Did Detective Dronen Use Coercion, Fraud to Elicit A Statement in Grazzini-Rucki Case?

Public Domain: http://absfreepic.com

Small town, Lakeville police, traveled an estimated 191 miles one chilly day, November 18, 2015, to a horse ranch in a quiet corner of Minnesota. Greeting them in the gravel driveway were Star Tribune reporters, who had been waiting 3 hours to break the biggest story their podunk paper had seen since the 1991 Halloween Blizzard covered trick-or-treaters in 8.2 inches of ghostly white snow. Star Tribune cameras were on the scene to catch every dramatic minute as the runaway Rucki sisters were discovered after a multi-agency search warrant.

Even outside their jurisdiction, Detective Jim Dronen and Kelli Coughlin were territorial over this case – that of the runaway Rucki sisters, who went missing in April 2013 to escape an abusive home that family court would not protect them from. These two detectives would accomplish what Judge Knutson could not do despite 3,400 court orders issued against the mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, who was left homeless, destitute and torn from the children who were “my world” after the court’s illegal actions. What reunification therapist James Gilbertson tried but failed at, as he recommended “unconventional” methods of therapy such as forcing the children to sit in at court hearings, and forcing the children to have a face-to-face visit with their father the day he was due in court for violating a no contact order (no contact meaning with the children). What Guardian ad Litems Julie Friedrich and Laura Miles attempted by denying the abuse and shoving the truth down their throats, as they gagged – these children were going back into the care of their abusive father.

Was the interrogation method used on Doug Dahlen coercive, fraudulent? And were coercive methods used on the teenage Rucki sisters? A new video from Lion News offer a glimpse into the interrogation of Doug Dahlen.

Police can use a variety of methods to get information or elicit a confession – they can lie, exaggerate and even use some forms of trickery to obtain information from a subject, to get a confession. The one thing police can not do is coerce a confession. Coercion is defined as physical or psychological force, threats or intimidation. Similarly, trickery that results in a false confession is not allowed.

The Lion News Video (below) offers excerpts of the police interviews from the Rucki investigation, as well as an excerpt of a police interview between Detective Dronen (#4816) and Doug Dahlen that occurred on November 18, 2015.

Doug is one of the defendants in the high-profile Grazzini-Rucki case, who, along with his wife, sheltered the runaway Rucki girls at his therapeutic horse ranch for over 2 years.

This interview occurred AFTER the Rucki girls were found living at the Ranch.

Doug and Gina Dahlen

(4:11) Doug Dahlen calls wife, Gina, “Hello… Hey.. Did you get my message? Can you come home? Um police are here and they’re talking about what they’re going to do with the Girls. They can stay here ’til get this sorted out or whether they have to go and stay somewhere else or what. They um the mom’s in jail and they’re saying if the Girls go in and take care of this, that they can get their mother out of jail and uh hopefully get this straightened out. As of now I don’t really think they know what they’re going to do with them…”

COERCION: A person who has power over another compels someone to act or make a choice by force, threat or overcoming their own individual will. Coercion can involve fraud to compel someone to do something they would not ordinarily do.

It is coercive to tell Doug Dahlen, and the Girls (if they were given a similar message) that if they “straighten this out” i.e. talk to police, and tell police what they want to hear, that their mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) can get out of jail. Another implied threat is the unanswered question on where the Girls will go – that cooperation may result in the Girls being able to stay at the Ranch. Notice also that Doug is talking to police without the benefit of an attorney.

Both of the Rucki sisters were minors at the time they were found, and were in a vulnerable state. For the last 2 years, the Girls considered the Dahlens as family, and grew accustomed to their life on the Ranch. The Girls had ample opportunity to leave, and return to their father, but chose to stay. Now these Girls were losing their home – for a second time in their life, a traumatic upheaval (the first when Sandra was forced out of the home, and their lives in Sept. 2012). Where were the Girls going – they could not stay with the Dahlens, and threatened to run away if returned to father, David Rucki, That is what makes this coercive – applying pressure, and compelling testimony under duress; especially on vulnerable teen girls. The fraud is stating that testimony could get Sandra Grazzini-Rucki out of jail, that simply would not happen, and police knew it.

