Guest Post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern acknowledges that if a wife steals a million dollars from the husband and runs away, "she acted completely inappropriately." He also acknowledges that in such a case the husband is not required give a get absent the husband having a "fair day in court." [starting at 58:47]
Apparently,for Rabbi Stern (and presumably Ora's rabbinical advisers such as Rabbi Schachter) one million dollars are far more important than a mere child. Tamar Epstein abducted the child she had with Aharon Friedman, but instead of labeling Epstein's abduction of the child as completely inappropriate, Rabbi Stern calls Epstein's actions kedas ukedin. And while Rabbi Stern acknowledges that a wife's stealing a million dollars from a husband is (absent the "husband's having a fair day in court") grounds for not giving a get, Rabbi Stern maintains that Epstein's abduction of the child is not grounds for withholding a get.
And if the husband were to agree to postpone adjudication in civil court to bring the matter to BD, but then the wife were to violate the BD's orders so that the case is heard by the civil court at a much later date, and the court were to rule (at the wife's request) that the wife can keep the money or the child because the husband had waived his right to recover the money or the child as a result of delaying the court trial in order to have the matter decided in Beis Din, the husband would hardly have had a "fair day in court."
I think this is a heavily biased presentation of facts.
She took the child and moved to her parent's, who happened to live in a different state. The same distance in one state - no-one would speak of "abduction".
She never kept her husband from seeing the child. I think he just set the wrong priorities when determining the visiting schedules, and this is problem for him now (which he seeks to compensate by withholding the get).
as far as I understood the story, he set a visiting schedule he knew he could not keep and then whined that he could not see the child.
"biased...of the facts? is that an oxymoron? They are facts. on the contrary, your information is all false. Yes, Epstein did 'abduct' the child as per the judges words (but with her making a mockery of the beis din process and other lies, she was allowed to get away with it). Epstein did clearly prevent Friedman from seeing their child on multiple occasions. Once again, look at the court ruling where the judge admonished Epstein for not allowing Friedman to have a relationship with his daughter, and a letter from Rabbi Breitowitz whom called Epsteins actions in this regard "shrecklach". and your third point can not be further from the truth. EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman. Bat melch - you should really get all your facts straight. Epstein and Co. have been feeding the public lies from day one.
If this is true then this clearly shows what an am ho'oretz stern is. reb moshe holds you shouldn't withhold a get for money owed if that is the only unresolved issue presumably.
but note this comes with the caveat of hagoan hagodol rav menashe klein.
if the money owed are legal fees of husband this will probably be a different story also.
Congratulations Stan. I think you may have finally found a Gadol that most of your slander won't stick to.
Granted it is a Gadol who's opinions are nearly universally rejected, who advocates protecting child rapists and wife beaters.
Who, when the current Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk was asked concerning his books, he said, "I am very strict about Shaimos, but those can go straight into the trash."
Who? The current Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk? I beg to differ, one of his Talmidim who I know in the flesh(not an anonymous sock-puppet) left that as comment on my own blog, a while back. So I have no reason to believe that he didn't.
AND REMEMBER THAT R' KAMINETSKY HAS SUPPORTED THE EPSTEINS - AS AN IMPARTIAL GADOL HADOR- READ THIS WEEKS YATED A FULL PAGE OBITUARY ABOUT TAMARS FATHER- THE ENTIRE STORY IS ABOUT WHAT HE DID FOR THE PHILLY YESHIVA AND RABBI KAMINETSKY. AN IMPARTIAL....
Are you suggesting that RSK did not follow the proper procedures for determining whether he should recuse himself? Please cite sources.
RDE,
Who decides whether R' Shternbuch or others on the Eida Beth Din should recuse themselves? I am willing to bet that it is the judges themselves who make that decision.
By the way, in secular law, a motion for recusal is decided by the judge in question. Besides, there were four other "impartial" judges on the Beth Din who constituted a valid Beth Din without RSK.
1 A Dayan must be (1) [1] very, very careful not to take bribery [2] even with intent to vindicate he who deserves vindication. If he took bribery [3] he is obligated to return it when the one who gave it claims it. Just as he who accepts bribery violates Torah prohibition, so, too, he who pays bribery, for he transgresses, ‘Do not put a stumbling block in front of the blind.’ Not only is monetary bribery forbidden; so, too, [4] are favors of a non-monetary nature. (2) Any Dayan who borrows an object from someone is forbidden to judge that person, but this applies only when the Dayan lacks things to lend that person. If, however, [5] he does lend him things he is fit to judge him, for that person borrows from him, as well.
2 If (3) before making a monetary claim against someone in Beis Din, a person gives a gift to one of the Dayanim, [6] the plaintiff is unable to claim that the gift disqualifies the Dayan from judging the case. On the other hand, if the Dayan wants, he is permitted to refuse to judge the case (such as when he knows that his heart became biased) (Tur), but it is only (4) [7] middas chassidus (non-obligatory piety).
The Sma S"K 5 writes: In order to retain his eligibility, the Dayan does not have to actually lend possessions to this person. It is sufficient that he owns belongings that the person might want to borrow from him.
Since neither the Rema nor the primary Notei Kelim(Sma Shach and Taz) argue on the ruling of the Mechaber, it is essentially an open and shut Sh"A.
I guess the question would be was Mr Epstein giving money to the Yeshiva all those years in order to curry favor for when Rav Kaementsky would eventually sit as a Dayyan on his daughter's divorce, and if Rav Kamenetsky saw the ongoing support of a terminally ill supporter as dependent upon his influencing a B"D in Tamar's favor.
In short can we challenge the Chezakat Kashrut of a Gadol and Musmakh of Rav Kotler based on an assumption of his motives, even though the Sh"A gives him the the authority to decide for himself.
PS: Just to give credit where credit is due -the above is not my translation. It is taken from a sefer written for training dayyanim by Rav Yitzhak Tzvi Oshinsky and translated into English by Rav Daykin.
He was a Dr. and supporter of the Yeshiva. However, he was not Rav Kamenetsky's doc, as RSK was makpid to only have a non-Jew as his own physician, as there is a serious machloket as to whether or not that would bias a dayyan.
Tzadok, you can twist the Rishonim and achronim all you want but don't forget the basics "Ki Hashochad yeaver einei chahachmin vsaleif divrei tzaddikim" 30 Years of financial support is a big no no! Please stop justifying what a basic child could even see. I would highly doubt if you were involved in a court case with someone and the judge received 30 years of support from your opponent that you would consider this judge not to be affected.
"By the way, in secular law, a motion for recusal is decided by the judge in question. Besides, there were four other "impartial" judges on the Beth Din who constituted a valid Beth Din without RSK." James, You are comparing this to secular law? Imagine a court panel that decides a case in favor of party X, A lawyer for X had previously told the press that one of the judges had longstanding and very close connections to X's father. This judge had publicly rendered his opinion on the matter before the matter had even come to the court. If the judge refused to recuse himself, do you have any doubt that an appeals court would throw out the decision? And do you think that someone can engage in forum shopping in secular court in the same was that Epstein went from one beis din to another until she finally found one (with at least one judge closely connected to her family) to condemn Friedman?
"He was a Dr. and supporter of the Yeshiva. However, he was not Rav Kamenetsky's doc, as RSK was makpid to only have a non-Jew as his own physician, as there is a serious machloket as to whether or not that would bias a dayyan."
Do you know for a fact that Dr. Epstein never treated Rabbi Kamenetsky or his family or provided them medical advice? Or is that what someone else told you? Or are you starting with the conclusion that Rabbi Kamenetsky (a musmach of Rabbi Kotler and a gadol) would never do anything improper or even subject to a machlokes that it was improper - and thus because he served as a dayan in the case, you assume that he never received any medical treatment of any sort from Dr. Epstein?
"I guess the question would be was Mr Epstein giving money to the Yeshiva all those years in order to curry favor for when Rav Kaementsky would eventually sit as a Dayyan on his daughter's divorce, and if Rav Kamenetsky saw the ongoing support of a terminally ill supporter as dependent upon his influencing a B"D in Tamar's favor."
Rabbi Kamenetsky's appreciation for Dr. Epstein seems to clearly have depended upon far more than monetary support he seems to have received from Dr. Epstein, but to Dr Epstein's extraordinary medical services to the yeshiva, as well as involvement in the community (according to the Yated article). And Rabbi Kamenetsky very well may not have thought that future support from Dr. Epstein depended on what he did in this case. But is it really reasonable to believe that the tremendous hakaras hatov that Rabbi Kamentesky obviously had for Dr. Epstein played no role whatsoever in Rabbi Kamenetsky's involvement in the case? That between Epstein and Friedman, Rabbi Kamenetsky could be absolutely impartial and neutral?
Well it's not fair to say that ORA puts a greater value on money then children. They just believe that BD has no business getting involved in either of those. As far as ORA is concerned the purpose of B'D is to handle religious stuff like forcing gittin. Everything else should be handled by the secular courts.
I'm trying to wrap my head around what you call abduction.
Is it because they moved across state lines? But then a person can move from the east side to the west side of Kansas City and cross a state line. While you can move from LA to San Fran, stay in the same state, and thus put 400mi/640km of distance between them. Tamar moved from Baltimore to Merion Station(SE Philadelphia). That is 98 miles and only about a half hr commute via the express train that runs between them.
Is it because Tamar wouldn't allow Aharon access to the child? This would actually make sense. I would agree that that would be like an abduction in my mind.
Is what Tamar did legally considered abduction? My understanding of this is that it would depend on the level of access her father was permitted, but probably not. That I get from my mother in law who works for child protective services in the States.
Is what Tamar did halakhiclly consdiered abduction? I'm going to go ahead and admit my ignorance here. I am familiar with a couple of sources that say that the mother ought to have primary custody of very small children(even up to the age of 6). However I don't know what the consensus there is.
"Tamar moved from Baltimore to Merion Station(SE Philadelphia)."
Rabbi Tzadok, from where did you get this information? The summary says she took the child from Silver Spring to PA (yes, Merion Station). Silver Spring is not Baltimore. Is it your information that the parties lived in Baltimore?
What train do you know of that takes half an hour to get from Baltimore (let alone Silver Spring) to Philadelphia?
And what about travel to and from the train stations?
"I'm trying to wrap my head around what you call abduction."
Rabbi Tzadok, Epstein acknowledged in a court filing according to the procedural summary that she unilaterally relocated the child. Assuming that is correct (and you can challenge that if you like) it is not Friedman or his supporters who might call such action an abduction.
The Comment to Section 208 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act [codified by nearly every State, including MD and PA] describes the unilateral relocation of a child out-of-State by one parent as “reprehensible” and explains that the section “ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.”
And Epstein did not just take the child across the street. She took the child over 130 miles away.
EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman. The footnotes of the "Procedural Summary" posted on this blog do not support this claim.
At the June 2009 trial (before the parties were civilly divorced and before any beis din or even any rabbi had said that a get should be given), Epstein asked the court that the child's time with Friedman should generally start on Friday evening and be limited to the vicinity of Epstein's house, knowing full well that Friedman could not get there before Shabbos. She filed a motion in November 2010 demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits." Those are the facts as presented by the Procedural Summary. Do Tamar's defenders dispute this? Rabbi Tzadok, do you have another version of the facts?
This Shoshana is clearly making claims based on her own personal knowledge of the situation, not the "procedural summary" that you love to intentionally misread.
She filed a motion in November 2010 demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits." Those are the facts as presented by the Procedural Summary. Do Tamar's defenders dispute this? Rabbi Tzadok, do you have another version of the facts?
What the procedural summary "says" and what it's footnotes say do not coincide. My read of the facts is based on the footnotes, in that that motion is listed as a response by the defendant, meaning that she was responding to a claim or other motion made by Aharon Friedman.
Now if you can offer another reason that she would be listed as the defendant when she was the one supposedly bringing the charge I would love to hear it.
