The author of this diary is the grandmother of children who were placed into the full custody and control of their identified and confirmed rapist. Helen and her husband spent one and a half million dollars fighting for their grandchildren’s safety in a corrupt family court system. The mother was unable to write her story because she is still suffering from PTSD from being imprisoned for having challenged the authority of the wealthy father. She was tormented in prison for an entire year before she was released, thanks to a 20/20 investigation. Warning: graphic content.
My story is part of an attempt by Safe Kids International to raise awareness regarding divorce court judges covering up abuse and awarding custody to abusive fathers.
The DOJ Investigative Report explains-the nation’s divorce courts award custody to abusive fathers-while “good fit” mothers are court ordered supervised visits – or no contact.
The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s-comments to the National Summit on Domestic Violence: Why are mothers who are victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts-even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers?
I was driven mad by the horrific injustice. I was compelled to save [not only] my grandchildren-but other abused children in the nation’s divorce courts. To no avail. Every night I pray [Lord give us the strength for this journey]. We are still on that journey.
During an intact marriage, physicians diagnosed child sexual abuse-based on five-year-old son’s torn bloody rectum. Father’s reaction to the diagnosis was to go into divorce court with a criminal attorney.
Child Protective Services/CPS opened our case on March 4th, closed March 5th due to custody issues. Because when father was contacted by CPS, he stated the magic words [“There are custody issues”] which shuts down CPS investigations of child abuse.
The custody decision states: father is awarded sole custody based on parental alienation. Parental alienation is used in the nation’s courts to cover up abuse – it has nothing to do with alienating behavior. Minor’s attorney, Kevin Busch and custody evaluator Robert Shapiro recommended custody to father-based on parental alienation.
The physicians who diagnosed child sexual abuse-refused to testify. Illinois law book POF 6 2D 353 explains: physicians fail to report child abuse for a myriad of reasons -from a fear of harming their practice to a fear of entanglement as a result of reporting. Legislation has not achieved the desired goal-only a small percentage of cases are ever reported.]
At age 7 daughter drew and labeled a picture [Lynn Dad] of dad’s penis in Lynn’s mouth. Lynn had blood in her panties-when mom picked her up for visits. CPS and police investigated. The allegations were found credible and father was placed on no contact.
The court found: father sexually abused son and daughter-including, but not limited to, repeatedly sodomizing and forcing oral copulation. The judge’s court transcript states: In the case at bar, the danger is extraordinarily disturbing sexual assaults perpetrated many times-skillfully concealed. CPS explained to mother that father is on “no contact” and has no legal standing, recommending mother go home to California.
However, despite CPS giving mother permission – mother was criminally charged with leaving the jurisdiction by Kane County Illinois Assistant State’s Attorney, Clint Hull. The jurisdiction law is based on the parent-child relationship – the only inquiry is the status of the parent left behind.
Despite a court appointed psychologist concluding it was emotionally destructive for Mac and Lynn to have contact with their father, the children were ordered back to father. At which time, Mac + Lynn ran away. Mac [age 14] found a way to enroll in college-where he was a straight A student, studying law and psychology.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited children does not discern missing children running away from abusive fathers…from children being missing or exploited.
Mac and Lynn were hunted down. Twenty U.S. Marshall’s broke down the front door…pointed semi-automatic rifles at skinny Mac and Lynn-pinned them on the floor-and handcuffed them. Mac and Lynn were brought into court where U.S. Marshals championed father and championed parental alienation.
20/20 actually did their job of investigative reporting and helped bring justice to this Illinois family.
I wish we could say the same about their coverage of our cases. As most of you are aware, 20/20 did a hit piece on the Grazzini-Rucki case entitled Footprints in the Snow in April of 2016. They actually aided and abetted in the cover up of abuse in this case and have refused to make any corrections in their portrayal of this ongoing story. In fact, 20/20 actually asked an investigative reporter that has covered this case extensively, to refrain from sending any more documents that show the truth in this case.
Elizabeth Vargas was extremely biased and hostile when interviewing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and very sympatheric toward the father in this case. The People Magazine article below shows the false secret network narrative that 20/20 had planned from the beginning. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a “secret network” was involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case or involved in the disappearance of the eldest two daughters. In fact, both S.R. and G.R. openly admit they ran away due to safety concerns, and raised numerous abuse allegations prior to running away and after being found 2 years later. During all this time, their story is consistent, and does not change.
Elizabeth Vargas
Recently, 20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas announced her resignation from the show “to pursue new ventures”.
I want you to hear some news about me, from me. I will be leaving ABC News, and 20/20 at the end of this historic 40th season. It has been a profound privilege to be the anchor of 20/20 for 14 years, and a true honor to work with each and every one of you. I am incredibly lucky to work alongside the very best in the business: the producers, editors, writers on this show, and the enormous team working every week to get our show on the air. I am so very proud of the stories we have told together.
