening Voicemail Messages:

Documented Emotional, Psychological Abuse

Transcripts of voice mail messages that David Rucki left for his son in 2011 demonstrate emotional, psychological abuse. In addition, the messages prove that Rucki was providing negative messages about Sandra to the children.

You can read transcripts of the voicemail messages by clicking on this link: recorded voice mail messages

Excerpts from the transcript include the following statements (not in order) that David Rucki made to his son:

“What the f- is wrong with you? You know what?” (Disconnects)

Six Similar Non Verbal Sounds (The children were in fear for their life because they believed the six gun shots were meant one shot for each member of family.)

“Why are you dropping out of hockey? What is it proving to anything that you’re dropping out? You’re not hurting me. You’re going to regret it for the rest of your G–d damn f– life….”

“So good luck to you kid because um keep going down the route you’re going and you’ve got nothing going. And your mother is going to be be the blame for this. And unfortunately for you, you’re going to have so much regret in your life from what she did to you, that you will never look at things the same. I wish you would pull your head out of your ass and you’d call and talk because you need some stabilization in you…“

“And when we talk soon, you’re going to be accountable for how you’re acting. And I will not let this fly. I am your father. You will respect me.

Did Rucki exert similar pressure, threats on his son to get him to recant abuse allegations?

Consider this – in a June 30, 2016, interview with S. Rucki and the Lakeville police, the teen tells Officer Kelli Coughlin that her father “guilted” and “pressured” her to recant abuse allegations. 

Reporter Michael Volpe writes about the interview, “Initially, the younger Rucki told the Detective that her father attempted to threaten her ahead of the interview, “They (her father and his sister) basically said I have to (go to the interview) and I have to be here and I have to recant everything I said and it’s going and that’s the way it’s gonna be- and they made me feel guilty about it and I started to cry.” Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story

 

Lying as a Weapon

Nico Rucki has admitted, in his own words, that he lies and “lying is the best weapon”. Is this why he currently  is recanting previous abuse allegations, and speaking out against his mother?

Truth Will Prevail

Of all the allegations raised, that is not disputed – lying has been used as a weapon in the Grazzini-Rucki case.

The divorce began with the lies of David Rucki and his “paper divorce” scheme. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was removed from the only home she knew, where she resided as the primary caregiver of her children, based on lies. The children were forcibly taken from their mother, based on lies. The children were told they could not return to their mother’s care, based a lie. The children have been told their mother abandoned them, a lie. Lies have pervaded the current child support hearings. Sandra was convicted and sent to jail based on suppression of truth.  And if she prevails on appeal, it will be because the truth set her free.

In her efforts to protect her children from abuse, and to continue to fight in a court that has violated every law and every constitutional right, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has shown that she is a fighter. No mother would make such great sacrifices, and risk her own freedom, if she did not truly love her children. Sandra is even fighting for the child who has rejected her, that is love. That is the truth.

For Additional Information: 

Chaos, Horror After Courts Step in for Rucki Family

Footprints in the Snow or Wild Goose Chase? Did ABC 20/20 Edit Audio Recordings to Suppress Evidence of Abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki Case? Pt. 1

Rucki Enraged: Voicemail Transcripts Reveal Threats, Emotional Abuse Against Son

David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

Dakota County, Minn, August 2016: Trucking contractor, David Rucki’s false statements and refusal to provide information about his finances in legal proceedings suggest an ongoing pattern of  fraud and financial abuse.

David Rucki (Fox 9)

False statements include: Rucki lied during the criminal trial of ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki when making claims that he was duped into signing a divorce settlement in 2011, claiming that he had no knowledge of what was happening. In truth, Rucki signed over a dozen documents, in front of numerous witnesses, and willingly entered into the original divorce settlement.

Rucki lied when stating that Sandra masterminded a “paper divorce” scam that stripped him of everything he owned. What did Rucki lose? He retained a multi-million dollar company and its assets, retained numerous vehicles and property and eventually won sole custody of all five children. The truth is that Sandra was forcibly separated from her children, left homeless and destitute, and stripped of her portion of the family trust (a non-marital asset) as a result of an unjust family court order. The entire proceeds of Sandra’s portion of the trust were turned over to Rucki. Rucki is also the beneficiary of his own, separate family trust; which has remained intact.

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

During the criminal trial, Rucki’s lies about the financial aspects of the divorce were repeated by Prosecuting Attorney, Kathryn M. Keena. Keena had possession of the Grazzini-Rucki family court file, and either ignored or suppressed evidence to endorse Rucki’s sob story. Rucki’s lies about the “paper divorce” were used by Keena to discredit Sandra during the criminal trial. Keena portrayed Sandra as a vindictive ex-wife who would do anything to destroy poor Rucki, including financially wipe him out. Rucki is now claiming he suffered extreme emotional distress, and that Sandra should be given the harshest penalty possible. Keena attempted to impose an aggravated sentence against Sandra but was unsuccessful because the case does not meet the legal standard for aggravating circumstances. Keena Drops Aggravated Sentence Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki/

Claims of Rucki’s victimization are not supported by fact. Court documents, and testimony from Rucki himself, reveal a much different story that what he has recently portrayed to the jury, and to the public about the “paper divorce”. Unmasked, Rucki’s claims are that of an abuser projecting his own heinous deeds onto a victim. David Rucki is a man who is willing to destroy his own family, and put his children through the pain of divorce, in order to benefit financially from a scam he alone concocted. Rucki calls this scam the “paper divorce”.