This Shoshana is clearly making claims based on her own personal knowledge of the situation, not the "procedural summary" that you love to intentionally misread.
Wow taking sock puppetry to a new level.
Like I said if you can give another reason that court listed Tamar as the defendant when the "procedural summary" would have you believe that she is the plaintiff, I would love to hear it.
If Shoshana is making claims based on supposed personal knowledge, that is even more unreliable.
After Epstein abducted the child out-of-State and refused to return, Friedman filed an emergency motion in August 2008 and was thus labeled the Plaintiff, while Epstein became the Defendant.
In October 2010, the case was no longer active; the Court had rendered its decision in July 2009 and various appeals had been denied.
Epstein restarted the case by filing a contempt motion demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits." That Epstein chose to continue using the label "Defendant" does not mean, contrary to Rabbi Tzadok's claims, that she was responding to a motion filed by Friedman.
Rabbi Tzadok, Are you a child custody lawyer or an expert on child custody? Your claim that the fact that Epstein labeled herself the Defendant in the contempt motion she filed against Friedman meant that she was just responding to a motion by Friedman is just not true. Yesterday, you claimed that binding arbitration in child custody case is considered binding in PA, but you have not brought a cite for this claim.
My read of the facts is based on the footnotes, in that that motion is listed as a response by the defendant, meaning that she was responding to a claim or other motion made by Aharon Friedman
This is not inconsistent with what Shoshana and Rick are saying. She responded to Friedman's requests with a motion to limit Friedman's time to supervised visits.
You know the footnotes and body were written by the same guy. It makes no sense to try to construct a story from the footnotes, when the story is in the body. If you want to construct a new story you're going to have to find some new claims from the ORA camp. Please stop fabricating them on your own.
The footnotes actually do tell the story as they are the court documents. It does not matter that they were placed in the document by the same person who wrote it. What those things say, especially as they are linkable in the original format, tell a much different story.
Are you a child custody lawyer or an expert on child custody? Your claim that the fact that Epstein labeled herself the Defendant in the contempt motion she filed against Friedman meant that she was just responding to a motion by Friedman is just not true.
No but my mother in law is a CPS worker, and manages their case files as well as court mandated mediation for the State of Washington. She if visiting for the birth of our daughter and I am consulting with her.
Why are you calling me a sock puppet? How do you know that these court documents really exist? Only based on the word of the guy that wrote the procedural summary!
It's OK for guest posters and commenters to tell us what they know about the situation. They may not be "reliable" but at least they are actually claiming to know of the stories they are relating.
You don't claim to know anything. You have constructed a story by selecting half the lines of the procedural summary and use that to refute other people's version of events, even though your own constructed story clearly differs from your source - the procedural summary!
How do you know that these court documents really exist? Only based on the word of the guy that wrote the procedural summary!
Because court documents are a matter of public record and with the dates and names of the plaintiff and defendant, they can be electronically searched online.
Furthermore the "Procedural Summary" as we have it here, is a redaction of another blog that actually linked to the online court documents...
you are so full of it tzadok it is unbelievable. very long posts ranting but not saying very much.
if a person knows he is biased he may not be involved in a din torah even if the halochoh does not include him as you so claim. The fact that he refused to speak to Aharon Friedman for a year says it all. No further question.
It is abduction and he was prevented proper access to his child and while you theorize with your lengthy rantings you ignore a father who had his daughter abducted.
Your interpretations have been dubious at best and incorrect in the middle and complete shtus at partial worst.
if a person knows he is biased he may not be involved in a din torah even if the halochoh does not include him as you so claim. The fact that he refused to speak to Aharon Friedman for a year says it all. No further question.
How do you know RSK didn't speak with Friedman?
It is abduction and he was prevented proper access to his child and while you theorize with your lengthy rantings you ignore a father who had his daughter abducted. Not legally speaking.
Your interpretations have been dubious at best and incorrect in the middle and complete shtus at partial worst. That's ok, as I said above they are not my interpretations. I have been taking them from Rav Oshinsky's sefer. Standard reading for anyone working toward Dayyanut in any of the Eda Batei Din.
every time you accuse Binyomin and myself and every one else who stands for halochoh and is against the distirtion of halochoh by YU, BDA, schachter, yourself etc of hypocrisy, remember you are misrepresenting.
I posted on this issue and my post was censored. I do not appreciate censorship and will not re-post nor get someone else to post to show my rejection of censorship especially since it has been applied on an arbitrary basis.
Since you don't disfavor censorship and the truth hurts, you are the last one to complain about why I allegedly did not answer you.
You have said it more than once. Anytime a woman goes to B"D with a valid claim she is a moseret, but Aharon Friedman is not. That is hypocrisy pure and simple. That you do not grasp that, simply compounds the problem
" guess the question would be was Mr Epstein giving money to the Yeshiva all those years in order to curry favor for when Rav Kaementsky would eventually sit as a Dayyan on his daughter's divorce, and if Rav Kamenetsky saw the ongoing support of a terminally ill supporter as dependent upon his influencing a B"D in Tamar's favor.
In short can we challenge the Chezakat Kashrut of a Gadol and Musmakh of Rav Kotler based on an assumption of his motives, even though the Sh"A gives him the the authority to decide for himself."
that is your problem exactly. you guess instead of ascertaining the truth. Just like your claims that I did not know when rav elyashiv wrote his t'shuvahs. rav elyashiv resigned from the rabbanut because he could no longer take the distortions going on there.
i also said that t'shuvahs l'kulah from the people you quoted were not worth the paper they were written on. i did not say anything about the t'shuvahs l'hachmir.
The truth is that neither you nor I are a Navi so we do not know what Rav Kamenetsky was thinking, however, we do know that Rav Kotler trusted him and his judgement enough to grant him Yadin Yadin, so questioning him without clear proof is questioning Rav Kotler.
If X receives Yadin Yadin from a rav, questioning anything X ever does for the rest of X's life is to question the rav? It is not possible that X might change over the course of several decades?
"EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman. The footnotes of the "Procedural Summary" posted on this blog do not support this claim."
so you know better the metzius than friedman. thanks for guessing again.
i had a rebbi in yeshiva who said chazokoh if you guess you're wrong. is this another freudian slip?
I know what the footnotes say. Which is that Tamar was the DEFENDANT in that case, meaning that Aharon brought the case to the judge.
This does not refute Shoshana's claim that "EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman."
Rabbi Tzadok, The fact that Epstein labeled herself as the Defendant in her contempt motion against Friedman does not mean that she was responding to a motion by Friedman.
Sock puppet(which in and of itself is highly dishonest):
How a person is labled in court papers does not depend upon how they label themselves, but how the court labels them.
That the court labeled her the defendant, means just that, she was defending herself against accusations.
This does not refute Shoshana's claim that "EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman." The footnotes most certainly do.
None- "I know what the footnotes say. Which is that Tamar was the DEFENDANT in that case, meaning that Aharon brought the case to the judge."
The fact that Epstein labeled herself as the Defendant in her contempt motion against Friedman does not mean that she was responding to a motion by Friedman. Epstein brought the contempt motion on her own initiative, not in response to a motion filed by Friedman.
Rabbi Tzadok, A person can file a motion labeling themselves whatever they want without the need for approval from the court.
Epstein filed a contempt motion against Friedman in November 2010. She was not defending herself against a motion filed by Friedman. Friedman did not have any outstanding motions before the court at that time.
Seriously Stan Sock Puppet, get help. That is a flat out lie. A person needs to be correctly labeled as defendant or plaintiff in all court documents in case the case ever comes up for judicial review of any kind. This is just getting absurd.
A person can label themselves a martian if they want, at which point the court clerk will either enter them as Plaintiff(if they are the one making the motions) or defendant(if they are responding to a motion already against them).
The court uses consistent labels throughout the case. Since Aharon was the original plaintiff, he is always called "the plaintiff" in regards to this case.
none: "The court uses consistent labels throughout the case. Since Aharon was the original plaintiff, he is always called "the plaintiff" in regards to this case."
Thus, Epstein could be referred to as the "Defendant" in her contempt motion even if she filed the contempt motion at a time when there were no other motions pending, and she was not just responding to a motion by Friedman.
Most people seem to accept that even after one side has violated the commitments of marriage both sides are still bound to each other until "everything is settled" (I do not agree with this view, but it is the popular view.) So until it moves through court no one has a problem that both sides are 'agun' because of the actions of one side. They only start complaining after "everything is settled" in court (even though at that point they will say the husband has been keeping her an aguna from day one.)
The issue here is what is considered "everything being settled" and what should be the conditions of the settlement. ORA insists that a secular court is the proper venue, and this way they introduce secular law into the Jewish system.
So ORA does not care about a million dollars any more or less than they care about child abduction. The only thing they care about is that once "everything is settled" in secular court, a husband may not withhold a get to insist on a Jewish settlement.
Unilaterally relocating a child out-of-State against the wishes of the other parent is not technically illegal, but is legally considered to be an "abduction."
The Comment to Section 208 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act [codified by nearly every State, including MD and PA] describes the unilateral relocation of a child by one parent as “reprehensible” and explains that the section “ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.”
Wow... yet another sock puppet this is getting absurd.
Anyway, so now you are saying that, according those Uniform Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, let me quote this: “ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.”
So according to this Aharon Friedman had no valid reason to go to Arkaot without a valid heter, because Tamar's action could not have granted her advantage in any subsequent custodial hearings.
That contradicts the long line of assumptions at the beginning of the "Procedural Summary." Secondly it means that Aharon needed to wait for a proper psak and heter from a B"D. That what he did had no basis in urgency or need.
Section 208 of the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act relates directly to jurisdiction, not the substance of how custody should be decided. Yes, the law looks badly upon a parent who unilaterally relocates a child - but if the second parent does not quickly go to court, the second parent is deemed as acquiescing to the child's relocation. And not going to court because one went to beis din is not an excuse. Rabbi Tzadok, You have claimed repeatedly that Friedman would have faced no prejudice in court had he first gone to BD (in other words that Friedman would be no worse off in court no matter when the court would decide the matter should either party not listen to BD), and that the matter was not urgent. But look at what actually happened. After the emergency motion, Friedman postponed adjudication in court to bring the matter to Beis Din. And the Court heard the case in June 2009 (after Epstein violated the BD"s orders regarding dismissing the civil case) instead of October 2008 and ordered that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept the child there for so long. And Epstein specifically argued that the delay should be prejudicial because Friedman had canceled the October 2008 pendete lite trial to bring the case to BD.
You have claimed repeatedly that Friedman would have faced no prejudice in court had he first gone to B"D... , and that the matter was not urgent. But look at what actually happened. After the emergency motion, Friedman postponed adjudication in court to bring the matter to Beis Din...
Well I am glad that finally Stan is letting all of him personalities come out and play. Though I suspect he has a few more buried in there.
Anyway you are comparing apples to oranges.
First On May 5th a month after Tamar relocated Aharon finally gets round to the B"D. The B"D instituted a 2mo period for which Tamar was permitted(by the B"D) to keep "C" in Merion Station.
Second at the end of that time(when Tamar supposedly had refused all along the B"D's orders, or so we are to believe), do you really expect me to believe that Aharon could not quickly(i.e. within 24-72hrs) get a psak from the B"D?
Third that 2mo period ended on July 5th. Aharon went to Arkaot on August 1st, in that time he could not get a Psak from a B"D?
Fourth if this was so urgent where was he for four mos?
The claim that it had to be done and there was not time to get a Psak from the B"D that was already involved, doesn't hold up to the facts.