NO child should be placed in this type of situation by police. There are organizations that specialize in conducting forensic interviews with children and vulnerable adults that could have been utilized. These organizations typically offer family counseling and community resources as well. An age appropriate, trauma informed approach could have assisted the police investigation in a way that would minimize stress on the Girls, and allow them to be heard. But that never happened. Instead the Lakeville police pushed their agenda… and silenced the Girls as so many in Dakota County had done before.

Detective Dronen. Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com, sunthisweek

Another element of psychological coercion… and testimony from Doug that supports the Girls were abuse victims.

(5:58) Detective Dronnen states, “You said when the girls first got here, they were afraid?”

Doug, “Beyond afraid. They were terrified. I’ve never seen a kid so scared. I can’t emphasize that to you… I’ve seen kids in pretty rough shape, I’ve never seen one that was truly afraid for their life until I saw them.”

Detective Dronnen, “Did they ever tell you why they were afraid?”

Doug, “No, one time I went in and S.R. was curled up in the bathroom, in a fetal position, sobbing uncontrollably. ” <– This is called REGRESSION, and is a sign of severe trauma or abuse. Regression is the act of returning to an earlier stage of behavioral or physical development; this can occur because trauma not only affects the mind and emotion, but is also stored in the body, at a cellular level. Trauma also affects body chemistry.

Detective Dronnen, “Did she ever talk about anything that happened at home?”

Doug, “Just how terrible it was. Never gave much for details… ” Doug goes on to say S.R. did not like “being touched by a man”, even in common social interactions. <– Note S.R. may have found someone else to confide in; if she had an aversion to men it makes sense that she would not trust or open up to a man, even Doug.

In the next excerpt, Detective Dronen gives Doug Dahlen his version of what happened with the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody case, and omits all mention of domestic abuse and child abuse allegations or David Rucki’s criminal history. This is done intentionally! Detective Dronen is controlling the interview, and feeding information to Doug with the intent of changing his perspective, and ultimately changing testimony that may support that abuse happened to the Rucki girls.

Keep in mind Detective Dronen previously dismissed an OFP violation against David Rucki wiped it completely from MNCIS. Dronen personally knew about the abuse allegations, and purposely withheld this information when giving his version of the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and child custody dispute to Doug.

Det. Dronen deletes OFP violation against David Rucki, wipes from MNCIS. Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com

Doug sounds incredulous as he is listening, and relies on past experience to weigh Detective Dronen’s words. When Doug brings up his own experiences with a stressful divorce, Detective Dronen adapts Doug’s comments to supportive the narrative he is pushing.This means Dronen is shaping Doug’s perspective, and changing his recollection on a past event. This type of questioning is extremely damaging because Detective Dronen is feeding information, ideas and emotions into Doug that were not previously there. Doug has no one else to offer additional information, he is reliant solely on Dronen.

Detective Dronen tries to sell Doug his version of events – that parental alienation had occurred, that Sandra is mentally ill and completely withholds any information about the allegations of abuse. If this sounds plausible, you too maybe a victim of psychological coercion.

Key elements of psychological coercion involve

1. Rejecting alternate information and individual opinions.Communication is controlled, permissible subjects and thoughts are directed. Alternate ideas or free thought is shut down or guided back into desired parameters.
2. Forcing the victim to re-evaluate what has happened, their experience in a negative way. The victim is made to feel like a “bad” person or alternately, is made to feel bad about their experience and made to feel that adopting the chose perspective is redemptive or “good”.
3. Controlled communication produces efforts are  to destabilize and undermine the subject’s consciousness, sense of reality, sense of self, emotions and defense mechanisms. The subject wrestles with internal questions, doubts, and then reinterprets their experience to  adopts the perspective given to them.
4. Creating triggers in the subject by eliciting strong emotional reactions by manipulating their perspectives, and what is important to them i.e. home, family, ethical values, past experiences, past hurts, guilt, anxiety etc

Psychological coercion does not leave a bruise or a mark but it’s impact can not be underestimated.The intense pressure of psychological coercion can and does weaken a person’s will power and limit their ability to make free choices. The victim is unable to use discernment, judgement or call on help as they normally would had they not been manipulated.  According to one expert, The Neurotypical Suite, “The cumulative effect of psychological coercion can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force or threats.”

Police need to use the power invested in them carefully and avoid any actions or behavior that is or  could be interpreted as coercive.