Rucki’s Sob Story: Fact or Fiction?

Public Domain: http://www.clipartkid.com

Prevailing themes in the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody dispute, and its aftermath, involve allegations of domestic violence, and financial fraud. What is lost in the court, and following media controversy is that abuse has impacted the Grazzini-Rucki family at every level, even financially.

David Rucki’s divorce sob story, and alleged financial ruin, was prominently featured in an article published by Laura Adelmann, reporter with the Sun This Week at the end of July 2016: Revealing testimony highlights Grazzini-Rucki trial  Adelmann offered “revealing testimony” from Sandra’s criminal trial, including testimony from Rucki who claimed he was victimized in divorce proceedings.

Testifying in the criminal trial, Rucki accuses Sandra of pushing for an “on paper only” divorce. However, in family court, Rucki admits the “on paper only” divorce was his idea. Rucki stated during a deposition on August 8, 2011 that a “paper divorce” was needed “to get the business going” and he “didn’t think it would be the end of his marriage” (abuse involves the exploitation of the victim). Findings from Judge Knutson (Re-Opening of the Judgement and Decree) also state that Sandra did not know about the “on paper” divorce and there was “no meeting of the minds”. In other words, Rucki conned Sandra during divorce proceedings.

Rucki lied during the criminal trial when testifying about the “paper only divorce” and assigned blame to Sandra. Rucki’s comments are significant because these false statements were used to paint Sandra as a vindictive ex-wife, which contributed to her being charged with 6 felonies. Prosecuting Attorney Keena had the Grazzini-Rucki family court file available to her, and referred to it during trial. Instead of presenting facts, Keena chose to present a lie in order to build her case and secure a win.

The Paper Divorce Scam

The “Paper Divorce” began with a mutually agreed upon divorce settlement and resulted in Rucki successfully contesting the divorce, claiming he did not read or see the documents and was tricked into signing by Sandra. At the same time as he claiming to be a victim, Rucki admits divorce had financial advantages for him, that it would benefit his business.

According to court documents, “Respondent (Rucki) alleged that the parties agreed to a ‘paper divorce’, which would allow Petitioner (Sandra) to access some funds from a trust while parties continued living as husband and wife.” Sandra’s portion of the family trust is a non-marital asset, Rucki is not entitled to it – there is not any stipulation in the trust documents that would allow Rucki to access funds as he described. Rucki not only felt entitled to the trust, but ruthlessly pursued it.

Is it plausible that David had no idea what was going on with the divorce, as he claims? Laura Adelmann reports: “Rucki also testified that he arrived home one day in 2011 to discover he was divorced, and Grazzini-Rucki called police who removed him from their Lakeville home. ‘I never went to a court proceeding or saw anything,’ David Rucki said. ‘I couldn’t figure it out.’ Adelmann also reports: “David Rucki testified he returned later that night and took photos of the divorce decree that awarded sole custody of their children to Grazzini-Rucki and severed his rights to the house, property and everything they owned.”  Rucki, a successful businessman and trucking contractor, has signed countless contracts and other legal documents throughout his career, and now is unable to understand his own divorce settlement? 

Source: Movato.com – David Rucki retained ownership of this home after the original divorce settlement. He has claimed the divorce left him with nothing – yet retained ownership of a business, and other assets.

A paper trail of court documents, and other evidence, indicate that Rucki was aware, and actively participating in the divorce proceedings that he now claims he knew nothing about. Rucki met with Sandra to discuss the terms of the divorce, he signed multiple documents and agreed to settlement on April 19, 2011. Rucki also signed a waiver of counsel and declined his right to legal representation. Dissolution was granted on May 12, 2011, Judge Wermager approved of the settlement.

Further, Rucki admits in court proceedings that he wanted the divorce to provide additional revenue for his business: “Respondent (Rucki) testified that Petitioner and Respondent had discussed getting a divorce ‘in paper only’ for financial purposes…” 

While Rucki’s story has changed numerous times about the “paper divorce”, Sandra’s has remained the same, “Petitioner (Sandra) testified that she did not know what Respondent was talking about when he referred to an ‘in paper only’ divorce.”(Findings of Fact, Order Dated 9/21/2011, Judge Knutson). Adelmann reports the same, “In court, Grazzini-Rucki denied she suggested getting a divorce on paper so she could access the trust funds.”

The only person who benefited from the “paper divorce” is Rucki. When it was no longer beneficial to be associated with this scam, he shifted the blame onto the victim, Sandra.