Rabbi Tzadok, Your chronology is completely wrong - although the procedural history is very complex. Epstein relocated the child unilaterally over Friedman's objections on April 10 of 2008. Epstein claimed she would consider reconciliation only if Friedman let her stay in PA for two months. Friedman's lawyer told him it was a trick and that he should go to the police or court immediately. Several rabbis told Friedman that they would work on reconciliation and that Orthodox marriages should not be, and usually are not, broken up in such situations. No BD was involved at that point. Friedman wanted to save the marriage and he believed Epstein that she was serious about considering reconciliation, and the rabbis that they would work hard on facilitating reconciliation. The parties signed the agreement that is in the footnotes of the procedural summary. Again, at that point, no BD was involved. During the two months, Epstein refused to as much as go to martial counseling with Friedman. After the two months were up, Epstein asked for another week, which Friedman agreed to. Then, Epstein delayed matters by claiming that she was willing to negotiate and would come up with a proposal, which she never did. Then Friedman unsuccessfully tried to get Epstein to agree to mediation or to see a rav together to find a way to adjudicate their dispute.
It takes weeks or months to get a Beis Din to act, not a day or two.
Your claim that Friedman would not be prejudiced by the matter being delayed before any final adjudication in court is contrary to what actually happened.
It takes weeks or months to get a Beis Din to act, not a day or two. The procedural summary says the that agreement for reconciliation was instituted by the Balitmore B"D.
From April 10th to August 1st is months. Just under 5mos in fact. I have never seen it take more than 72hrs to get a B"D to act in an actual emergency situation.
Even from July 5th to August 1st is three weeks. The short of it is that Aharon Friedman didn't try to get a B"D involved before he went to Arkaot, and claiming that five months on it is suddenly such a pressing need is false.
"The procedural summary says the that agreement for reconciliation was instituted by the Balitmore B"D."
Rabbi Tzadok, The BD was not involved in the reconciliation agreement. The procedural summary does not state otherwise. What evidence do you have for your assertion that the BD was involved in the reconciliation agreement? The procedural summary makes several assertions as to how the case got dragged out, including that Epstein claimed she would consider reconciliation if Friedman agreed to let her keep the child in PA for two months. The procedural summary contains the text of an agreement. Do you have reason to believe that agreement was not signed by the parties? Do you have another version of what happened?
Nope misread the "Procedural Summary." You are right, Aharon Friedman went five months without getting a B"D involved, and then had the Chutzpah to claim that the matter was too urgent to wait for a B"D to rule.
Thanks for pointing that out. That is much worse for Aharon Friedman than I thought.
Let me get this straight, essentially for five months he is fine with Tamar having C in PA, and sees no need to get either a B"D or secular authorities involved.
Suddenly in August he decides that the matter is of the utmost urgency and doesn't have time to follow the Sh"A. Somehow you expect me to look at this as legitimate?
The procedural summary says that Friedman signed an agreement letting Epstein stay in PA for two months because she made that a condition of considering reconciliation - and that the agreement provided that Epstein agreed this would not be detrimental to Friedman with regard to custody.
If Friedman wanted reconciliation that might explain why he didn't take Epstein to BD in April. If Friedman had immediately rushed to adjudication at that point, it would have been easy to retroactively blame him for ruining any chance for reconciliation.
After the two months and the further time Epstein asked for expired, Friedman may have hoped to resolve the matter by negotiation or mediation and therefore did not immediately adjudicate.
If Friedman had gone to adjudication before attempting to negotiate and mediate, it would have been easy to retroactively fault him for escalating tensions between the parties instead of trying to work things out amicably.
You can choose to believe the procedural summary or not. You can choose to believe Friedman (who is not a rabbi) was acting in good faith and trying to follow halacha or not.
You can choose to believe the procedural summary or not. You can choose to believe Friedman (who is not a rabbi) was acting in good faith and trying to follow halacha or not.
Actually that is probably the best reason that I have heard yet. I will have to think on that one. Thank you.
Unlike stealing 1 million dollars (which ORA acknowledges is completely inappropriate, ORA (and presumably its rabbinic sponsors such as Rabbi Schachter) labels Epstein's stealing of a child as kedas ukedin.
Epsteins and her supporters (on this blog and elsewhere) just can't understand why Friedman might think it is against the child's interests to just have "visits" with him on Sunday and not on Shabbos. But it is impossible to explain why a child should regularly spend Shabbos with each parent to someone to whom this is not immediately obvious.
Epstein and her supporters seem to believe that in cases of divorce, a child should be left with only one true parent (the mother), while the other parent is a mere visitor. The child's best interests are defined exclusively by whatever the mother thinks will make the mother happy.
Thus, there is clearly nothing wrong (to the contrary, it is kedas ukedin) with the mother unilaterally relocating the child out-of-State over the objections of the father and without the permission of a Beis Din or Court. After all, the mother thinks the mother will be happier (which is the only criteria for measuring the child's interests) if the mother goes back to the mother's parents, while the child's having a regular relationship with the father is inconsequential at best.
The very use of the term "visit" speaks volumes:
“Note the importance of examining the extent to which our thoughts reflect implicit assumptions. Even when we think we approach a topic with neutrality, our language and attitudes may reveal the absorption of cultural biases. …
For instance, throughout their article, Biringen et al. refer to a child's contact with one parent (usually the father) as a visit, a term that connotes that a person is set apart in some fundamental way from others at the same location. A visitor is a guest in the home. Without thinking about it, every time we use this term to designate the time children spend with their father, we are endorsing a destructive idea. We are telling children that after divorce their relationship with their father must be transformed into something less than a normal parent-child relationship. Rather than reassure children that they have not lost a parent as a result of the divorce, we give them the message that their father is no longer central in their lives. He is no longer a parent in the same sense as he was before the divorce.
If we begin with the premise that one parent is of secondary importance to the child and that the nature of the relationship is something less than a true parent-child relationship, it is easier to reach the ultimate conclusion that a child is not losing much by missing out" on having regular parenting time with that parent.
Warshak, Who will be there when I cry in the night? Revisitng overnights –a rejoinder to Biringen at al, 40 Fam. Ct. Rev. 208 (2002)
Those are all valid points. If that is the primary factor behind them, then you would be correct.
However, for the sake of discussion I would say, and I will admit from the beginning that I have not looked into all the sources for this, but that the two poskim with which I am most familiar(Rav Ovadia and the Yaskil Avdei) hold that there are two primary episodes in a young childs life: טפול: Infancy through early childhood(5-6) in which the child should be in the primary custody and care of the mother. ×—× ×•×š: From 5(or 6) and up(don't remember the upper limit) in which the child should be in the primary custody and care of the father.
It could be argued, though I doubt this is what is going through the heads of anyone at ORA, though it could be argued that according to this it was was Kdat ukdin.
It is kedas ukedin to unilaterally take the child ou-of-State over the other parent's objections without going to BD to obtain permission for doing so?
Who has custody must be decided in each individual case based on the facts in that individual case - say one parent is unfit. There may be presumptions, but those presumptions are not conclusive.
And just because a BD rules that a parent has primary custody, that doesn't mean that the parent can relocate the child.
Really you are going to complain about a 30min commute by train? You can make the claim of "across state lines" but like I said that argument breaks down. It essentially means that you would be fine with a Californian familly putting 500miles between their children and respective spouse, but a Missourian/Kansas family can't put five miles distance between them.
What parameters do you see as being unacceptable for relocation? Same block? Same school district? Same city? Same state? Mileage?
From the sources I have read, and I have not done anything even remotely exhaustive on it, but from the sources I have read, then absolutely from the age of chinuk Aharon Friedman should have primary custody.
The Acela train from Philadelphia to Baltimore takes an hour. And Epstein didn't take the child from Baltimore to Pennsylvania but from Silver Spring, at least according to the procedural summary. Do you have other information that it was from Baltimore? Someone traveling also needs to take into account getting to and from the train station.
"Parent, From the sources I have read, and I have not done anything even remotely exhaustive on it, but from the sources I have read, then absolutely from the age of chinuk Aharon Friedman should have primary custody"
Is the age of chinuch a set age, or does it depend on the specific child's development?
the despicable denigration of rav menashe klein by tzedoki continues. because AJ denigrates him that means so much? AJ (as his talmidim call him) denigrated the godol hador rav Shach.
On the basis of tzadok's logic, Rav Chaim Brisker would agree with the views of R' JB Soleveitchik and is therefore a tzioni.
While I accept that Rav Ovadyia has a tremendous bekius, it has already proven from Oslo that when it comes to life and death decisions one should look elsewhere (euphemistically put). Geirus and Gittin is a life and death situation. he is entitled to his psakim but we are not obliged to follow him when there are poskim of the stature of rav Elyashiv and the Chazon ish against him.
Recently Rav Ovadya was forced to back down on a kulah for geirim so he is not the final word - no denigration intended just stating the facts even if they are highly uncomfortable for tzedokki.
While I accept that Rav Ovadyia has a tremendous bekius, it has already proven from Oslo that when it comes to life and death decisions one should look elsewhere (euphemistically put)
You have a Gadol in mind that did better? Rav Shach has his party vote in favor of Oslo.
Recently Rav Ovadya was forced to back down on a kulah for geirim
Try again. He didn't. He actually won that fight. I was actually there in the room when he won it, it was impressive.
Rav Ovadia declared that he would uphold the Army conversions and the Druckman conversions provided that the people had kept one(their first) Shabbat.
Some Ashkenazi Gedolim, who will remain annonymous had a fit, and threatened demonstrations against Rav Ovadia.
Rav Ovadia had a sit down with several of his Askanim and the Ashkenazi Gedolim and several of their askanim. What was discussed I am not at liberty to say. However at the end of the meeting the Ashkenazi Gedolim agreed to abide by Rav Ovadia's decision with the caveat that the converts in question had kept their first Shabbat(this was supposed to look like some sort of win on their side).
Rav Ovadia then gave a press conference in which he showed his original psak and that he had not changed his position at all.
All of this was pretty much covered here on this blog so you can check it out if you want.
While I accept that Rav Ovadyia has a tremendous bekius, it has already proven from Oslo that when it comes to life and death decisions one should look elsewhere (euphemistically put).
Quite honestly this statement would be laughable if it wasn't a blood libel as serious as the protocols of the elders of zion.
Let's see Rav Ovadiah instructed Shas to: 1)abstain from Oslo 1 2)vote against Oslo 2 3)vote against the Gaza disengagement
On the other side Rav Shach instructed Degel HaTorah to: 1)vote for Oslo 1 2)vote for Oslo 2
Rav Eliashiv his successor instructed Degel HaTorah to: Seek a public referendum on the Gaza Disengagement.
Quite possibly the saddest thing I have ever seen was in 1999 when Rav Shach tried, over the protestations of the entire Abuchatzeira family, to claim that the Baba Sali would have supported UTJ and not Shas, because of UTJ's land for peace stance as the Baba Sali was an anti-Zionist. The only thing that was sadder was when Rav Eliashiv tried it again three years later in the midst of the Al Aqsa Intifada.
Rabbi Tzadok, You have made a series of assertions about how the legal process works. Are you a child custody lawyer or have special expertise in child custody law?
For example, you claimed: "4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it)."
Although I am not a PA custody lawyer, it seems to me that under PA law, a binding arbitration agreement between the parties regarding child custody is not binding on the court. See Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa.Super. 162, 620 A.2d 1161 (1993).
What is the basis for your claim otherwise?
Why should anyone believe any of the assertions you are making about how the legal process works, particularly with regard to child custody?
I have answered this question above. In short, my mother in law, who is here with me now, works with child custody issues on a daily basis.
As far as Miller V. Miller the court finds that binding arbitration agreements between the parties regarding child custody is not binding on the court when they are contrary to the best interests of the child. I don't expect any court to say differently.
Reason being, you have a father. He has severely abused his children but because he belongs to a religion in which women and children are nothing more than chattel the binding arbitration that is necessary under his religion automatically awards him custody. No court is going to uphold that, and no court is going to say that it should be upheld.
However, as Miller V. Miller points out(which is one of several landmark cases upon which B"D authority in the US is now based), so long as the arbitration decision does not conflict with the best interests of the child it is enforceable.