I am sorry only to have to share this news with you as we celebrate the holidays. I had hoped to make this announcement after the first of the year.
This is not goodbye – I will be here through May, and cannot wait to do more work with all you in the months ahead.
Have a happy holiday with your families, and I will see you next year.
With gratitude,
Elizabeth
Stay tuned for more information on Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20.
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. 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.
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.
Sept. 21, 2016 – Sandra Grazzini-Rucki prepared this statement to be read by her family law attorney after sentencing.
Sept. 21, 2016, Dakota County, Minnesota: A sign posted outside the courthouse by a religious group read. “When will the suffering end?
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was sentenced today for her role in assisting her teenage daughters, who ran away from their paternal aunt, and the influence of their abusive father, in April 2013. A jury found Sandra guilty of 6 charges of felony deprivation of parental rights after Judge Karen Asphaug suppressed 75% of defense evidence. Sandra raised the affirmative defense, meaning her actions were taken to protect her children from imminent harm. The evidence suppressed supported claims of abuse. Other evidence was withheld from Sandra and her attorney by the State. Many claim this was a “rigged trial”.
Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena sought an aggravated sentence against Sandra, which meant she would be given a much harsher sentence than what guidelines allow. Aggravated sentences are usually reserved for severe crimes like deviant sexual crimes, terrorism and repeat offenders. Keena had to drop her motion for aggravated sentencing because the charges did not meet the legal standards. Sandra has no prior criminal history and has complied with all the terms of her release while out on bond. She also has credit for 133 days spent in jail. Keena Drops Aggravated Sentence
Judge Karen J Asphaug
However, Judge Asphaug found a way to manipulate the legal system in order to give Sandra a much harsher sentence. The sentence includes 6 years of probation, double the usual sentence – Judge Asphaug ruled that paternal aunt Tammy Love is also a “victim” in this crime. In addition, Judge Asphaug stretched out the sentence over 6 years to include a 15 day sentence every year, commencing on November 19th when the runaway Rucki girls were found. Guidelines say the most time a defendant can serve for what Sandra is charged with is one year and one day but Judge Asphaug found a way to lengthen the sentence for 6 years. Taxpayers will bear the financial burden of this unnecessary expense; and a bed in jail will be taken by Sandra who poses no risk to society, while a more serious offender is denied what they deserve.
Judge Asphaug also ruled that Sandra must pay several heavy fines. The law states that if the fines are not paid the judge can order additional penalty, which may include jail time. The fines include: $10,000 restitution to the Crime Board to cover costs for reunification therapy with an abusive father (reunification therapy is controversial, and not widely approved of by psychologists), undetermined costs to pay for therapy for the children, and two $944 dollar fines plus $80 court fees. Not to mention the costs for probation. Court records indicate that Sandra is currently receiving state aid, she was formerly employed as a flight attendant until jailed and extradited to Minnesota. With 6 felonies on her record, Sandra will certainly have difficulty finding employment, and have difficulty maintaining employment if forced to go to jail for 15 days every year plus other restrictions imposed by the terms of release. That being said, it would be very unlikely that Sandra could afford the fines, which may result in further jail time beyond her sentence. Judge Asphaug also ordered Sandra to sentence to serve, and if she does not comply, she would face additional jail time beyond her sentence. In effect, an aggravated sentence was imposed on Sandra by Judge Asphaug and Prosecutor Keena, who found a way to manipulate the legal system to exact a punishment that goes well beyond the guidelines for this crime.
Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena
Kathryn Keena admitted in court that she “made a promise” to S. Rucki and said to the teen that she “will not request any additional jail time and will keep that request”. Judge Asphaug interrupted and said the “Court did not engage in promises” and she is “learning of it for the first time today“. Making a “promise” with a vulnerable, traumatized teen is unethical and an abuse of power. It also gives the appearance that Keen bribed S. Rucki to testify – meaning she told S. Rucki that if you testify against your mother, I “promise” not to seek any additional jail time for her. Kathryn Keena unapologetically broke her promise to S. Rucki today. Keena has taken her place in the long line of Dakota County court officials who have violated the trust, and exploited the Rucki children.
Another interesting moment at sentencing was the lengthy “victim impact” statement read by David Rucki that included, “the woman in court today is not the woman I married 25 years ago – the woman I married suddenly became who she is now, a convicted felon“. Rucki elaborated about the pain he experienced in the 944 days his teen daughters went missing.
The police reports, CPS reports, witness statements, need for repeated reunification therapy because the children showed signs of fear towards Rucki (and raised abuse allegations) and even a letter from Dr. Gilbertson to the Court all illustrate the pain, terror and abuse Rucki inflicted on Sandra and the children. To believe that Sandra alienated not only her children but alienated so many people to turn against David Rucki is not only improbable but ridiculous.