Statements that are made under coercion are not made through an exercise of free will.  If Doug Dahlen – or the Rucki girls – were told by Detective Dronen, or any member of the Lakeville police, that if they “straightened things out” and gave a statement to police, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki could “get out of jail”  that is coercion. It is eliciting a statement based on fraud, and is applying duress with the underlying message of if you do not comply, she will remain in jail. To excuse this behavior as being part of the job, as policeman, opens the door to abuses of power –  abuses of power have destroyed the Grazzini-Rucki family, and if not exposed and stopped, anyone of us could become a victim next.

Note: This video include slides that are somewhat editorialized, the audio content is what applies to this article, plz use discernment.

 

 

Also Read:

Media Mayhem: Has Stahl and Brodkorb Gone Too Far Reporting on the Grazzini-Rucki Case??

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Sentenced After Judge Asphaug Disallows Nearly All of Defense Evidence

As reported by Michael Volpe, CDN News. Read full story at: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is sentenced in domestic case by Michael Volpe, CDN News

HASTINGS, Minnesota, September 23, 2016- “Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been sentenced to six years’ probation and an extra one hundred and eight days in jail for her role in her two daughters’ running away.

Judge Asphaug imposed the unusual sentence after disallowing nearly all of the evidence Grazzini-Rucki intended to use in support of her affirmative defense. Grazzini-Rucki argued that she hid her daughters to protect them from an unsafe environment.

Judge Karen J Asphaug

The criminal record of Grazzini-Rucki’s ex-husband, David Rucki including a bar fight, road rage incident, numerous incidents of stalking and numerous violations of orders for protection, were all disallowed.

Child Protection reports, including one made by Nico Rucki in which he claimed his father held a gun to his head, were also disallowed.…”

This article by Michael Volpe discusses the allegations of abuse raised by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children, and describes the dramatic events leading up to the disappearance of the Rucki sisters.  It also includes Sandra’s full statement, to be read by her family law attorney, after sentencing.

Volpe attempted to contact numerous sources for comment including Judge Asphaug, Beau Berentson public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, the Lakeville police, the Dakota County Prosecutor’s office, attorney Lisa Elliott and others, who did not respond.

Volpe also attempted to contact reporter Brandon Stahl to ask several questions about the case – including asking Stahl why he has declined to write about Rucki’s extensive criminal history, and declined to write about S. Rucki’s June 30, 2016 interview with police.

Volpe reports: “In that interview Samantha Rucki said she was pressured into recanting by her father, running away was her idea, and she reiterated her father was an abuser .

She recanted when called as a witness saying she ran away to get away from the divorce but Judge Asphaug refused to allow her June 30 interview into evidence at Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s trial.” In the June 30 interview with police, S. Rucki said she was pressured and “guilted” into recanting by Rucki and Tammy Jo Love.

During the criminal trial, Judge Asphaug took the unusual move to have S. Rucki testify by Skype, and out of view of the jury. David Rucki, paternal aunt Tammy Jo Love, grandmother Vicki Rucki, and attorney Lisa Elliott, were all in the room but remained out of view of the jury.  Judge Asphaug also limited the questions the Defense was allowed to ask, thereby making their defense ineffective.

Dakota County Judicial Center

 

Also Read: Explosive Police Interview Adds New Wrinkle to the Story

Keena Drops Aggravated Sentence Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Breaking News: At the very last minute, as the jury is deliberating on charges against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki for felony parental deprivation, Assistant Dakota County Attorney Kathryn Keena drops her motion to impose an aggravated sentence against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, admitting the charges do not meet the guidelines.

An aggravated sentence is usually reserved for the most heinous crimes. Keena has not given a public statement but previously wrote a notice to the court that she was seeking an aggravated sentence because it was “cruel” to deprive David Rucki of his two daughters, and that he has “suffered extreme emotional pain beyond what is normal for this crime”.

This article will take a closer look at Keena’s motion, and offer additional information on the charges against Sandra.

Dakota County Judicial Center

 

Was David Rucki “Deprived” of his Daughters?

Or Did the Girls Run Away For Safety Reasons?

Keena argued that it was “cruel” to deprive David Rucki of his two daughters, and an aggravated sentence was warranted. Let’s take a closer look at the alleged “cruelty” and charges that Sandra “deprived” David of his two daughters.

Sandra has been charged felony parental deprivation for her role in the disappearance of her two teenage daughters. Sandra is arguing the “affirmative defense” meaning her actions were taken to protect her daughters from an unsafe environment, where they faced imminent physical or sexual harm.