This has been upheld time after time.
Here http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/07/may-arbitrators-decide-child-custody-disputes-new-jersey-supreme-court-say-yes.html and here http://cojcr.org/vol12no2/547-572.pdf
Are articles, that while talking about other states, insist that PA is a State that uphold binding arbitration in child custody matters.
If you would rather I have my mother in law respond to you directly as this is what she does, I can do that.
Miller states that the court must make its own de novo determination as to what is in the best interests of the child if either parent challenges the binding arbitrator's decision. It is true that in PA the court will not invalidate an arbitration agreement as void on its face (as is the case in some other States), but on the other hand the the Court cannot just accept the arbitrator's decision if one of the parents challenges the arbitrator's decision.
Rabbi Tzadok, Again, I am not a PA custody lawyer but look at the article you yourself cited: "Under the voidable approach, the court will treat an arbitrator’s award as “voidable” if the award does not serve the best interests of the child". citing amongst other cases: Sheets v. Sheets, 254 N.Y.S.2d 320, 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964) (noting that to the extent that an arbitration award conflicts with the best interests of the child, courts would treat it as a nullity regardless of the binding effect on the parents). This approach is also followed in Pennsylvania. See Miller v. Miller, 620 A.2d 1161, 1163–64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)."
"Pennsylvania follows the voidable approach whereby agreements entered into between parties are binding as between the parties but any award rendered by an arbitration panel is subject to the supervisory power of the court to determine the best interests of the child. See Miller v. Miller, 62 A.D.2d 1161 (1993)"
Rabbi Tzadok, The article you cited also states: "Lastly, under the minority view, a state court will respect and enforce a child custody arbitration agreement." The article states that this approach is not followed by the Pennsylvania courts. See page 554, http://cojcr.org/vol12no2/547-572.pdf
Rabbi Tzadok, The blog you cite claims that Pennsylvania has the same rule as NJ (courts will accept binding arbitration with regard to child custody even if challenged by one of the parents). http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/07/may-arbitrators-decide-child-custody-disputes-new-jersey-supreme-court-say-yes.html
But the blog is wrong. The blog claims that the Fawzy case cites Miller for the holding that PA will enforce binding arbitration over the objections of a parent. But Miller just doesn't say that. And the blog just flat out misreads what Fawzy says about PA law.
Rabbi Tzadok, Did you even check the Fawzy case? The Fawzy case says that following about PA law:
"We recognize that some other jurisdictions have approached the standard of review issue differently. For example, Pennsylvania has adopted a PURE BEST-INTERESTS test [in other words that if a parent challenges the decision of a binding arbitrator, the court must do its own de novo examination of what is in the best interests of the child] for judicial review of an arbitrated custody award. See Miller, supra, 620 A.2d at 1165. We decline to adopt that model, which allows a court to substitute its judgment regarding the child's best interests for that of the arbitrator chosen by the parents and fails to accord the constitutionally required deference to the notion of parental autonomy. We do not perceive in that model the advancement of the goals underlying family or arbitration law." Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 973 A.2d 347 (2009).
I want to understand this. You are not a child custody lawyer. Yet while two articles by two different child custody lawyers say that binding arbitration agreements will generally be upheld by PA courts... You declare them wrong?
Rabbi Tzadok, No, I am not a custody lawyer. But I actually read the the articles you referenced, as well as checked the cases that were cited in the articles. One article does not state what you claim it states, and the other article is just flat out wrong.
The first article you referenced claimed that a NJ case (Fawzy) held that PA holds that binding arbitration agreements are enforceable even if challenged by a parent. Instead of relying on what the blog claims that Fawzy said, I actually read Fawzy. And the blog was just flat out wrong (see the post above). Are you claiming that I fabricated the quote from the Fawzy case in the post above? The second blog you cited notes that binding arbitration regarding child custody is not void on its face in PA, but that if either parent challenges the arbitration decision, the court must decide on its own what is in the best interests of the child and cannot defer to the arbitrator.
I'm not saying you fabricated anything. I'm just saying that two child custody lawyers probably know how to read and interpret case law better than you.
Rabbi Tzadok, You have asserted that under PA law, a binding arbitration agreement between the parents, such as an agreement to go to BD, will be enforced by the court if challenged by one parent, unless there are extreme circumstances such as awarding custody to an abusive parent.
When asked to back your assertion, you referenced two cites. One of those cites is to a lengthy law review article that actually refutes your assertion, instead of supporting your assertion.
The other cite is to a short internet posting, not a law review article, summarizing a NJ case, Fawzy, released the day the posting was written (and thus, the author may not have had time to fully review the case). The posting made a mistake as to what Fawzy said about PA law (which was just a peripheral point, not the focus of the posting - another reason why the posting could have gotten that point wrong. Fawzy said the following: "We recognize that some other jurisdictions have approached the standard of review issue differently. For example, Pennsylvania has adopted a PURE BEST-INTERESTS test for judicial review of an arbitrated custody award. See Miller, supra, 620 A.2d at 1165. We DECLINE to adopt that model, which allows a court to substitute its judgment regarding the child's best interests for that of the arbitrator chosen by the parents and fails to accord the constitutionally required deference to the notion of parental autonomy. We do not perceive in that model the advancement of the goals underlying family or arbitration law." Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 973 A.2d 347 (2009).
Although I have readily admitted that I am not a custody lawyer, that does not mean that I can’t read the cites you brought or the cases referenced therein. The language in Fawzy as to PA law could not be clearer. What about that language do you think is ambiguous, or could possibly support your assertion?
Your assertion that under PA law, a court must uphold binding arbitration regarding child custody if the arbitration decision is challenged by one of the parents absent extreme circumstances such as awarding custody to an abusive parent is just wrong.
Rav Shach was against the labor party, you are inventing facts again and wanted a Likud govt when shas went against him. your facts are inventions tzaddok.
you were in the room in your illusions. r ovadyia was made to back down.
this is revisionist history if there ever was. dream on dude you are inventing facts.
Thanks for standing up to Tzadok. Over and over on this blog Tzadok has proven he has a serious problem understanding objective truth and reality.
Tzadok's arguments in defense of Epstein are pathetic and contrary to the facts - Epstein clearly deceived Friedman so she could legally keep the child in PA, instead of returning him to MD.
Keep up the good work Stan, Your sock puppet co conspirator against "agunot" EmesLeYaakov AKA Binyamin AKA None AKA Rick (Did I miss any puppets?)
Epstein clearly deceived Friedman so she could legally keep the child in PA, instead of returning him to MD.
Clearly. I mean she told him that she was divorcing him in March. She left him in April. He goes to Arkaot in August and finally gets a B"D involved in September... Why did it take him six mos?
Not saying that Tamar isn't at fault as well... the B"D supposedly offered her: Tamar rejected as a basis for negotiation the mediator’s proposal that C mostly live in PA, but bewith Aharon about one-third of the time; equally split marital property; and a get given andaccepted. Tamar ended mediation.
Why they offered her that much, I'm not sure. However if they offered half that should should have taken it and been happy. However that does not excuse Aharon Friedman for waiting six mos to get a B"D involved and going to Arkaot in the meantime. The excuse that it was urgent is also a fallacy since he waited 5mos to go to Arkaot.
Rabbi Tzadok, You can fault Friedman for following the psak by filing an emergency motion if you choose, but your conclusions as to the facts, the legal background and Friedman's motives are very questionable.
You conclude that there was no reason for Friedman not going to BD immediately in March or April 2008. You think Friedman was just delaying so that he could come up with an excuse that the matter was urgent so that he needed to file an emergency motion in court to circumvent BD because he wanted the matter decided by court and not BD?
That is pretty preposterous.
First, if Friedman wanted the matter ultimately resolved in court, not BD, why did he cancel the pendete lite trial in October 2008, at which he had every reason to believe that the child would be returned, to bring the matter to BD? (And doing so was at great prejudice to Friedman, because even if BD were to rule in his favor, if Epstein were to challenge the BD ruling court, there was far less chance that a court would rule that the child return if the trial were held at a later date.)
Do you believe that when Epstein told Friedman she was divorcing him in March, if Friedman wanted to reconcile, he would have brought Epstein to BD immediately?
The procedural summary quotes an agreement signed by the parties that Epstein said she would only consider reconciliation if Friedman allowed her to keep the child in PA for two months? Do you think Friedman didn't believe her, but just signed the agreement so that he could delay adjudication so that he could eventually claim that the matter was urgent and that he needed to file an emergency court motion?
When the two months and the additional time requested by Epstein was over, might Friedman (who may still have hoped to save his marriage), instead of immediately bringing his wife to adjudication, not have believed in good faith that he could avoid adjudication and get Epstein to negotiate or mediate (perhaps because Epstein may have at first indicated, perhaps to delay matters, that she was willing to negotiate, even if she ultimately did not do so), and spend some time trying to do so.
If you start with the conclusion that Friedman is the villan in this situation and therefore was acting in bad faith all along and trying to circumvent BD from the beginning, one can look back and try to second guess everything he did - but the assumptions you seem to be making are pretty outlandish.
Actually according to Daas Torah most readers view me as a "nut" but his brother can make any remark he likes even though I agree with kimat all that he says.
You see I posted against his support of Ms Briskman who is an eishes ish and is now being mezaneh and I have not heard a squeak out of him on this.
As for tzadok he lives on another planet he actually believes the baloney he posts most of the time. He is just another biryon of the reformists.
He posts long illogical posts that make no sense hoping to obfuscate and distort and hopes the reader gets bored before he finishes.
"Hey Stan D"T and I were chatting" ... it says it all. How DT would chat with someone who is a complete distorter of the truth and advocates the breaking of halochoh is beyond me and I am sure his brother.
actually there is an issur in being mischaber with reshoim and apikorsim DT.
1) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is a pathological liar?
2) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband where the husband advocates violence against those including his wife who stand up to his lies?
3) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is an apikores and is oyker parts of the torah including mesirah, arko'oys, geneivoh, aishes ish vecholo?
4) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband adovactes mesirah against those including his wife who stand up to his lies?
regarding your boych kashes: 1) see shulchan oruch for the halochos of when a man is mechuyev to divorce his wife 9even ho'ezer siman 133??)
I think this is a heavily biased presentation of facts.
ReplyDeleteShe took the child and moved to her parent's, who happened to live in a different state. The same distance in one state - no-one would speak of "abduction".
She never kept her husband from seeing the child. I think he just set the wrong priorities when determining the visiting schedules, and this is problem for him now (which he seeks to compensate by withholding the get).
as far as I understood the story, he set a visiting schedule he knew he could not keep and then whined that he could not see the child.
"biased...of the facts? is that an oxymoron? They are facts. on the contrary, your information is all false.
ReplyDeleteYes, Epstein did 'abduct' the child as per the judges words (but with her making a mockery of the beis din process and other lies, she was allowed to get away with it).
Epstein did clearly prevent Friedman from seeing their child on multiple occasions. Once again, look at the court ruling where the judge admonished Epstein for not allowing Friedman to have a relationship with his daughter, and a letter from Rabbi Breitowitz whom called Epsteins actions in this regard "shrecklach".
and your third point can not be further from the truth. EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman.
Bat melch - you should really get all your facts straight. Epstein and Co. have been feeding the public lies from day one.
Why didn't Friedman take the visiting schedule on sunday, since he knew he could not make it for shabbes?
ReplyDeleteIf this is true then this clearly shows what an am ho'oretz stern is. reb moshe holds you shouldn't withhold a get for money owed if that is the only unresolved issue presumably.
ReplyDeletebut note this comes with the caveat of hagoan hagodol rav menashe klein.
if the money owed are legal fees of husband this will probably be a different story also.
Congratulations Stan. I think you may have finally found a Gadol that most of your slander won't stick to.