When David is talking about his pain, and eliciting public sympathy, consider this…
“G was interviewed on 11/23/15. She reports dad was always screaming at mom. Neighbors called the house the ‘Scream House’. She thought her home situation was normal as she didn’t know any different… Her dad would stalk the house when they were with mom. He showed anger like ‘I’m gonna kill you’. She got no hugs growing up…” Rucki CPS Reports
“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 anger over his alleged mistreatment...It is my opinion that the children’s fear issue needs to be addressed directly, and that can happen when there is exposure to the specifically feared object, situation, or person, i.e. father…
I would work with Mr. Rucki to have him present a certain structure and accounting of his own behavior while the family was intact that would acknowledge the volatile family history and express his empathy for the children’s painful memories..” Dr. Gilbertson Letter to GAL Julie Friedrich – Feb. 6, 2013
Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD
“Q (Kelli Coughlin): So how has it been since you’ve been back home?
Dakota County and the State of Minnesota has not only sentenced Sandra but their ruling has condemned every abused woman, and every abused child in family court. A clear message is being sent – if you talk about abuse, you will not be believed and you may lose custody, lose your home, lose your career and your freedom. This tragedy could have been prevented had Judge Knutson and the family court system appropriately responded to the concerns of abuse, and intervened early on. Instead the court’s actions enabled abuse to continue to the point where the home was so unsafe that 4 out of 5 children threatened to run away and two succeeded in running away.
After sentencing, attorney Michelle MacDonald (Sandra’s family law attorney) read a statement that Sandra had prepared ahead of time. The statement said, in part, “For the last 5 years, I have had to endure the loss of my children (all 5 are named). They alone are my world…And now I’m paying the price for what any parent would do for their children – protect them from harm.”
Sandra is now in custody; ironically it is only behind bars that she is truly safe from David Rucki. Sandra is expected to appeal.
Canadian Advocate for Abused Children left the following comment:
“I’ve been following this disgraceful, unprofessional treatment of these young LADIES and their Mother since the beginning.
These Young LADIES are not children. They have a mind of their own and it’s clear that the system and father is trying very hard to manipulate them. To recant the truth, and claim their mother did some sort of brainwashing called the “bogus” Parential Alienation Syndrome/Parential Alienation. There is no evidence this even exists.Yet, the system of so called professionals are suggesting that this is all the mothers fault.
In this interview this young lady has answered her question, yet she is still trying to make her say her mother was involved in the plan. Anyone can ask different questions in hopes to get the answer they want. It’s clear manipulation. Believe me a teenager at this age can not be manipulated to answer a question of lies unless they are threatened to do so. This case needs a qualified domestic violence lawyer that only deals with cases like this. The pro Bono lawyer’s that came on to the Tishmoni case would be great for these girls and mom. How can they even consider putting mom in jail for this. Most if not all mother’s would of done the same thing if their daughter/son called them in a panic. The court system in this case is causing harm to these girls and mom.
This court is so bias and abusive mentally to these girls and mom. Forcing your kid’s to be with you in spite is what I see this so called “father” is doing. It’s called domestic violence by proxy. I see black robe syndrome all over this case. If I was a family member I’d sue this court in criminal court and also make complaints on the family court judge. For the way he’s handled a case of domestic violence by proxy.
I’m a child advocate and work at a women’s shelter and I’ve never heard such unprofessional, unethical, biased judge other then Gorcyca with the Tishmoni case. Removal from the bench needs to happen with both.
Whatever goes around comes around. If you believe in God…He’s watching.”
A witness (name omitted to protect privacy) to David Rucki’s abusive and violent behavior wrote a letter in 2011 (below) to share some of his experiences, and to voice concerns for the safety of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the children.
This letter supports the concerns raised by Sandra and supports the allegations of abuse raised by the Rucki children, who report a similar pattern of abusive and threatening behavior from David.
Also note that the witness heard David verbally abusing Sandra on a cell phone call, and “He trulyberated her about being a poor mother“. This behavior matches the verbal abuse heard on voicemail messages that David left to his teenage son, Nico. The voicemail messages also include comments denigrating Sandra, and criticizing her ability to care for her children. That means you have two independent statements, from two different times, describing the SAME behavior from David. Rucki Enraged: Voicemail Transcripts Reveal Threats, Emotional Abuse Against Son
The witness also says “As one who does biblical counseling, I am convinced he (David Rucki) needs anger management treatment.” In fact, David was ordered into anger management on numerous occasions.
Judge David Knutson awarded David Rucki sole custody of the 5 children in November 2013, despite a long history of abuse, rage and anger problems present in David. Just 7 months later, in June 2014, David was so offended by a fellow motorist that he stalked a vehicle, waited until the motorist got out of his car, and brutally beat him. David was convicted of disorderly conduct and referred to anger management again.