Judge David L Knutson

It is important to note that when the Rucki girls ran away, their father, David, did not have custody, their mother, Sandra did not have custody of the children. Judge Knutson took custody away from both parents (Sept. 2012) and placed the children in the temporary care of their aunt, and issued a no contact order against both parents, who could now only communicate to their children through the court-appointed reunification therapist, Dr. Gilbertson. All of the Rucki children struggled to reunite with David, and showed a fear of him, and reported allegations of abuse. Dr. Gilbertson did not address the children’s fear and resulting emotional and behavioral symptoms; the focus on therapy was forcing reunification with David. Under these conditions, David won sole custody of the children in November 2013.When awarded custody of the children, David was on probation for a domestic violence charge with an OFP violation.

Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD

In April 2013, the two teenage Rucki sisters ran away after Judge Knuston placed them in the temporary custody of paternal aunt, Tammy Love, where they would live under their father’s influence. The Girls made allegations they were being abused by their father, and were afraid for their lives. Before running away, the Girls made multiple attempts to seek help, and were denied the protection they deserved by Judge Knutson, and the family court system.

Laura Miles wrote in her report to the Court dated 6/3/2013 that she spoke to Michelle Roberts, police officer with Lakeville P.D. and ,”Ms. Roberts indicated that at this time, they have an open investigation regarding S and G, but they are considered to be “runaways” at this point. Ms. Roberts states that since they “left of their own free will”, “there is not much to be done as far as active efforts.”

 

The evidence is clear in showing that if the Rucki girls wanted to return to their father, David, they would have done so. The Rucki girls had ample opportunity to make contact with David if that was what they wanted. The girls were found at a therapeutic horse ranch in November 2015. Reports state that the girls both had access to cell phones, computers, had access to a car yet never made any attempt to contact David and never made any effort to return to his home. The girls used their legal names, and never made any attempt to conceal their identity; they lived in the open. The girls had also made contact with other adults, made friends with other teenagers, who they could have turned to for help, or asked for assistance in returning back to their father. They never made any of these gestures and said they were afraid of their father and not ready to see him.

The Girls chose to stay at the Ranch, and had adjusted well to their new life. They considered Gina Dahlen to be a “second mother”. 

After being found, the Girls continued to raise allegations of abuse, and begged to be in foster care rather than return to father David. The social worker assigned to the Rucki girls believed the abuse allegations, and petitioned the Court to keep the girls in foster care, and to allow only supervised visits with David until it was determined unsupervised visits were safe. The Girls spoke personally to Judge Michael Mayer, who assigned to their case, begging him for help. Judge Mayer refused to listen and told the Girls that if they ran away again, he would send the police to pursue them. Judge Mayer then returned the Girls to the custody of David. The Girl were then set to California, escorted by a security guard, to reunification therapy.

 

“Severe Emotional Pain” is

NOT an Aggravating Circumstance

Kathryn Keena

Keena said David has “suffered extreme emotional pain beyond what is normal for this crime”and an aggravated sentence is warranted.

To compare Sandra to a terrorist or a drug dealer, who would qualify for an aggravated sentence, is ridiculous. Keena should have been aware in November 2015, when filing the motion to the court, that an aggravated sentence was not applicable. An aggravated sentence is requested in special circumstances where the nature of the crime or the the impact the crime has had on the victim is especially severe. The prosecuting attorney may then ask for an aggravated sentence, meaning the sentence imposed goes above the usual guidelines. “Emotional pain” is NOT a circumstance that qualifies for an aggravated sentence under Minnesota law.

 

Further, Sandra is not a danger to anyone. She has no prior criminal history. In her job as a flight attendant, Sandra works with the public, and has consistently demonstrated safe, and appropriate behavior when interacting with others. Sandra was once the primary caregiver to her children. By all accounts, she had a close, loving relationship with her children until being forcibly separated by an unjust court order imposed by Judge David Knutson. To ask for an aggravated sentence against Sandra is extreme.

 

Emotional Pain?

David Rucki Making Jokes in a Public Statement

Regarding the Return of his Daughters

David Rucki statement 4/14/2106

In a Facebook post dated April 14, 2016 – dated just days before the anniversary the Rucki girls ran away, on April 19, 2013, David writes about his gratitude to all those who supported him while his daughters were missing. The post was written on the page of Dr. Rebecca Bailey of Transitioning Families, who facilitated the reunification between David and his daughters.