DeleteGranted it is a Gadol who's opinions are nearly universally rejected, who advocates protecting child rapists and wife beaters.
Who, when the current Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk was asked concerning his books, he said, "I am very strict about Shaimos, but those can go straight into the trash."
He never said any such thing, Mike.
DeleteWho? The current Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk? I beg to differ, one of his Talmidim who I know in the flesh(not an anonymous sock-puppet) left that as comment on my own blog, a while back. So I have no reason to believe that he didn't.
DeleteAND REMEMBER THAT R' KAMINETSKY HAS SUPPORTED THE EPSTEINS - AS AN IMPARTIAL GADOL HADOR- READ THIS WEEKS YATED A FULL PAGE OBITUARY ABOUT TAMARS FATHER- THE ENTIRE STORY IS ABOUT WHAT HE DID FOR THE PHILLY YESHIVA AND RABBI KAMINETSKY. AN IMPARTIAL....
ReplyDeleteConcerned,
DeleteAre you suggesting that RSK did not follow the proper procedures for determining whether he should recuse himself? Please cite sources.
RDE,
Who decides whether R' Shternbuch or others on the Eida Beth Din should recuse themselves? I am willing to bet that it is the judges themselves who make that decision.
By the way, in secular law, a motion for recusal is decided by the judge in question. Besides, there were four other "impartial" judges on the Beth Din who constituted a valid Beth Din without RSK.
1 A Dayan must be (1) [1] very, very careful not to take bribery [2] even with intent to vindicate he who deserves vindication. If he took bribery [3] he is obligated to return it when the one who gave it claims it. Just as he who
Deleteaccepts bribery violates Torah prohibition, so, too, he who pays bribery, for he transgresses, ‘Do not put a stumbling block in front of the blind.’ Not only is monetary bribery forbidden; so, too, [4] are favors of a non-monetary
nature. (2) Any Dayan who borrows an object from someone is forbidden to judge that person, but this applies only when the Dayan lacks things to lend that person. If, however, [5] he does lend him things he is fit to judge him, for that person borrows from him, as well.
2 If (3) before making a monetary claim against someone in Beis Din, a person gives a gift to one of the Dayanim, [6] the plaintiff is unable to claim that the gift disqualifies the Dayan from judging the case. On the other hand, if the Dayan wants, he is permitted to refuse to judge the case (such as when he knows that his heart became biased) (Tur), but it is only (4) [7] middas chassidus (non-obligatory piety).
The Sma S"K 5 writes: In order to retain his eligibility, the Dayan does not have to actually lend possessions to this person. It is sufficient that he owns belongings that the
person might want to borrow from him.
Since neither the Rema nor the primary Notei Kelim(Sma Shach and Taz) argue on the ruling of the Mechaber, it is essentially an open and shut Sh"A.
I guess the question would be was Mr Epstein giving money to the Yeshiva all those years in order to curry favor for when Rav Kaementsky would eventually sit as a Dayyan on his daughter's divorce, and if Rav Kamenetsky saw the ongoing support of a terminally ill supporter as dependent upon his influencing a B"D in Tamar's favor.
In short can we challenge the Chezakat Kashrut of a Gadol and Musmakh of Rav Kotler based on an assumption of his motives, even though the Sh"A gives him the the authority to decide for himself.
PS: Just to give credit where credit is due -the above is not my translation. It is taken from a sefer written for training dayyanim by Rav Yitzhak Tzvi Oshinsky and translated into English by Rav Daykin.
DeleteWho is Tamar Epstein's father?
DeleteHe was a Dr. and supporter of the Yeshiva. However, he was not Rav Kamenetsky's doc, as RSK was makpid to only have a non-Jew as his own physician, as there is a serious machloket as to whether or not that would bias a dayyan.
DeleteTzadok, you can twist the Rishonim and achronim all you want but don't forget the basics "Ki Hashochad yeaver einei chahachmin vsaleif divrei tzaddikim" 30 Years of financial support is a big no no! Please stop justifying what a basic child could even see. I would highly doubt if you were involved in a court case with someone and the judge received 30 years of support from your opponent that you would consider this judge not to be affected.
Delete"By the way, in secular law, a motion for recusal is decided by the judge in question. Besides, there were four other "impartial" judges on the Beth Din who constituted a valid Beth Din without RSK."
DeleteJames,
You are comparing this to secular law? Imagine a court panel that decides a case in favor of party X, A lawyer for X had previously told the press that one of the judges had longstanding and very close connections to X's father. This judge had publicly rendered his opinion on the matter before the matter had even come to the court. If the judge refused to recuse himself, do you have any doubt that an appeals court would throw out the decision?
And do you think that someone can engage in forum shopping in secular court in the same was that Epstein went from one beis din to another until she finally found one (with at least one judge closely connected to her family) to condemn Friedman?
"He was a Dr. and supporter of the Yeshiva. However, he was not Rav Kamenetsky's doc, as RSK was makpid to only have a non-Jew as his own physician, as there is a serious machloket as to whether or not that would bias a dayyan."
DeleteDo you know for a fact that Dr. Epstein never treated Rabbi Kamenetsky or his family or provided them medical advice? Or is that what someone else told you? Or are you starting with the conclusion that Rabbi Kamenetsky (a musmach of Rabbi Kotler and a gadol) would never do anything improper or even subject to a machlokes that it was improper - and thus because he served as a dayan in the case, you assume that he never received any medical treatment of any sort from Dr. Epstein?
"I guess the question would be was Mr Epstein giving money to the Yeshiva all those years in order to curry favor for when Rav Kaementsky would eventually sit as a Dayyan on his daughter's divorce, and if Rav Kamenetsky saw the ongoing support of a terminally ill supporter as dependent upon his influencing a B"D in Tamar's favor."
DeleteRabbi Kamenetsky's appreciation for Dr. Epstein seems to clearly have depended upon far more than monetary support he seems to have received from Dr. Epstein, but to Dr Epstein's extraordinary medical services to the yeshiva, as well as involvement in the community (according to the Yated article). And Rabbi Kamenetsky very well may not have thought that future support from Dr. Epstein depended on what he did in this case. But is it really reasonable to believe that the tremendous hakaras hatov that Rabbi Kamentesky obviously had for Dr. Epstein played no role whatsoever in Rabbi Kamenetsky's involvement in the case? That between Epstein and Friedman, Rabbi Kamenetsky could be absolutely impartial and neutral?
Well it's not fair to say that ORA puts a greater value on money then children. They just believe that BD has no business getting involved in either of those. As far as ORA is concerned the purpose of B'D is to handle religious stuff like forcing gittin. Everything else should be handled by the secular courts.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to wrap my head around what you call abduction.
ReplyDeleteIs it because they moved across state lines? But then a person can move from the east side to the west side of Kansas City and cross a state line. While you can move from LA to San Fran, stay in the same state, and thus put 400mi/640km of distance between them. Tamar moved from Baltimore to Merion Station(SE Philadelphia). That is 98 miles and only about a half hr commute via the express train that runs between them.
Is it because Tamar wouldn't allow Aharon access to the child? This would actually make sense. I would agree that that would be like an abduction in my mind.
Is what Tamar did legally considered abduction? My understanding of this is that it would depend on the level of access her father was permitted, but probably not. That I get from my mother in law who works for child protective services in the States.
Is what Tamar did halakhiclly consdiered abduction? I'm going to go ahead and admit my ignorance here. I am familiar with a couple of sources that say that the mother ought to have primary custody of very small children(even up to the age of 6). However I don't know what the consensus there is.
"Tamar moved from Baltimore to Merion Station(SE Philadelphia)."
DeleteRabbi Tzadok, from where did you get this information? The summary says she took the child from Silver Spring to PA (yes, Merion Station). Silver Spring is not Baltimore. Is it your information that the parties lived in Baltimore?
What train do you know of that takes half an hour to get from Baltimore (let alone Silver Spring) to Philadelphia?
And what about travel to and from the train stations?
"I'm trying to wrap my head around what you call abduction."
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
Epstein acknowledged in a court filing according to the procedural summary that she unilaterally relocated the child. Assuming that is correct (and you can challenge that if you like) it is not Friedman or his supporters who might call such action an abduction.
The Comment to Section 208 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act [codified by nearly every State, including MD and PA] describes the unilateral relocation of a child out-of-State by one parent as “reprehensible” and explains that the section “ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.”
And Epstein did not just take the child across the street. She took the child over 130 miles away.
But if a lady lived in LA and took the child to San Fran you would be OK with that?
Delete"But if a lady lived in LA and took the child to San Fran you would be OK with that?"
DeleteUnilaterally?
No.
EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman.
ReplyDeleteThe footnotes of the "Procedural Summary" posted on this blog do not support this claim.
At the June 2009 trial (before the parties were civilly divorced and before any beis din or even any rabbi had said that a get should be given), Epstein asked the court that the child's time with Friedman should generally start on Friday evening and be limited to the vicinity of Epstein's house, knowing full well that Friedman could not get there before Shabbos.
DeleteShe filed a motion in November 2010 demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits."
Those are the facts as presented by the Procedural Summary.
Do Tamar's defenders dispute this? Rabbi Tzadok, do you have another version of the facts?
This Shoshana is clearly making claims based on her own personal knowledge of the situation, not the "procedural summary" that you love to intentionally misread.
DeleteShe filed a motion in November 2010 demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits."
DeleteThose are the facts as presented by the Procedural Summary.
Do Tamar's defenders dispute this? Rabbi Tzadok, do you have another version of the facts?
What the procedural summary "says" and what it's footnotes say do not coincide. My read of the facts is based on the footnotes, in that that motion is listed as a response by the defendant, meaning that she was responding to a claim or other motion made by Aharon Friedman.
Now if you can offer another reason that she would be listed as the defendant when she was the one supposedly bringing the charge I would love to hear it.
This Shoshana is clearly making claims based on her own personal knowledge of the situation, not the "procedural summary" that you love to intentionally misread.
DeleteWow taking sock puppetry to a new level.
Like I said if you can give another reason that court listed Tamar as the defendant when the "procedural summary" would have you believe that she is the plaintiff, I would love to hear it.
If Shoshana is making claims based on supposed personal knowledge, that is even more unreliable.
After Epstein abducted the child out-of-State and refused to return, Friedman filed an emergency motion in August 2008 and was thus labeled the Plaintiff, while Epstein became the Defendant.
DeleteIn October 2010, the case was no longer active; the Court had rendered its decision in July 2009 and various appeals had been denied.
Epstein restarted the case by filing a contempt motion demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits." That Epstein chose to continue using the label "Defendant" does not mean, contrary to Rabbi Tzadok's claims, that she was responding to a motion filed by Friedman.
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteAre you a child custody lawyer or an expert on child custody? Your claim that the fact that Epstein labeled herself the Defendant in the contempt motion she filed against Friedman meant that she was just responding to a motion by Friedman is just not true.
Yesterday, you claimed that binding arbitration in child custody case is considered binding in PA, but you have not brought a cite for this claim.
My read of the facts is based on the footnotes, in that that motion is listed as a response by the defendant, meaning that she was responding to a claim or other motion made by Aharon Friedman
DeleteThis is not inconsistent with what Shoshana and Rick are saying. She responded to Friedman's requests with a motion to limit Friedman's time to supervised visits.
You know the footnotes and body were written by the same guy. It makes no sense to try to construct a story from the footnotes, when the story is in the body. If you want to construct a new story you're going to have to find some new claims from the ORA camp. Please stop fabricating them on your own.
Sock Puppet:
DeleteThe footnotes actually do tell the story as they are the court documents. It does not matter that they were placed in the document by the same person who wrote it. What those things say, especially as they are linkable in the original format, tell a much different story.
Are you a child custody lawyer or an expert on child custody? Your claim that the fact that Epstein labeled herself the Defendant in the contempt motion she filed against Friedman meant that she was just responding to a motion by Friedman is just not true.
