Thursday, December 19, 2013

Schlesinger Twins case injustice raised in British Parliament

Help Beth

33 comments :

  1. This Ms. Schlessinger is doing the same thing Ms. Dodelson is doing. Both of them are airing their dirty laundry and making wile accusations against their ex-husbands whom they are both in bitter custody battles with. Both went to the press and made a humongeous chillul Hashem in front of the non-Jewish world.

    Both Schlesinger and Dodelson claim they are in the right in their respective fights and both their ex-husbands claim in fact that they are in the right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I suppose most of your commentators here, like stan, emes le yakov, YY, etc, will applaud the decision by the austrian court to award custody to the father. At least austrian courts are not feminiest, etc, but, at least in this case, they decided in the true spirit of halacha that boys should go to the father...

    So I cannot really see why DT who advocates get-extortion, suddenly takes the side of the mother here...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Machon Lehorah Parallels to Corrupt Secular CourtsDecember 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM

      Well - it seems you will spare no effort to twist logic in any way possible so that you can continue to be a perverse shill for Gittal Doddleson. There is no ssimiliarity between the Doddleson case and this one. Basically everyone agrees that there has been a huge injustice in the case of these twin boys. The court made extremely prejudicial decicions without even receiving testimony from highly relevant witnesses. The mother was not even allowed to properly present her case!! It is clearly a case of massive judicial corruption when one side is not even allowed to properly present their side. The Doddlesons corrupt influence over Machon Lehorah in Monsey os parallel to the Austrian courts corruption as Macjom Lehorah issued a siruv while never speaking to AM Weiss and refusing to hqve the yashrut and judicial integrity to even respond to his request for zabla!!!

      Delete
    2. What injustice? Do you even know all the facts? Or do you just know what Schlesinger spread through her PR campaign... much like Gital spread through her PR campaign with Shira Dicker.

      Delete
    3. personally, from what I could follow in this case (which is not thorough), I'm appalled that the mother is not allowed more access to her children. It seems that the issue here is mainly about the mental health of the mother - which is a whole other ballgame.

      For the record, I have never weighed in on the issue of whether halacha demands child custody goes l'khatkhilla to the father. I simply stand with those who balk at the way strident feminism is taking over issues of family integrity. In particular, due to my experience, I question the "right" of women to no-fault divorces, and the implication that men our criminals for not running to rubber stamp that "right".

      Delete
  3. speak out against injusticeDecember 19, 2013 at 12:26 PM

    I can't believe that the moderator of this blog allowed such ridiculous comments to be published.

    Firstly, the case of the Schlesinger Twins in Vienna has absolutely nothing to do with the Dodelson case. Gita Dodelson is campaigning for her Get whereas the mother of the Schlesinger Twins is campaigning FOR HER CHILDREN'S LIVES. Any chillul Hashem has been caused by the twins' father and the weak (benefit of the doubt) Rabbis in Vienna.

    If Sally was ever a dayan or a judge, "she" wouldn't ever need to listen to any evidence. "She" would automatically rule in favour of the man/father/husband! Is "she" really so talented that "she" doesn't need any evidence to make a ruling?

    Furthermore, it is now widely accepted by many independent press organisations in many countries and by the British Board of Deputies of Jews (having studied the court’s judgment carefully) that there has been a "serious miscarriage of justice". Why doesn't the father speak out and state what he believes are the facts like Weiss has done? Have you ever heard of the concept of "shetikah k'hodah"?

    Injustice is terrible regardless of who suffers, the mother or father. Here, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the injustice is against the mother and the twins. Would you prefer this mother stop campaigning for her children's lives and instead fight for all the suffering fathers out there in their own cases?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both Schlesinger and Dodelson are essentially in a bitter child custody dispute. That is the root of both disputes.

      Delete
    2. The father has no duty and is indeed wise in not responding to a public relations campaign waged by a bitter ex-wife.

      The court of law has ruled. The appeals court has upheld the lower courts decision. Respect the court decision.

      Delete
    3. Desperate & Dishonest tactics of Doddleson SupporterDecember 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM

      I assume "the moderator of this blog allowed such ridiculous comments" so we could all see what absurd lengths the Doddleson supporters will go to to try and blacken the name of anyone associated with AM Weiss or anyone supporting his position -- AS IF those of us who back AM Weiss would automatically back any husband including this apparently monstrous father of these twin boys! It is a silly and dishonest tactic to assign supporters of AM Weiss's position beleifs which they clealry do no hold just to belittle them. This is the classic straw man tacic of argumemtation which accomplishes nothing on a level of intelligent debate and only reveals the desperation of those who use such dishonest tactics.

      Delete
    4. Weiss is also campaigning for his child's life, who his wife Gital wants to cut him out of the child's life to (as she told the NYPost) marry a new father for her child that will replace Weiss as father.

      Delete
  4. Every case is independent and should be judged on its own merits. To even suggest that “gital is wrong” therefore “Beth is wrong” is ludicrous.

    The other point raised: “in the true spirit of halacha that boys should go to the father” is also a simplistic and a very dangerous statement. The halachah discusses sons below and above the age of 6 (the twins are currently 4.5) and uses various guides to assess what is in the best interests of the children. The most well-known of these is that all children below the age of 6 should live with their mother. These guides are not absolute rulings. I suggest you listen to this Shiur on the topic:

    http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/714188/Rabbi_Dr_Ronnie_%5BA_Yehuda%5D_Warburg/Child_Custody_in_Halakha_

    I suppose you think having teeth removed and leaving the children unable to speak at 4.5 years old is in their best interests?

    Why did the father take the custody case to arkoyos (non-Jewish court)? It doesn’t look like the father is so concerned about halacha.