See Condition #4 – Anger Management
Almost a year later, in November 2015, the Rucki girls are “recovered” after running away from the abuse, and dysfunction that their father brought into their life. The girls bravely reported the abuse, and clearly stated that they are afraid of their father, and would prefer to remain in foster care. And at the time, David was still on probation for the road rage conviction – which should have demonstrated that he posed a risk of harm to the children.
Yet the Courts continue dismiss the Rucki girls’ concerns, and push for reunification therapy aka reprogramming. What kind of “therapy” forces children to live with an abuser, and forces children to accept abuse without question, to just take it?
I am pointing all of these facts out to show you, the Reader, that multiple sources, across time, describe the SAME kind of abusive and violent behavior from David Rucki. Clearly he has a propensity towards violence.
REMEMBER: Domestic Violence manifests as a re-occurring pattern of behavior to maintain power and control over a partner or children and/or other family members.The presence of fear or trauma in a partner or in children is a telltale sign that abuse has occurred in a family.
Think about it… David Rucki has a documented history of anger problems, rage and violent behavior with related criminal charges, and police involvement, going back at least 16 years (figuring the witness said a “decade” of living next to David)!
Why won’t the Courts listen to the Rucki children? All they are asking for is to live in a safe home, free of violence. Is that too much to ask?
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?
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.
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??
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.”’
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.
Did ABC 20/20 edit audio recordings of David Rucki verbally abusing his young son, to portray him in a more sympathetic light? And what message does their reporting send to abuse victims, to child abuse victims?
Footage from “Footprints in the Snow” suggests that ABC 20/20 and reporter Elizabeth Vargas drastically edited a recording of David Rucki leaving an angry voicemail message to his teenage son, and omitted the rest of the recording that would show that David was emotionally abusive, denigrating the mother.The recordings are part of a series of voicemail messages, one message included the sound of 6 gun shots (one for each family member).
The Justice Blog will present you with 20/20’s coverage and additional information that was not included in the episode.
The sequence of events in “Footrprints in the Snow” begins with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki describing to Elizabeth Vargas an incident when David Rucki violently assaulted her. Sandra says that David broke into the house, jumped on the bed and started choking her. He also tried to suffocate her with a pillow.
What 20/20 does not say is that Sandra was so afraid of David that she later installed security cameras around her home because of his violence. Security cameras captured David stalking her on numerous occasions. Neighbors were also afraid of David due to his violent behavior, and has also installed security cameras around their own home, and filed a harassment restraining order against him.
The next scene is an image of five smiling Rucki children, taken at Christmas, posing with Santa. Sandra is standing at the left side of the picture. David is absent. The photo is not dated, nor is any context given.
Vargas says, “The children now ages 8-14 now remain in Sandra’s custody and refuse to even see David; rebuffing all of his attempts to connect.” Note” Vargas is reporting ONLY David’s perspective, that of Sandra and the children is excluded. The next scene begins with the image of a telephone key pad, you hear the ping of numbers being dialed. Viewers are given just tiny bits of audio of David saying, “This is your Dad, call me. I would like you to call me back.” These two lines are a tiny piece of a larger body of recorded voicemail messages, and a transcript of those messages that David left for his son, Nico. The tone of these messages is clearly threatening, hostile and verbally abusive. Yet you’d never know that if you solely relied on ABC 20/20 and Vargas’ reports.: recorded voice mail messages
Vargas says in a dramatic tone, “With his children ignoring him, his frustration mounts…”
Note: Vargas adopts David’s term “frustration”. David uses this term frequently to describe his angry and abusive behavior.
Keep in mind these are children who has witnessed their father violently assault their mother and had reported numerous acts of emotional and physical abuse – leaving comments on social media, making reports to therapists, GALs, Judge Knutson, police, social workers, CPS, friends. The story that Samantha and Gianna Rucki have recounted about the abuse has not changed – those they encountered after they ran away recall that the girls appeared frightened of their father, spoke of abuse, and their behavior itself indicated abuse occurred. Multiple Witness Reports: Rucki Sisters Fearful of Father, Felt Safe at Ranch/
In another report involving abuse, CPS reports from the Rucki girls indicate they were victims of abuse from their father. And had witnessed various forms of physical and emotional abuse inflicted on their mother, and saw visible bruises. Nico also reports to CPS that his father put a gun to his head.The CPS system also failed the Rucki children by screening out multiple reports of abuse.: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316692570/SamiRucki
CPS screened out many of the reports of abuse. Other professionals ignored or minimized the children’s cries for help. And then Sandra became the target – instead of investigating the abuse, Sandra was wrongly accused of brainwashing her children so they would invent allegations of abuse against their father. The message in this – the children are being told their concerns are not valid, and that something is wrong with them for reporting abuse.
Justice for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Children 