DeleteNo but my mother in law is a CPS worker, and manages their case files as well as court mandated mediation for the State of Washington. She if visiting for the birth of our daughter and I am consulting with her.
YOU DO NOT LABEL YOURSELF AS DEFENDANT OR PLAINTIFF IN COURT DOCUMENTS THE COURT DOES THAT BASED ON THE PERSON ORIGINATING THE CLAIM.
DeleteWhy are you calling me a sock puppet? How do you know that these court documents really exist? Only based on the word of the guy that wrote the procedural summary!
DeleteIt's OK for guest posters and commenters to tell us what they know about the situation. They may not be "reliable" but at least they are actually claiming to know of the stories they are relating.
You don't claim to know anything. You have constructed a story by selecting half the lines of the procedural summary and use that to refute other people's version of events, even though your own constructed story clearly differs from your source - the procedural summary!
How do you know that these court documents really exist? Only based on the word of the guy that wrote the procedural summary!
DeleteBecause court documents are a matter of public record and with the dates and names of the plaintiff and defendant, they can be electronically searched online.
Furthermore the "Procedural Summary" as we have it here, is a redaction of another blog that actually linked to the online court documents...
Post the link to the online court documents please. Or at least to the blog that did. Have you ever seen these documents?
Delete"Furthermore the "Procedural Summary" as we have it here, is a redaction of another blog that actually linked to the online court documents..."
Deletewhat are you referring to?
you are so full of it tzadok it is unbelievable. very long posts ranting but not saying very much.
ReplyDeleteif a person knows he is biased he may not be involved in a din torah even if the halochoh does not include him as you so claim. The fact that he refused to speak to Aharon Friedman for a year says it all. No further question.
It is abduction and he was prevented proper access to his child and while you theorize with your lengthy rantings you ignore a father who had his daughter abducted.
Your interpretations have been dubious at best and incorrect in the middle and complete shtus at partial worst.
if a person knows he is biased he may not be involved in a din torah even if the halochoh does not include him as you so claim. The fact that he refused to speak to Aharon Friedman for a year says it all. No further question.
DeleteHow do you know RSK didn't speak with Friedman?
It is abduction and he was prevented proper access to his child and while you theorize with your lengthy rantings you ignore a father who had his daughter abducted.
Not legally speaking.
Your interpretations have been dubious at best and incorrect in the middle and complete shtus at partial worst.
That's ok, as I said above they are not my interpretations. I have been taking them from Rav Oshinsky's sefer. Standard reading for anyone working toward Dayyanut in any of the Eda Batei Din.
just for the record:
ReplyDeleteevery time you accuse Binyomin and myself and every one else who stands for halochoh and is against the distirtion of halochoh by YU, BDA, schachter, yourself etc of hypocrisy, remember you are misrepresenting.
I posted on this issue and my post was censored. I do not appreciate censorship and will not re-post nor get someone else to post to show my rejection of censorship especially since it has been applied on an arbitrary basis.
Since you don't disfavor censorship and the truth hurts, you are the last one to complain about why I allegedly did not answer you.
You have said it more than once. Anytime a woman goes to B"D with a valid claim she is a moseret, but Aharon Friedman is not. That is hypocrisy pure and simple. That you do not grasp that, simply compounds the problem
Delete"Anytime a woman goes to B"D with a valid claim she is a moseret"
Delete??
" guess the question would be was Mr Epstein giving money to the Yeshiva all those years in order to curry favor for when Rav Kaementsky would eventually sit as a Dayyan on his daughter's divorce, and if Rav Kamenetsky saw the ongoing support of a terminally ill supporter as dependent upon his influencing a B"D in Tamar's favor.
ReplyDeleteIn short can we challenge the Chezakat Kashrut of a Gadol and Musmakh of Rav Kotler based on an assumption of his motives, even though the Sh"A gives him the the authority to decide for himself."
that is your problem exactly. you guess instead of ascertaining the truth. Just like your claims that I did not know when rav elyashiv wrote his t'shuvahs. rav elyashiv resigned from the rabbanut because he could no longer take the distortions going on there.
i also said that t'shuvahs l'kulah from the people you quoted were not worth the paper they were written on. i did not say anything about the t'shuvahs l'hachmir.
The truth is that neither you nor I are a Navi so we do not know what Rav Kamenetsky was thinking, however, we do know that Rav Kotler trusted him and his judgement enough to grant him Yadin Yadin, so questioning him without clear proof is questioning Rav Kotler.
DeleteIf X receives Yadin Yadin from a rav, questioning anything X ever does for the rest of X's life is to question the rav? It is not possible that X might change over the course of several decades?
Delete"EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman.
ReplyDeleteThe footnotes of the "Procedural Summary" posted on this blog do not support this claim."
so you know better the metzius than friedman. thanks for guessing again.
i had a rebbi in yeshiva who said chazokoh if you guess you're wrong. is this another freudian slip?
I know what the footnotes say. Which is that Tamar was the DEFENDANT in that case, meaning that Aharon brought the case to the judge.
DeleteFurthermore why do you automatically assume that Aharon is telling the 100% truth?
DeleteOh right your previously demonstrated hypocrisy.
I know what the footnotes say. Which is that Tamar was the DEFENDANT in that case, meaning that Aharon brought the case to the judge.
DeleteThis does not refute Shoshana's claim that "EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman."
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteThe fact that Epstein labeled herself as the Defendant in her contempt motion against Friedman does not mean that she was responding to a motion by Friedman.
Sock puppet(which in and of itself is highly dishonest):
DeleteHow a person is labled in court papers does not depend upon how they label themselves, but how the court labels them.
That the court labeled her the defendant, means just that, she was defending herself against accusations.
This does not refute Shoshana's claim that "EPSTEIN has the judge set the visiting schedule to start from friday evening. and then went back to court to try to take away all custody from Friedman."
The footnotes most certainly do.
None-
Delete"I know what the footnotes say. Which is that Tamar was the DEFENDANT in that case, meaning that Aharon brought the case to the judge."
The fact that Epstein labeled herself as the Defendant in her contempt motion against Friedman does not mean that she was responding to a motion by Friedman. Epstein brought the contempt motion on her own initiative, not in response to a motion filed by Friedman.
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteA person can file a motion labeling themselves whatever they want without the need for approval from the court.
Epstein filed a contempt motion against Friedman in November 2010. She was not defending herself against a motion filed by Friedman. Friedman did not have any outstanding motions before the court at that time.
Seriously Stan Sock Puppet, get help. That is a flat out lie. A person needs to be correctly labeled as defendant or plaintiff in all court documents in case the case ever comes up for judicial review of any kind. This is just getting absurd.
DeleteA person can label themselves a martian if they want, at which point the court clerk will either enter them as Plaintiff(if they are the one making the motions) or defendant(if they are responding to a motion already against them).
The court uses consistent labels throughout the case. Since Aharon was the original plaintiff, he is always called "the plaintiff" in regards to this case.
Deletenone:
Delete"The court uses consistent labels throughout the case. Since Aharon was the original plaintiff, he is always called "the plaintiff" in regards to this case."
Thus, Epstein could be referred to as the "Defendant" in her contempt motion even if she filed the contempt motion at a time when there were no other motions pending, and she was not just responding to a motion by Friedman.
The procedural summary refers to the motion filed by Epstein, not to how the court clerk labeled the motion.
DeleteMost people seem to accept that even after one side has violated the commitments of marriage both sides are still bound to each other until "everything is settled" (I do not agree with this view, but it is the popular view.) So until it moves through court no one has a problem that both sides are 'agun' because of the actions of one side. They only start complaining after "everything is settled" in court (even though at that point they will say the husband has been keeping her an aguna from day one.)
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is what is considered "everything being settled" and what should be the conditions of the settlement. ORA insists that a secular court is the proper venue, and this way they introduce secular law into the Jewish system.
So ORA does not care about a million dollars any more or less than they care about child abduction. The only thing they care about is that once "everything is settled" in secular court, a husband may not withhold a get to insist on a Jewish settlement.
RDE, kudos for an elegant use of the "moving target" tactic in debate. Exquisite sophistry!
ReplyDeletemr bechofer you still have yet to explain what you are doing in an institution that is Torah observant. Do they pay well?
ReplyDeleteUnilaterally relocating a child out-of-State against the wishes of the other parent is not technically illegal, but is legally considered to be an "abduction."
ReplyDeleteThe Comment to Section 208 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act [codified by nearly every State, including MD and PA] describes the unilateral relocation of a child by one parent as “reprehensible” and explains that the section “ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.”
Wow... yet another sock puppet this is getting absurd.
DeleteAnyway, so now you are saying that, according those Uniform Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, let me quote this:
“ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.”
So according to this Aharon Friedman had no valid reason to go to Arkaot without a valid heter, because Tamar's action could not have granted her advantage in any subsequent custodial hearings.
That contradicts the long line of assumptions at the beginning of the "Procedural Summary."
Secondly it means that Aharon needed to wait for a proper psak and heter from a B"D. That what he did had no basis in urgency or need.
Thank you for sharing that.
Section 208 of the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act relates directly to jurisdiction, not the substance of how custody should be decided. Yes, the law looks badly upon a parent who unilaterally relocates a child - but if the second parent does not quickly go to court, the second parent is deemed as acquiescing to the child's relocation. And not going to court because one went to beis din is not an excuse.
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
You have claimed repeatedly that Friedman would have faced no prejudice in court had he first gone to BD (in other words that Friedman would be no worse off in court no matter when the court would decide the matter should either party not listen to BD), and that the matter was not urgent.
But look at what actually happened. After the emergency motion, Friedman postponed adjudication in court to bring the matter to Beis Din. And the Court heard the case in June 2009 (after Epstein violated the BD"s orders regarding dismissing the civil case) instead of October 2008 and ordered that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept the child there for so long. And Epstein specifically argued that the delay should be prejudicial because Friedman had canceled the October 2008 pendete lite trial to bring the case to BD.
You have claimed repeatedly that Friedman would have faced no prejudice in court had he first gone to B"D... , and that the matter was not urgent.
DeleteBut look at what actually happened. After the emergency motion, Friedman postponed adjudication in court to bring the matter to Beis Din...
Well I am glad that finally Stan is letting all of him personalities come out and play. Though I suspect he has a few more buried in there.
Anyway you are comparing apples to oranges.
First On May 5th a month after Tamar relocated Aharon finally gets round to the B"D. The B"D instituted a 2mo period for which Tamar was permitted(by the B"D) to keep "C" in Merion Station.
Second at the end of that time(when Tamar supposedly had refused all along the B"D's orders, or so we are to believe), do you really expect me to believe that Aharon could not quickly(i.e. within 24-72hrs) get a psak from the B"D?
Third that 2mo period ended on July 5th. Aharon went to Arkaot on August 1st, in that time he could not get a Psak from a B"D?
Fourth if this was so urgent where was he for four mos?
The claim that it had to be done and there was not time to get a Psak from the B"D that was already involved, doesn't hold up to the facts.
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteYour chronology is completely wrong - although the procedural history is very complex. Epstein relocated the child unilaterally over Friedman's objections on April 10 of 2008. Epstein claimed she would consider reconciliation only if Friedman let her stay in PA for two months. Friedman's lawyer told him it was a trick and that he should go to the police or court immediately. Several rabbis told Friedman that they would work on reconciliation and that Orthodox marriages should not be, and usually are not, broken up in such situations. No BD was involved at that point. Friedman wanted to save the marriage and he believed Epstein that she was serious about considering reconciliation, and the rabbis that they would work hard on facilitating reconciliation. The parties signed the agreement that is in the footnotes of the procedural summary. Again, at that point, no BD was involved.
During the two months, Epstein refused to as much as go to martial counseling with Friedman. After the two months were up, Epstein asked for another week, which Friedman agreed to. Then, Epstein delayed matters by claiming that she was willing to negotiate and would come up with a proposal, which she never did. Then Friedman unsuccessfully tried to get Epstein to agree to mediation or to see a rav together to find a way to adjudicate their dispute.
