Maternal Gatekeeping Turned to PAS Turned to Murder
May 14th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.On April 21st, a Queens, NY judge sentenced Mazoltuv Borukhova and her cousin by marriage, Mikhail Malayev to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for the contract murder of Borukhova's husband, Daniel Malakov. The sordid story that led up to that sentencing is a parable of maternal gatekeeping that became PAS and then murder.
As the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the case said during the trial, "She (Borukhova) accomplished what she failed to do after years of litigation - to permanently and forever deprive Daniel of having a relationship with his little girl."
Daniel and Mazoltuv were Russian immigrants. They were members of the insular community of Bukharan Jews, many of whom settled in Queens. Malakov was an orthodontist and Borukhova an internist. As doctors, they were highly respected in their community. Relatives report that when they were first married, all seemed well and the young couple happy.
But with the birth of their daughter Michelle in late 2002, that changed. Borukhova immediately set to work walling off her husband from their daughter. When the girl was little over a year old, Borukhova left with her and didn't return for 11 months. Shortly after that she took Michelle again for an undetermined period. In May 2005, about 3 1/2 years into the marriage, Borukhova filed for divorce.
But even Daniel's visits with Michelle proved too much for Borukhova to bear and she got the family court judge to order that they be supervised by court-appointed personnel. That turned the tables on Borukhova. Those social workers reported to the judge that, with them present, Borukhova continually intervened to prevent her husband from having contact with Michelle. They said Borukhova was "sabotaging (Daniel's) relationship with the child to extreme degrees."
Borukhova also complained to the court that Daniel physically abused her and sexually abused Michelle.
Based largely on the testimony of court-appointed social workers and the law guardian for Michelle, the judge transferred temporary custody to Daniel. Those witnesses testified that Borukhova was determined to prevent Daniel's access to Michelle. That hearing took place on October 3, 2007.
Over the next three weeks, Borukhova had over 90 telephone conversations with her cousin Malayev who lived in Atlanta. At the end of that time, Malayev travelled to Queens and stayed for three days with a friend.
On Sunday, October 28th, Daniel and his wife arranged to meet at a park in Queens so that she could take Michelle for the day. When Daniel appeared at the appointed place and time, Malayev walked up to him, pointed a pistol equipped with a crude homemade silencer at his chest and fired three times. Michelle was a few feet away.
Shortly thereafter, Malayev deposited 10 checks totalling almost $20,000 in various bank accounts before leaving New York.
In a fascinating aside, New York State Senator Diane Savino testified at the criminal trial of Borukhova and Malayev. Prior to being a senator, she had worked as a CPS officer. At trial she stated that, two weeks before the murder, she had been approached by two women who turned out to be Borukhova's sisters. They had some unusual questions to ask her. What, they wondered, would happen to Michelle's custody if her father were to "disappear?" Savino said that in that event, custody would likely revert to Borukhova.
On the other hand, Borukhova's two sisters wanted to know what would happen if she were to kidnap the child and abscond to parts unknown. Savino told them that would be illegal, that Borukhova would be found and jailed and Michelle would return to Daniel.
Borukhova's allegations of sexual and physical abuse were found to be unsupported by the family court.
This case is the lurid extreme of maternal gatekeeping that demands total control over a child. With every passing day, Borukhova's desire to exclude Michelle's father from the girl's life grew more exclusive. When separation proved insufficient, she filed for divorce. When the court didn't accede to her wishes, she alleged abuse. When that didn't work, she considered kidnapping and finally settled on the murder of her husband in full sight of his 5-year-old daughter.
Of course this case is exceptional, even among those mothers who are maternal gatekeepers. But while it is unusual, it is simply the far end of a spectrum of actions that are anything but. What motivated Mazoltuv Borukhova to have her husband murdered is part of the continuum of maternal gatekeeping behavior."
In a world of gender equality, all of that behavior, not just murder and kidnapping would be considered aberrant.