A black and white picture accompanies the post, in it David Rucki poses in a Grouch Marx style costume with thick, bushy eyebrows, thick black glasses and a comical extra large fake nose.

In between David’s statements about how he has struggled with the disappearance of his daughters, are several jokes (Grouch Marx was a comedian, afterall ??) ….

To his friend, Tony Canney, David promises to buy a round of drinks the next time they go out, “I’m not going to lie to you I put this guy threw the ringer listening to my crap, I guess I will be buying this weekend!”

To attorney, Lisa Elliott, David jokes about the turmoil of ongoing litigation,”Lisa Elliot and her staff at Elliot Law, when I walked into her office 5 years ago I told her that “This will be the craziest case she will ever have to deal with” she smirked at me and said ” I’ve seen it all” If you asked her today I know she would say ” This case has re wrote the book on crazy!”

David jokes about his experience with the horses at Transitioning Families,”I love you guys, even though because of you I no longer have a fondness towards miniature horses! “Ouch!”

Are these the words of someone experiencing severe and debilitating emotional pain?

 

What’s Next?

Keena brought the motion for an aggravated sentence to make Sandra’s case appear more severe, and to impose a more harsh sentence than the law allows. Keena kept up this charade for 8 months, allowing the charges to be widely circulated in the media, knowing this case did not meet the guidelines. Only at the last possible minute did Keena rescind her motion. 

The merits of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and criminal charges against Sandra, continue to be debated. Perhaps this is why Keena held the motion for aggravated sentencing against Sandra for 8 long months, knowing it would not apply…. to manipulate the public perception of the case, and of Sandra.

Jury deliberations have begun, and will continue tomorrow.

Additional Reading:

Jury Selection Proves Difficult in Rucki Case by Michael Volpe

2015 MN Statutes: 244.10 SENTENCING HEARING; DEVIATION FROM GUIDELINES

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. 2

Did ABC 20/20 edit audio recordings of David Rucki verbally abusing his young son, to portray David in a more sympathetic light? And what message does their reporting send to abuse victims, to child abuse victims?

Part One of this Series: http://wp.me/p7FXmj-2F

Attacking Zone: Clues in the Hockey References?

The next scene shows a lone David, standing in the snow, looking towards his house.

Vargas says, “He left this message after finding out his son, Nico, dropped out of hockey, his favorite long time sport.” The message from David says, “Do yourself a favor, get your ass back in hockey!”

ABC 20/20 and Vargas had obviously listened to the voicemail messages, a transcript of the messages was also available. Vargas implied that something was wrong for Nico to drop out of “his favorite long time sport.” The truth is that Nico wasn’t all that interested in hockey, and wanted to pursue acting.

David wanted Nico to continue with hockey, and hated the thought of his son becoming an actor. One voicemail David left to Nico says, “You’re making the biggest mistake of your life. You’ve got nothing other than school and sports. You can have acting, you can do all that shit, but the bottom line is Nico, you fuck this up, you never get it back.” recorded voice mail messages

Why was David so intent on having Nico participate in hockey. In my **opinion** there are two reasons. 1) David was serving as President to the local hockey association and needed to have his own children playing hockey in order to be eligible for the position. 2) David enjoyed the social aspects of hanging out at the hockey rink, drinking, and having fun. If his children were not enrolled in hockey, he would not have access to that social group.

In July 2011, David resigned from his position as President of the hockey association for “personal reasons”.  Controversy followed – there was talk that David was mismanaging the finances and abusing his position as President. In the same month that David resigned three other Board members resigned, including David’s best friend and his wife, who also served on the Board. Another Board member was removed for his role in the controversy.

Locals discuss the controversy regarding the hockey association, and David’s role in it, at this discussion board: http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=515265&sid=10e573ea5427f01484d303ab387bafe9

In my **opinion** it does not make sense that on one hand David is claiming that he is being alienated from his children, and yet his focus in the voicemails is only about hockey. You do not hear David say things like ‘I love you’ or ‘I miss you’ or ‘I can’t wait to see you again’ or even asking his son how he is doing. Instead you hear threats, shaming, guilt, and coercion – which are all tactics abusers use to gain power and control over victims.

And then to have David pressure Nico to participate in hockey also does not make sense. If Nico were to join hockey he’d spend most of his time practicing and playing games – which would taken even more time away from spending time with his father, David. Why would David encourage Nico to spend LESS time with him??