It takes weeks or months to get a Beis Din to act, not a day or two.
Your claim that Friedman would not be prejudiced by the matter being delayed before any final adjudication in court is contrary to what actually happened.
It takes weeks or months to get a Beis Din to act, not a day or two.
DeleteThe procedural summary says the that agreement for reconciliation was instituted by the Balitmore B"D.
From April 10th to August 1st is months. Just under 5mos in fact. I have never seen it take more than 72hrs to get a B"D to act in an actual emergency situation.
Even from July 5th to August 1st is three weeks. The short of it is that Aharon Friedman didn't try to get a B"D involved before he went to Arkaot, and claiming that five months on it is suddenly such a pressing need is false.
"The procedural summary says the that agreement for reconciliation was instituted by the Balitmore B"D."
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
The BD was not involved in the reconciliation agreement. The procedural summary does not state otherwise.
What evidence do you have for your assertion that the BD was involved in the reconciliation agreement?
The procedural summary makes several assertions as to how the case got dragged out, including that Epstein claimed she would consider reconciliation if Friedman agreed to let her keep the child in PA for two months. The procedural summary contains the text of an agreement.
Do you have reason to believe that agreement was not signed by the parties?
Do you have another version of what happened?
Nope misread the "Procedural Summary." You are right, Aharon Friedman went five months without getting a B"D involved, and then had the Chutzpah to claim that the matter was too urgent to wait for a B"D to rule.
DeleteThanks for pointing that out. That is much worse for Aharon Friedman than I thought.
Let me get this straight, essentially for five months he is fine with Tamar having C in PA, and sees no need to get either a B"D or secular authorities involved.
Suddenly in August he decides that the matter is of the utmost urgency and doesn't have time to follow the Sh"A. Somehow you expect me to look at this as legitimate?
The procedural summary says that Friedman signed an agreement letting Epstein stay in PA for two months because she made that a condition of considering reconciliation - and that the agreement provided that Epstein agreed this would not be detrimental to Friedman with regard to custody.
DeleteIf Friedman wanted reconciliation that might explain why he didn't take Epstein to BD in April. If Friedman had immediately rushed to adjudication at that point, it would have been easy to retroactively blame him for ruining any chance for reconciliation.
After the two months and the further time Epstein asked for expired, Friedman may have hoped to resolve the matter by negotiation or mediation and therefore did not immediately adjudicate.
If Friedman had gone to adjudication before attempting to negotiate and mediate, it would have been easy to retroactively fault him for escalating tensions between the parties instead of trying to work things out amicably.
You can choose to believe the procedural summary or not. You can choose to believe Friedman (who is not a rabbi) was acting in good faith and trying to follow halacha or not.
And hindsight is always 20/20.
You can choose to believe the procedural summary or not. You can choose to believe Friedman (who is not a rabbi) was acting in good faith and trying to follow halacha or not.
DeleteActually that is probably the best reason that I have heard yet. I will have to think on that one. Thank you.
Unlike stealing 1 million dollars (which ORA acknowledges is completely inappropriate, ORA (and presumably its rabbinic sponsors such as Rabbi Schachter) labels Epstein's stealing of a child as kedas ukedin.
ReplyDeleteEpsteins and her supporters (on this blog and elsewhere) just can't understand why Friedman might think it is against the child's interests to just have "visits" with him on Sunday and not on Shabbos. But it is impossible to explain why a child should regularly spend Shabbos with each parent to someone to whom this is not immediately obvious.
ReplyDeleteEpstein and her supporters seem to believe that in cases of divorce, a child should be left with only one true parent (the mother), while the other parent is a mere visitor. The child's best interests are defined exclusively by whatever the mother thinks will make the mother happy.
ReplyDeleteThus, there is clearly nothing wrong (to the contrary, it is kedas ukedin) with the mother unilaterally relocating the child out-of-State over the objections of the father and without the permission of a Beis Din or Court. After all, the mother thinks the mother will be happier (which is the only criteria for measuring the child's interests) if the mother goes back to the mother's parents, while the child's having a regular relationship with the father is inconsequential at best.
The very use of the term "visit" speaks volumes:
“Note the importance of examining the extent to which our thoughts reflect implicit assumptions. Even when we think we approach a topic with neutrality, our language and attitudes may reveal the absorption of cultural biases. …
For instance, throughout their article, Biringen et al. refer to a child's contact with one parent (usually the father) as a visit, a term that connotes that a person is set apart in some fundamental way from others at the same location. A visitor is a guest in the home. Without thinking about it, every time we use this term to designate the time children spend with their father, we are endorsing a destructive idea. We are telling children that after divorce their relationship with their father must be transformed
into something less than a normal parent-child relationship. Rather than reassure children that they have not lost a parent as a result of the divorce, we give them the message that their father is no longer central in their lives. He is no longer a parent in the same sense as he was before the
divorce.
If we begin with the premise that one parent is of secondary importance to the child and that the nature of the relationship is something less than a true parent-child relationship, it is easier to reach the ultimate conclusion that a child is not losing much by missing out" on having regular parenting time with that parent.
Warshak, Who will be there when I cry in the night? Revisitng overnights –a rejoinder to Biringen at al, 40 Fam. Ct. Rev. 208 (2002)
Parent,
DeleteThose are all valid points. If that is the primary factor behind them, then you would be correct.
However, for the sake of discussion I would say, and I will admit from the beginning that I have not looked into all the sources for this, but that the two poskim with which I am most familiar(Rav Ovadia and the Yaskil Avdei) hold that there are two primary episodes in a young childs life:
טפול: Infancy through early childhood(5-6) in which the child should be in the primary custody and care of the mother.
×—× ×•×š: From 5(or 6) and up(don't remember the upper limit) in which the child should be in the primary custody and care of the father.
It could be argued, though I doubt this is what is going through the heads of anyone at ORA, though it could be argued that according to this it was was Kdat ukdin.
It is kedas ukedin to unilaterally take the child ou-of-State over the other parent's objections without going to BD to obtain permission for doing so?
DeleteIf halakhically the mother(or father depending on age of the child) has primary custody of the child why would they need permission of a B"D.
DeleteAs I have said before, "Out of state" vs "In State" is highly subjective as to be absurd.
Would you be OK with a parent moving from LA to San Fran, but not from the East Side to the West Side of Kansas City?
Who has custody must be decided in each individual case based on the facts in that individual case - say one parent is unfit. There may be presumptions, but those presumptions are not conclusive.
DeleteAnd just because a BD rules that a parent has primary custody, that doesn't mean that the parent can relocate the child.
Bill says who and under what parameters?
DeleteReally you are going to complain about a 30min commute by train?
You can make the claim of "across state lines" but like I said that argument breaks down. It essentially means that you would be fine with a Californian familly putting 500miles between their children and respective spouse, but a Missourian/Kansas family can't put five miles distance between them.
What parameters do you see as being unacceptable for relocation? Same block? Same school district? Same city? Same state? Mileage?
who is talking about a 30 min commute by train?
Delete"From 5(or 6) and up(don't remember the upper limit) in which the child should be in the primary custody and care of the father."
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
Are you saying that you believe that under helacha when the child turns 5 or 6, Friedman should have primary physical custody?
Parent,
DeleteFrom the sources I have read, and I have not done anything even remotely exhaustive on it, but from the sources I have read, then absolutely from the age of chinuk Aharon Friedman should have primary custody.
who is talking about a 30 min commute by train?
DeleteThat is the approximate time by the express train from Baltimore to Philadelphia.
The Acela train from Philadelphia to Baltimore takes an hour.
DeleteAnd Epstein didn't take the child from Baltimore to Pennsylvania but from Silver Spring, at least according to the procedural summary. Do you have other information that it was from Baltimore?
Someone traveling also needs to take into account getting to and from the train station.
"Parent,
DeleteFrom the sources I have read, and I have not done anything even remotely exhaustive on it, but from the sources I have read, then absolutely from the age of chinuk Aharon Friedman should have primary custody"
Is the age of chinuch a set age, or does it depend on the specific child's development?
the despicable denigration of rav menashe klein by tzedoki continues. because AJ denigrates him that means so much? AJ (as his talmidim call him) denigrated the godol hador rav Shach.
ReplyDeleteOn the basis of tzadok's logic, Rav Chaim Brisker would agree with the views of R' JB Soleveitchik and is therefore a tzioni.
While I accept that Rav Ovadyia has a tremendous bekius, it has already proven from Oslo that when it comes to life and death decisions one should look elsewhere (euphemistically put). Geirus and Gittin is a life and death situation. he is entitled to his psakim but we are not obliged to follow him when there are poskim of the stature of rav Elyashiv and the Chazon ish against him.
Recently Rav Ovadya was forced to back down on a kulah for geirim so he is not the final word - no denigration intended just stating the facts even if they are highly uncomfortable for tzedokki.
the despicable denigration of rav menashe klein by tzedoki continues.
DeleteIt's not denigration. Rav Klein himself says that he silenced many child rape victims. He's proud of it.
While I accept that Rav Ovadyia has a tremendous bekius, it has already proven from Oslo that when it comes to life and death decisions one should look elsewhere (euphemistically put)
ReplyDeleteYou have a Gadol in mind that did better? Rav Shach has his party vote in favor of Oslo.
Recently Rav Ovadya was forced to back down on a kulah for geirim
Try again. He didn't. He actually won that fight. I was actually there in the room when he won it, it was impressive.
What exactly is this referring to? What kula for grim?
DeleteRav Ovadia declared that he would uphold the Army conversions and the Druckman conversions provided that the people had kept one(their first) Shabbat.
DeleteSome Ashkenazi Gedolim, who will remain annonymous had a fit, and threatened demonstrations against Rav Ovadia.
Rav Ovadia had a sit down with several of his Askanim and the Ashkenazi Gedolim and several of their askanim. What was discussed I am not at liberty to say. However at the end of the meeting the Ashkenazi Gedolim agreed to abide by Rav Ovadia's decision with the caveat that the converts in question had kept their first Shabbat(this was supposed to look like some sort of win on their side).
Rav Ovadia then gave a press conference in which he showed his original psak and that he had not changed his position at all.
All of this was pretty much covered here on this blog so you can check it out if you want.
While I accept that Rav Ovadyia has a tremendous bekius, it has already proven from Oslo that when it comes to life and death decisions one should look elsewhere (euphemistically put).
ReplyDeleteQuite honestly this statement would be laughable if it wasn't a blood libel as serious as the protocols of the elders of zion.
Let's see Rav Ovadiah instructed Shas to:
1)abstain from Oslo 1
2)vote against Oslo 2
3)vote against the Gaza disengagement
On the other side Rav Shach instructed Degel HaTorah to:
1)vote for Oslo 1
2)vote for Oslo 2
Rav Eliashiv his successor instructed Degel HaTorah to:
Seek a public referendum on the Gaza Disengagement.
Quite possibly the saddest thing I have ever seen was in 1999 when Rav Shach tried, over the protestations of the entire Abuchatzeira family, to claim that the Baba Sali would have supported UTJ and not Shas, because of UTJ's land for peace stance as the Baba Sali was an anti-Zionist. The only thing that was sadder was when Rav Eliashiv tried it again three years later in the midst of the Al Aqsa Intifada.
Rabbi Tzadok,
ReplyDeleteYou have made a series of assertions about how the legal process works. Are you a child custody lawyer or have special expertise in child custody law?
For example, you claimed:
"4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it)."
Although I am not a PA custody lawyer, it seems to me that under PA law, a binding arbitration agreement between the parties regarding child custody is not binding on the court. See Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa.Super. 162, 620 A.2d 1161 (1993).
What is the basis for your claim otherwise?
