Rifqa's next actual hearing is January 28. There is a minor hearing on January 19, but according to Jamal Jivanjee, this will be only to hear motions. I'm not sure that's always "only," because some of the motions from the parents' attorneys have been outrageous, but Jamal's take is that the one on January 28 is the one to focus our prayers on.
I already reported in the post just below that Rifqa's isolation has tightened since the December 22 hearing. Pamela Geller has a typically hysterical and unclear post on something like the same topic here. (Warning: The new banner is very tacky, even worse than the previous one.) I'm becoming frustrated with Geller's style, chiefly because she reports things entirely uncited. She doesn't even say, "An anonymous source told me that X." She just says things, leaving one unclear as to whether she is inferring this from some other fact or was told it clearly by someone. It makes it difficult to know how to take some of her claims. For example, she says that the magistrate at the last hearing said that there were to be "no surprises" in the case and that everything was to be discussed between her (the judge) and the lawyers in chambers ahead of time. Well, first of all, why was this not reported at the time in Jamal's report on the hearing? Since Pamela wasn't at the hearing, whom did she get this from?
But Pamela goes on, "no Islam. You can not introduce Islam." Unclear: Is this supposed to mean that the magistrate told the lawyers they cannot introduce Islam in court? Was this supposedly said in open court? I cannot believe it would not have been reported until now--by Pamela or Jamal, if no one else--if this has been known since the December 22 hearing. So, what is Pamela saying? And if she is saying that the magistrate says they cannot introduce Islam, then why the dickens does she keep abusing Rifqa's lawyers for not introducing Islam, as though it is entirely up to them?
Don't misunderstand me: I suspect that when Pamela reports something definitely and specifically as fact, she has reasons for doing so. But it would be helpful if she would tell us her reasons and also helpful if she would organize her posts better so they aren't just confusing, hodge-podge rants.
In this most recent post, she also reports (without saying how she knows it or providing a link to a source) that Rifqa's foster home location is now known to her parents' (CAIR-connected) attorney. This could be a very serious thing and very dangerous to Rifqa. We should pray for her safety all the more. But I wish Pamela would give some idea how she knows this.
Let us keep Rifqa in prayer on the 28th and every day as well.
Update: Now confirmed: Rifqa's parents and their attorney received her present foster care address. I hold no brief for Meredith Heagny of the Columbus Dispatch. She is a dhimmi reporter and pretty clearly anti-Rifqa. But when somebody leaks something to Heagny (whether they should have or not), she tells you the background, so that you believe her. Rifqa's attorneys have asked that she be moved to a new foster home, because in the course of the discovery process leading up to her hearing, her current address was revealed by Franklin County Children's Services(!) to all parties, including her parents and their attorney.
Also, it now appears that a person who has been named all along as Rifqa's guardian ad litem is in fact one of her own lawyers and that she has a different guardian ad litem (and has had all along) whose name I had not previously known. Angela Lloyd, whom I have believed was her G.A.L. and who at least appeared to be to some degree on her side, is not her G.A.L. but one of her own lawyers. The name of Rifqa's actual G.A.L. is Bonnie Vangeloff. This may shed some light on a deal Rifqa's parents' attorney struck with Rifqa's own attorneys after the December 22 hearing to have all Rifqa's mail screened by the guardian ad litem (discussed by Jamal Jivanjee here). At the time, I did not report this specific development, because I believed the screening was being done by Angela Lloyd, to whose c/o address all mail was being sent anyway. Now it emerges that this was indeed a change. I still believe that we should send notes of encouragement to Rifqa in the hopes that Vangeloff will let them through.
The third unpleasant thing that has emerged is that Rifqa's outgoing mail is at least sometimes being copied and given to FCCS, which is then moving to cut off her out-going mail to specific people. Rifqa's attorneys have agreed that she cannot send or receive any communication from the Lorenzes and Brian Williams, the people who helped her when she first ran away from home. This specified cut-off of outgoing mail was requested after Atty. Jim Zorn of FCCS (who has been a real mover in the "isolate Rifqa" push since the day she arrived in Ohio) found out that (horrors!) Rifqa "caused a birthday card to be sent" to Pastor Lorenz which "contained various statements that are of concern." This is all in the Heagny article linked above. Evidently Heagny doesn't know, so neither do we, what Rifqa could possibly have said that caused Zorn to try to forbid her to write to the Lorenzes. But who sent Zorn a copy of Rifqa's birthday card to Pastor Lorenz? Very creepy.