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

What Voicemail Transcripts Submitted in Court as Evidence Reveal

The short excerpts played on “Footprints” in the snow omitted 99% of the entire recordings. The viewers did not get to hear much of anything. Supplemented by the heavy editing was Vargas pushing her own narrative, almost as if she was drowning out the rest of the voicemail messages from being heard.

Elizabeth Vargas, journalist and anchor, ABC 20/20

Vargas also failed to ask Nico about the voicemail messages because she was focused on questioning Nico about whether his mother put him up to inventing abuse allegations. Vargas must have heard the voicemail messages but she does not question Nico about them, and how it made him feel? Why?

These same voice mail messages, and others, were submitted to the family court, presided by Judge David Knutson,  in 2011 as evidence. The evidence included audio recordings, and included a written transcript of the messages as well. The voice mail messages were used to confirm that abuse was occurring, and that David’s behavior posed a danger to the children. The messages were just one piece of a much larger body of evidence suggesting abuse had occurred. Judge Knutson dismissed ALL credible evidence of abuse, without merit or legal justification.

The message Vargas refers to is titled “Message Six” and begins with, “If you have the balls to listen to this message, you’re going to find out that you’re going to regret every stupid decision you have made this summer listening to your mother…” David goes on to berate Nico, make negative and insulting comments about Sandra and uses guilt and shame tactics to manipulate Nico to do what he (David) wants.

The same message ends with this statement from David, “Your mother is holding me out with the court. There’s nothing I can do until I get through the court. Do yourself a favor and get your ass back into hockey. Don’t screw this up for yourself. You’ll regret it your whole life. And you’re going to regret it when you find out that it was your mother who lied to you.”’

For more info about the voicemail messages, plz read: Rucki Enraged: Voicemail Transcripts Reveal Threats, Emotional Abuse Against Son

In my **opinion**, if you carefully listen to what David is saying in his voicemail messages – he is telling Nico that once he gets through the court, he will have access to him, he will deal with Nico’s refusal to comply. David makes statements in his voicemail recordings that imply threats, that imply punishment and state that the only way to please his father is to do what he wants.

Statements tainclude:

“I’m waiting, um, I’m still your dad, and that isn’t going to change, and we will be together soon. And I’m basically going to tell you I’m going to hold you accountable and you will have to deal with me because, you know, the way you’re treating me is wrong.”

“Nico, it’s your dad, still wondering why you are not going to captain’s practice. Why are you dropping out of hockey? You’re not hurting me. You’re going to regret it for the rest of your g—d damn f—ing life and I’m trying to prevent that.”

“What the f– is wrong with you? You know what? You f– don’t understand.”

“I’m just calling to remind you that you will regret this your whole life by not following through with what you started. Secondly, I am your father and I guarantee, Nico, that we will be talking soon. And when we talk, you’re going to be held accountable for how you’re acting. And I wil not let this fly. I am your father. And you will respect me.”

“Um, you know, I wish you would pull your head out your a– and you’d call me back and talk because you need to get some stabilization in you, because what you’re doing is self-destructive and it’s not good, it’s not healthy. A

“I’m waiting, um, I’m still your dad, and that isn’t going to change, and we will be together soon. And I’m basically going to tell you I’m going to hold you accountable and you will have to deal with me because, you know, the way you’re treating me is wrong.”

“Nico, it’s your dad, still wondering why you are not going to captain’s practice. Why are you dropping out of hockey? You’re not hurting me. You’re going to regret it for the rest of your g—d damn f—ing life and I’m trying to prevent that.”

“What the f– is wrong with you? You know what? You f– don’t understand.”

“I’m just calling to remind you that you will regret this your whole life by not following through with what you started. Secondly, I am your father and I guarantee, Nico, that we will be talking soon. And when we talk, you’re going to be held accountable for how you’re acting. And I wil not let this fly. I am your father. And you will respect me.”

“Um, you know, I wish you would pull your head out your a– and you’d call me back and talk because you need to get some stabilization in you, because what you’re doing is self-destructive and it’s not good, it’s not healthy. And you know, eventually, we will be together here talking soon. Um, so you can run and hide all you want, but the sooner you confront this, the better off you’ll be.”