Why should anyone believe any of the assertions you are making about how the legal process works, particularly with regard to child custody?
I have answered this question above. In short, my mother in law, who is here with me now, works with child custody issues on a daily basis.
DeleteAs far as Miller V. Miller the court finds that binding arbitration agreements between the parties regarding child custody is not binding on the court when they are contrary to the best interests of the child. I don't expect any court to say differently.
Reason being, you have a father. He has severely abused his children but because he belongs to a religion in which women and children are nothing more than chattel the binding arbitration that is necessary under his religion automatically awards him custody. No court is going to uphold that, and no court is going to say that it should be upheld.
However, as Miller V. Miller points out(which is one of several landmark cases upon which B"D authority in the US is now based), so long as the arbitration decision does not conflict with the best interests of the child it is enforceable.
This has been upheld time after time.
Here
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/07/may-arbitrators-decide-child-custody-disputes-new-jersey-supreme-court-say-yes.html
and here
http://cojcr.org/vol12no2/547-572.pdf
Are articles, that while talking about other states, insist that PA is a State that uphold binding arbitration in child custody matters.
If you would rather I have my mother in law respond to you directly as this is what she does, I can do that.
Miller states that the court must make its own de novo determination as to what is in the best interests of the child if either parent challenges the binding arbitrator's decision. It is true that in PA the court will not invalidate an arbitration agreement as void on its face (as is the case in some other States), but on the other hand the the Court cannot just accept the arbitrator's decision if one of the parents challenges the arbitrator's decision.
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
DeleteAgain, I am not a PA custody lawyer but look at the article you yourself cited:
"Under the voidable approach, the court will treat an arbitrator’s award as “voidable” if the award does not serve the best interests of the child". citing amongst other cases:
Sheets v. Sheets, 254 N.Y.S.2d 320, 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964) (noting that to the extent that an arbitration award conflicts with the best interests of the child, courts would treat it as a nullity regardless of the binding effect on the parents). This approach is also followed in Pennsylvania. See Miller v. Miller, 620 A.2d 1161, 1163–64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)."
"Pennsylvania follows the voidable approach whereby agreements entered
into between parties are binding as between the parties but any award rendered by an arbitration panel is subject to the supervisory power of the court to determine the best interests of the child. See Miller v. Miller, 62 A.D.2d 1161 (1993)"
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteThe article you cited also states: "Lastly, under the minority view, a state court will
respect and enforce a child custody arbitration agreement." The article states that this approach is not followed by the Pennsylvania courts.
See page 554, http://cojcr.org/vol12no2/547-572.pdf
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteThe blog you cite claims that Pennsylvania has the same rule as NJ (courts will accept binding arbitration with regard to child custody even if challenged by one of the parents). http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/07/may-arbitrators-decide-child-custody-disputes-new-jersey-supreme-court-say-yes.html
But the blog is wrong. The blog claims that the Fawzy case cites Miller for the holding that PA will enforce binding arbitration over the objections of a parent. But Miller just doesn't say that. And the blog just flat out misreads what Fawzy says about PA law.
Rabbi Tzadok,
Did you even check the Fawzy case? The Fawzy case says that following about PA law:
"We recognize that some other jurisdictions have approached the standard of review issue differently. For example, Pennsylvania has adopted a PURE BEST-INTERESTS test [in other words that if a parent challenges the decision of a binding arbitrator, the court must do its own de novo examination of what is in the best interests of the child] for judicial review of an arbitrated custody award. See Miller, supra, 620 A.2d at 1165. We decline to adopt that model, which allows a court to substitute its judgment regarding the child's best interests for that of the arbitrator chosen by the parents and fails to accord the constitutionally required deference to the notion of parental autonomy. We do not perceive in that model the advancement of the goals underlying family or arbitration law."
Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 973 A.2d 347 (2009).
I want to understand this. You are not a child custody lawyer. Yet while two articles by two different child custody lawyers say that binding arbitration agreements will generally be upheld by PA courts... You declare them wrong?
DeleteOk have a nice day.
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteNo, I am not a custody lawyer. But I actually read the the articles you referenced, as well as checked the cases that were cited in the articles. One article does not state what you claim it states, and the other article is just flat out wrong.
The first article you referenced claimed that a NJ case (Fawzy) held that PA holds that binding arbitration agreements are enforceable even if challenged by a parent. Instead of relying on what the blog claims that Fawzy said, I actually read Fawzy. And the blog was just flat out wrong (see the post above). Are you claiming that I fabricated the quote from the Fawzy case in the post above?
The second blog you cited notes that binding arbitration regarding child custody is not void on its face in PA, but that if either parent challenges the arbitration decision, the court must decide on its own what is in the best interests of the child and cannot defer to the arbitrator.
I'm not saying you fabricated anything. I'm just saying that two child custody lawyers probably know how to read and interpret case law better than you.
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
DeleteYou have asserted that under PA law, a binding arbitration agreement between the parents, such as an agreement to go to BD, will be enforced by the court if challenged by one parent, unless there are extreme circumstances such as awarding custody to an abusive parent.
When asked to back your assertion, you referenced two cites. One of those cites is to a lengthy law review article that actually refutes your assertion, instead of supporting your assertion.
The other cite is to a short internet posting, not a law review article, summarizing a NJ case, Fawzy, released the day the posting was written (and thus, the author may not have had time to fully review the case). The posting made a mistake as to what Fawzy said about PA law (which was just a peripheral point, not the focus of the posting - another reason why the posting could have gotten that point wrong. Fawzy said the following: "We recognize that some other jurisdictions have approached the standard of review issue differently. For example, Pennsylvania has adopted a PURE BEST-INTERESTS test for judicial review of an arbitrated custody award. See Miller, supra, 620 A.2d at 1165. We DECLINE to adopt that model, which allows a court to substitute its judgment regarding the child's best interests for that of the arbitrator chosen by the parents and fails to accord the constitutionally required deference to the notion of parental autonomy. We do not perceive in that model the advancement of the goals underlying family or arbitration law." Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 973 A.2d 347 (2009).
Although I have readily admitted that I am not a custody lawyer, that does not mean that I can’t read the cites you brought or the cases referenced therein. The language in Fawzy as to PA law could not be clearer. What about that language do you think is ambiguous, or could possibly support your assertion?
Your assertion that under PA law, a court must uphold binding arbitration regarding child custody if the arbitration decision is challenged by one of the parents absent extreme circumstances such as awarding custody to an abusive parent is just wrong.
Rav Shach was against the labor party, you are inventing facts again and wanted a Likud govt when shas went against him. your facts are inventions tzaddok.
ReplyDeleteyou were in the room in your illusions. r ovadyia was made to back down.
this is revisionist history if there ever was. dream on dude you are inventing facts.
Your's is the revisionist history. You can google the Oslo vote results if you want. Labor party or no. The Degel HaTorah party voted for Oslo.
DeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for standing up to Tzadok. Over and over on this blog Tzadok has proven he has a serious problem understanding objective truth and reality.
Tzadok's arguments in defense of Epstein are pathetic and contrary to the facts - Epstein clearly deceived Friedman so she could legally keep the child in PA, instead of returning him to MD.
Keep up the good work Stan,
Your sock puppet co conspirator against "agunot" EmesLeYaakov AKA Binyamin AKA None AKA Rick (Did I miss any puppets?)
Epstein clearly deceived Friedman so she could legally keep the child in PA, instead of returning him to MD.
DeleteClearly. I mean she told him that she was divorcing him in March. She left him in April. He goes to Arkaot in August and finally gets a B"D involved in September... Why did it take him six mos?
Not saying that Tamar isn't at fault as well... the B"D supposedly offered her:
Tamar rejected as a basis for negotiation the mediator’s proposal that C mostly live in PA, but bewith Aharon about one-third of the time; equally split marital property; and a get given andaccepted. Tamar ended mediation.
Why they offered her that much, I'm not sure. However if they offered half that should should have taken it and been happy. However that does not excuse Aharon Friedman for waiting six mos to get a B"D involved and going to Arkaot in the meantime. The excuse that it was urgent is also a fallacy since he waited 5mos to go to Arkaot.
I am not a puppet! But I think tzadok is Batmelech's puppet. Really dishonest of you batmelech. Shame on you!
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
DeleteYou can fault Friedman for following the psak by filing an emergency motion if you choose, but your conclusions as to the facts, the legal background and Friedman's motives are very questionable.
You conclude that there was no reason for Friedman not going to BD immediately in March or April 2008. You think Friedman was just delaying so that he could come up with an excuse that the matter was urgent so that he needed to file an emergency motion in court to circumvent BD because he wanted the matter decided by court and not BD?
That is pretty preposterous.
First, if Friedman wanted the matter ultimately resolved in court, not BD, why did he cancel the pendete lite trial in October 2008, at which he had every reason to believe that the child would be returned, to bring the matter to BD? (And doing so was at great prejudice to Friedman, because even if BD were to rule in his favor, if Epstein were to challenge the BD ruling court, there was far less chance that a court would rule that the child return if the trial were held at a later date.)
Do you believe that when Epstein told Friedman she was divorcing him in March, if Friedman wanted to reconcile, he would have brought Epstein to BD immediately?
The procedural summary quotes an agreement signed by the parties that Epstein said she would only consider reconciliation if Friedman allowed her to keep the child in PA for two months? Do you think Friedman didn't believe her, but just signed the agreement so that he could delay adjudication so that he could eventually claim that the matter was urgent and that he needed to file an emergency court motion?
When the two months and the additional time requested by Epstein was over, might Friedman (who may still have hoped to save his marriage), instead of immediately bringing his wife to adjudication, not have believed in good faith that he could avoid adjudication and get Epstein to negotiate or mediate (perhaps because Epstein may have at first indicated, perhaps to delay matters, that she was willing to negotiate, even if she ultimately did not do so), and spend some time trying to do so.
If you start with the conclusion that Friedman is the villan in this situation and therefore was acting in bad faith all along and trying to circumvent BD from the beginning, one can look back and try to second guess everything he did - but the assumptions you seem to be making are pretty outlandish.
Well Stan at least you finally admit your dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteHey Stan D"T and I were chatting and we were wondering how you would answer these simple questions:
ReplyDelete1) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is physically abusive?
2) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is emotionally/verbally abusive?
3) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when there is also spousal rape?
4) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is mentally deranged/psychopathic?
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteIs this a theoretical question, or are you making these factual claims about any particular case?
Bill,
DeleteIt is purely theoretical. My guess is that Stan will either dodge or answer no on all of them.
Thanks
ReplyDeleteActually according to Daas Torah most readers view me as a "nut" but his brother can make any remark he likes even though I agree with kimat all that he says.
You see I posted against his support of Ms Briskman who is an eishes ish and is now being mezaneh and I have not heard a squeak out of him on this.
As for tzadok he lives on another planet he actually believes the baloney he posts most of the time. He is just another biryon of the reformists.
He posts long illogical posts that make no sense hoping to obfuscate and distort and hopes the reader gets bored before he finishes.
"Well Stan at least you finally admit your dishonesty." Get help dude. you are pathological when it comes to falsehoods already.
ReplyDelete"Hey Stan D"T and I were chatting" ... it says it all. How DT would chat with someone who is a complete distorter of the truth and advocates the breaking of halochoh is beyond me and I am sure his brother.
ReplyDeleteactually there is an issur in being mischaber with reshoim and apikorsim DT.
1) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is a pathological liar?
2) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband where the husband advocates violence against those including his wife who stand up to his lies?
3) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is an apikores and is oyker parts of the torah including mesirah, arko'oys, geneivoh, aishes ish vecholo?
4) Should a death bin force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband adovactes mesirah against those including his wife who stand up to his lies?
regarding your boych kashes:
1) see shulchan oruch for the halochos of when a man is mechuyev to divorce his wife 9even ho'ezer siman 133??)
similarly for 2,3 and 4.
oh and the pravda censorship continues