Adelmann reports: “The order also required David Rucki to pay $3,673 per month in child support and $10,000 per month in spousal maintenance, according to court documents. “It left me with zero,’ Rucki said. He said Grazzini-Rucki had earlier proposed they divorce ‘on paper only’  so she could access $1.5 million from a family trust.” Question – how does Rucki go from not knowing anything about the divorce, to reciting specific details that indicate he is aware of the terms of settlement? Once again, Rucki cannot keep his story straight!

Also notice that Rucki’s focus during his testimony about the “paper divorce”is on himself, and completely ignores the impact this would have on the children. In another example, taken from the August 8, 2011 deposition, Rucki says the fair way to handle the property division after the divorce is to “sell it all”. When asked where the children would live (if the house were sold), Rucki replies, “That is something we will have to figure out when the courts figure it out.” Rucki is totally unconcerned that his actions could cause the children to become homeless, and yet he portrays himself as the victim.

Rucki bankrolled his business on Sandra’s misfortune. Rucki’s own words, recorded in a transcript from August 8, 2011  “In order for me to get working again and to get a credit line back, right, was to get rid of the existing credit line that was there two hundred some – I don’t remember what the exact number is – hundred dollars, I don’t know what… She (Sandra) told me she can get the money, and I kept asking where; she never told me, and that she would pay off the credit line. Now that allows me to work and go after re-establishing getting a new credit line okay?

The kicker to this story was, she didn’t tell me that she was going to take the house (Ireland Place) that we used as collateral against the loan; so on May 12 that whole thing unraveled for me. Now she pays off, she is my godsend and paying off this terrible loan, and all of a sudden, she pulls the carpet from under me and takes the house; now I have nothing to back the loan, okay? That’s one of the problems I have with the bank right now, I have no collateralization.”. Rucki states later in the same transcript that Rucki Trucking “is almost defunct”.  Adelmann reports, “He also stated Grazzini-Rucki told him the trust has a provision that if she or other siblings were divorced and struggling financially, they could access some of its money and get some financial relief.” There is no provision in the trust documents that states what Rucki claims. Rucki was scrambling to establish another credit line, and preyed upon Sandra to do it. The same house, Ireland Place, is also connected to allegations of mortgage fraud.

Judge David L Knutson

Also concerning, is the response of the court. In the Re-Opening of the Judgement and Decree Judge Knutson found that: “Even if Respondent (Rucki) did have the opportunity to review the Judgement and Decree, Respondent (Rucki) testified that he thought parties were agreeing to a ‘paper divorce’. The mismatch between the parties’ intentions provides sufficient evidence of mistake to vacate the Judgement and Decree on these grounds alone. clearly, there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the Stipulated Judgement and Decree.” In his own words, and in front of Judge Knutson, Rucki admits he devised the “paper divorce” scam and used the courts to swindle Sandra out of her portion of the family trust. Rucki’s “intention” clearly involved fraud, and manipulaton. Judge Knutson ignores that a criminal act is taking place right under his nose, and then extends preferential treatment towards Rucki. The result has been disastrous for Sandra, the children, and now even the public is at risk. The term “the Rucki Divorce” is now being used to describe the legal precedent this case has created. 

Aftermath

Rucki is expected to make a victim impact statement at Sandra’s sentencing on September 21st – his words will weigh heavily on the sentence imposed against Sandra. Prosecuting Attorney Keena has already attempted to give Sandra an aggravated sentence, imposing a harsh penalty because, she claims, Rucki has suffered so much. Will society be safer with Sandra in prison? Or does the true danger exist in a court system that is willing to put an abuse victim, who sought to protect her children, in jail in order to protect a dangerous abuser?

Reader Comment: “The System is Hurting the Children…and Should Be Held Accountable”

This comment was left on our blog by a mother named Jessica who is involved in family court  proceedings in Florida.

Jessica read our blog, and felt a similar injustice as to what Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has experienced dealing with the family court system, and felt a similar pain, from being estranged from children as a result of an unjust court order. 

Family Court failures (bias, failure to recognize abuse, lack of training, corruption, malicious prosecution, violations of state and constitutional laws etc) are happening in every state of the U.S., and internationally – this is a pandemic crisis. As a result, the Court’s actions and rulings often endanger children, and punish parents who raise concerns about abuse or other safety concerns. Generations of children have been traumatized, abused, and hurt in the worst possible way. Children are being wrongfully taken from fit, loving parents – and robbed of the love and care that parent could provide, as well as being robbed of their cultural, religious and familial heritage. How is this in the “best interest” of children? 

We are posting the comment, and this picture quote, to raise awareness about the devastating consequences of systemic failures in family court, and to give voice to parents whose children have been unjustly taken from them.

Jessica says: “The system does not care. I’m going through the same thing in Florida.

I have never been in trouble and have raised my children alone, because the father was not around for 5 years. I worked full time to provide for my family. He did not pay child support and owes $80,000 in arrears.  The children have never been abused in my care and wanted for nothing.

Yet their father with a history of violence, criminal history (including spending 2 years in jail), Baker Acts (involuntary commitment for mental health emergencies) and injunctions is handed the children and I’m left with barely seeing them.

The judge refuses to hear or see any evidence from our side.

The system is hurting the children just as much as the abuser.

And they should be held accountable.“