To read more about this case, go to any of the New York City newspapers and search for either Mazoltuv Borukhova or Daniel Malakov. There are dozens of articles. They add both information and nuance to the case that are impossible here.
"));
19 queries. 0.332 seconds.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
"Borukhova also complained to the court that Daniel physically abused her and sexually abused Michelle.....
Based largely on the testimony of court-appointed social workers and the law guardian for Michelle, the judge transferred temporary custody to Daniel.....
Borukhova's allegations of sexual and physical abuse were found to be unsupported by the family court."
Those against the possibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome say "It's a defense by abusive fathers to take custody away from mothers". I now see where they get that from.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Yes, this is an extreme case. While PAS can go to extremes, we all know this, most stop short of murder. Mostly because she either doesn’t have the nerve to go that far or the courts take her side, and as long as she is getting her way there is no need to kill anyone. Can’t torture the dead. Life without parole for both is appropriate. And now this little girl has to live the rest of her life without either parent and, worse yet, the knowledge that her mother killed her father. Poor child. I just read that Michelle is in foster care. Normally I would advocate for a child to be with family, but in this case I think it is best she is not. (http://gothamist.com/2007/11/06/state_senator_t.php)
One other point I would like to make, I hope that now maybe those who say women who are other than American are better as wives and mothers. In this case the whole family is Russian. This probably would have happened in either country, and I’m sure it happens all over the world and has absolutely nothing to do with one’s nationality or where they currently reside.
It is very interesting that Senator Savino was involved in the criminal trial. This makes it more difficult to understand how she thinks. How can she not see for herself that PAS does exist and what it can do to families? After being involved in this case it should be obvious.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
ChrisPCD said: “Those against the possibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome say "It's a defense by abusive fathers to take custody away from mothers". I now see where they get that from.”
Sadly, there is a basis to the claim that people who cry PAS are abusers. There have been cases where this did happen and because the end result was the child/children were then placed with an abuser has made the courts over react and not pay attention to those who claim PAS. Had they done a true and thorough investigation like they are supposed to in each and every case they would have been able to see the difference between a true case of PAS and those that were bogus. The courts don’t want to get involved because then whoever the abuser is will say the courts are biased against them, and the judges also look at their own political assassination should a higher court overturn their ruling.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Let's not validate the idea of "continuums" for these kinds of things. Continuums are a well-known figment of feminists' imaginations (rape-pornography, etc.). Each phenomenon or event must be viewed in itself. (that's not the same thing as saying it's isolated or has nothing to do with PAS.)
May 14th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
In my case my ex wife was bitter that financial matters didn't go her way. On December 1, 2008 she called me at home and was extremely belligerent with me. So what does she do? She calls CAS/CPS and gets them to say that the children should be with her, based on an allegation that my home was unsafe to live in. The following day she failed to return the kids after her mid week visitation. I called her and she told me she had no idea this was going to happen and it came as a surprise to her. I say el toro poo poo! She was the instigator as CAS/CPS only acts on calls made to them!
The next day she had arranged for her father to pick up the kids after school and I knew there might be such an attempt so I got the kids 10 minutes earlier. The next day I call CAS/CPS at 10am to get them to explain what is going on. They tell me that the children can not reside with me at the matrimonial home and that I should give custody over to mom in the interim. I told them I could temporarily reside with my parents at their home. I call back two hours later and tell them that I would reside with my parents until they check and determine if the home is safe or not. They then tell me that unfortunately that is no longer possible as it was brought to their attention since my previous conversation with them two hours ago that allegedly my mother sexually abused me as a child. What timing by the vindictive ex wife!