“Here’s one thing you need to think about: You’ve got one shot at life. One. And if you’re not guided properly, Nico, you will piss that away because you’re 15 years old and you don’t know your head from your a–. You’ve got a lot to learn in life. You make a mistake now, you’ll never get it back. Because you are being emotional like your mother, you will never get it back. I’m tired of all this crap I’ve been put through…”

This is very extreme language, that is NOT an appropriate way to communicate to a child. It is abusive.

Why did ABC 20/20 and Elizabeth Vargas suppress these voicemail recordings? The viewers should have been allowed to hear for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. Instead the viewers were given a nicely packaged story concocted by ABC 20/20, and dramatically narrated by Vargas. The irony in all of this, is that these invented stories are no different than the alienation that Sandra is accused of.

“When someone hears about child abuse, it’s easy to assume the abuse is physical, but child abuse can also come in the emotional form. Child emotional abuse includes but isn’t limited to verbal assaults, constant belittling, making threats, ignoring the child, providing no love and exposing the child to constant family conflict.” Source: Moody Air Force Base. http://media.defense.gov

Fact or Pigeon?

The next scene from  “Footprints in the Snow” shows a courtroom and Vargas delves into a narrative of how Judge David Knutson appointed therapist to try to facilitate a relationship between David Rucki and his children.

A picture of a smiling David composed next to an order for reunification therapy, the courts suggesting Moxie, fills the screen. The court appoints an advocate, and special therapists to facilitate a relationship with their father, “the children say they don’t want one”.

Only now does Vargas mention abuse – but note the context she uses. “Nico takes to facebook, he writes my dad is a bad person, he abusive, verbally and physically…”

Didn’t the producers at ABC 20/20 and Vargas overhear some of the verbal abuse in the voicemail messages? Yet they failed to ask David about that. And failed to draw the connection between what Nico reported and what actually happened – that these recordings were in David’s own words!

Vargas goes to on talk about abuse of the runaway Rucki sisters in this way, “Gianna and Samantha make audio recordings to support what their mother says…”

Samantha’s recording is obviously emotional, her voice is choked with tears as she recounts physical abuse at the hands of her father. Vargas seems unsympathetic. 

Vargas goes on to report that Judge David Knutson found there is no proof of abuse, and the expert he appointed found “evidence of parental alienation”.  Judge Knutson decides that Sandra is the problem, and takes drastic measures.

Judge David L Knutson

The message being sent to victims of domestic violence, and child abuse, by ABC 20/20 and Vargas is harmful – it says if you disclose abuse, you will not be believed. Even worse, it casts suspicion on the children who bravely come forward – accusing the child victim that something is wrong with them, that they are “brainwashed”. All of this without investigation. Or if there is a report or investigation, claims of abuse are dismissed.

Abuse involves a pattern of threatening and harmful behavior inflicted on another person. When the relationship ends, the abusive behavior does not merely go away but continues in another form. There is also a term called Domestic Violence by Proxy which means that when an abusive partner no longer has access to a victim, he will try to regain control by using the children as a weapon. DV by Proxy describes abusive behavior that continues post separation – controlling behavior, stalking, harassment, legal abuse, turning a child against a parent – are all ways children are used by an abusive ex partner to regain control or inflict harm on a former partner. When court professionals fail to recognize the abuse, and how it manifests after separation, their actions and court rulings result in further harm to abuse victims, and their children. Misinformation about abuse, in turn, affects every level of society, including media outlets because there is a common presumption that judges never do wrong, that courts are always right. This is difficult for a victim of abuse to overcome; and it prevents our community from understanding abuse, and its effects, in a way that could promote ending the cycle of violence, and could assist in offering better protections to victims. 

Footprints on My Heart

An emotional Sandra, on the verge of tears, tells Vargas, “I’ve never done anything but be there for my children… my children are my life.”

If anything positive is to come out of “Footprints in the Snow” I hope it is this… that wherever Sandra’s children are now, that they remember the memories shown in the home movies where mom is loving on them, and they are enjoying time spent together.

I hope her children know what Sandra has said, that the hurt and lies and forcible separation will not erase this truth: “my children are my life.” 

I hope the Rucki children know how much they are deeply loved by a mother who grieves the loss of them everyday, and who has never stopped fighting to protect them from harm and be involved in their lives. 

Because that is what I saw, as a viewer, watching “Footprints in the Snow”. And the outrage of this story is that a mother’s love and efforts to protect her children, resulted in punishment and forcible separation from those very children.

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