I then told them that if need be I would live in a hotel until they investigated these very untimely allegations which I categorically denied. I went to get my kids at school and they were detained by the school principal at the order of CAS/CPS worker Jim Maloney. I went to the police and they intervened as a courtesy but had no power to do anything. CAS/CPS worker Jim Maloney and his supervisor Sandy Griffiths then blackmailed me to sign an agreement that I would not allow my children near my mother or father or their home or my home until they investigated. They threatened to put the kids in foster care if I did not comply. So I asked them, "So you mean to tell me if I don't sign this document you will potentially put the kids in foster care?" They said they may need to take more intrusive action, including removing the children and even placing them in foster care if need be. So I signed the document and made arrangements to live in a hotel at a cost of $100 per night (cheapest in town) while our matrimonial home with everything in it remained vacant. All this not three weeks prior to Christmas having to spend a huge amount of time and about $1,500. 00 on engineering fees and lodging expenses.
Incidentally, the principle locked the children aged 6 and 8 in his office for two hours while CAS coerced me to sign the agreement. Actually they were really attempting to coerce me to give custody to mom, which I refused!!! So my children tried, but could not get out to go to the washroom or get a drink of water. They were terrified as they could not get out! My youngest urinated and defecated in his pants as he was frightened and could not get out to go to the washroom.
This is an example, my personal ordeal of what a woman with the aid of CAS/CPS can inflict on a father when they feel things don’t go their way!
I am not the least bit surprised that in this blog post piece the woman actually resorted to having dad killed in front of his 5 year old child. All in the spirit of control! I have always maintained that woman are very capable of being as evil as anyone, yet they are rarely held accountable the same as a man. My view is we should not wait until someone dies or is subject to severe abuse before we take a concerned father seriously. That is what I told my police Chief when I met him as the cops never investigated any of my concerns about the imminent danger I knew I and the children were in.
PAS is a very real and happens all the time as custodial mothers do incredulous things to align children and others in their favour without consideration to the damage they cause!
Dads need to remember to NEVER, NEVER give up and tape record EVERYTHING!!!
Attila
May 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am
In a fascinating aside, New York State Senator Diane Savino testified at the criminal trial of Borukhova and Malayev. Prior to being a senator, she had worked as a CPS officer. At trial she stated that, two weeks before the murder, she had been approached by two women who turned out to be Borukhova's sisters. They had some unusual questions to ask her. What, they wondered, would happen to Michelle's custody if her father were to "disappear?" Savino said that in that event, custody would likely revert to Borukhova.
She is approched by to women who asked what would happen if the father were to dissapear? And she didnt report it to the cops? Try and get some identifying info? Have the sisers been charged as accesories given they obivously had knowledge of what their sister planned?
May 15th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I take exception to your statement "Few mothers resort to this type of behavior"
Not perhaps to this extreme but one suspects that it would be a lot more than a few.
lujlp says:
Have the sisers been charged as accesories given they obivously had knowledge of what their sister planned?
Your question is rhetorical right?
May 15th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Does anyone know if she has custody of the girl? Or did CPS place her in foster care?
May 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Steven,
She is in foster care according to this: http://gothamist.com/2007/11/06/state_senator_t.php
May 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Steven,
She is in foster care according to this:
http://gothamist.com/2007/11/06/state_senator_t.php
May 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
OK, I don't know what happened. Tried to post my comment, got an error message. Went back to the main page, found the post again, no comment. Fine...........I re-did my comment, hit submit, and now it's there twice!! Oh well, better two times than not at all, I suppose.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Please have sympathy for her. Her greatest fear was that her child would love him more than her. Please be empathic, how would you deal with that outcome? Isn't a mother's exclusive love better than anything a father could offer? Besides that male brute would deprive the child of the mother's exclusive love.
May 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Unfortunately for men, this kind of behavior is the wave of the future. All of this male-bashing in society is leading to something! Look back into history and show me an incident where a group was marginalized, derided, discriminated against and vilified and it had a happy ending. I see the day when a woman killing a man to take his child away is considered a woman's prerogative. Before anyone calls me hysterical or sexist just look at how women are already getting away with murder. Just look at how 50 years ago abortion was considered a heinous crime. But today it's considered one of many birth control options. And remember that "culling" men to 10% of their present population is still a goal of many feminists. Never underestimate the callousness of human beings and liberals.