    It does make me wonder what your motivation would be to post up such false and damaging statements. Is there an agenda you are not telling us about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You believe every lie spread by this bitter ex-wife in regards to her ex-husband in their bitter child custody dispute?

      I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn...

      Delete
  5. Why should the father be any less entitled to have primary residential custody than the mother?

    The father has been awarded primary custody. As a parent that is his right.

    If the mother wants additional visitation rights then she should be granted more visitation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The very limited amount of time that these twins are with their mother is an extreme injustice, and certainly appears to have been the result of misconduct by the Austrian courts. Children should have both parents involved in their day-to-day lives (absent extreme circumstances such as abuse).

    But there are many more cases in which fathers are given similarly extremely outrageous custody arrangements, with no public outrage such as exists in the Schlesinger case (and the public outrage in the Schelsinger case is certainly appropriate). And it is often the case that the parenting time children are allowed with their fathers is outrageously insufficient.

    The custody arrangement is the Dodelson case is not at all comparable to the extreme outrageousness of the Schlesinger case. But the custody arrangement is still outrageous. Even if one argues that Dodelson should have a get regardless of anything else happening in the case, it is hard to see how anyone could justify the outrageous custody arrangement.
    For example, in the two months between Simchas Torah and Chanukah, how many times did AMW have the opportunity to say shema and hamalach with his son and put him to bed, and say modeh ani with him when he woke up in the morning?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother should be given additional time in visitation while the father maintains primary residential custody of the twins.

      Delete
    2. I am thank god happily married & I have only said Shema & Hamalach with my children on days that I'm not at work. A father doesn't say Modeh Ani with a child when he wakes up in a normal functioning two parent home.

      Delete
    3. You have the option of spending whatever time you want with your children. If you decide not to put your children to bed, or to say modeh ani with your children in the morning, that is your choice. AMW does not have that choice. If he tried, he would be held in contempt of court.

      Delete
  7. For goodness sake, Gital is trying to limit how much time Avrohom Meir can even SKYPE with his child!! Can you believe that Ms. Saki Dodelson is rejecting an agreement because she insists that the father receive less SKYPE time with his loving child Aryeh?!?!

    Even with the child away from the father in the grandparents home they still want to limit the little boy's time with his father on the phone and video. That is cruel!

    ReplyDelete
  8. How is it when in over 95 out of 100 injustices in divorce custody court cases it is the father getting the short-end of the stick and being railroaded, whether by false abuse charges or simply feminist judges simply automatically giving custody to the mother and little visitation to the father, and only when it comes to an allegation of a very rare case where the mother got the short-end of the stick do some people suddenly wake up all angry?

    Where was their anger in the many many cases where the father is railroaded by the court? Why is their energies only directed at a case when they felt the mother was wronged?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow, M, you do feel very strongly about this, why is that? You clearly indicate you know something the rest of us don't.Are you going to enlighten us?

    "What injustice? Do you even know all the facts? Or do you just know what Schlesinger spread through her PR campaign... much like Gital spread through her PR campaign with Shira Dicker."
    Please can we stop comparing these two cases. Each situation should be assessed on its own without comparing to others. I believe this point has been addressed numerous times previously in this thread. Do you know all the facts? Would you be able to present enough information against what is in the public domain to reassure everyone that in face no injustice has happened? Please don't simply say that a court has ruled and therefore it must be accurate+fair. I think that is old ground too!

    "The father has no duty and is indeed wise in not responding to a public relations campaign waged by a bitter ex-wife."
    Maybe not, but halacha would disagree. shetikah k'hodah.

    "The court of law has ruled. The appeals court has upheld the lower courts decision. Respect the court decision."
    This argument is sounding more and more hollow the longer this case goes on. Remind us again why the courts felt the father should have 100% custody?

    "Weiss is also campaigning for his child's life, who his wife Gital wants to cut him out of the child's life"
    Once again, please don't compare. I didn't see Gita Dodelson taking the children's teeth out, or leaving them in diapers at age of 4. I haven't heard reports of her children still not being able to talk at 4.5 or being held back at school or self harming.

    "You believe every lie spread by this bitter ex-wife in regards to her ex-husband in their bitter child custody dispute?"
    Please can you provide an example of one such "lie".

    "The mother should be given additional time in visitation while the father maintains primary residential custody of the twins."
    Please can you explain why the father should maintain primary residential custody?

    "Why should the father be any less entitled to have primary residential custody than the mother?"
    ...and visa versa?

    "The father has been awarded primary custody. As a parent that is his right." - What planet are you on?

    "If the mother wants additional visitation rights then she should be granted more visitation."
    Why doesn't the father comply with the existing visitation?

    "For goodness sake, Gital is trying to limit how much time Avrohom Meir can even SKYPE with his child!! Can you believe that Ms. Saki Dodelson is rejecting an agreement because she insists that the father receive less SKYPE time with his loving child Aryeh?!?!"
    Sigh! I think this comment belongs on a post about the Dodelson case. Maybe he just got carried away.

    "Even with the child away from the father in the grandparents home they still want to limit the little boy's time with his father on the phone and video. That is cruel!"
    It is also cruel to cancel visits and deny the mother any knowledge of the children's education or welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nat Sower: "Where was their anger in the many many cases where the father is railroaded by the court? Why is their energies only directed at a case when they felt the mother was wronged?"
    We have also addressed this point many times. You are right in that every case of injustice should generate outrage regardless of whether the mother or the father is the victim. Your question should not be directed at this case, it should be directed at the cases that have not received enough publicity. There is nothing untoward with the publicity this case is continuing to generate.

    Just for the record, as this case gets more and more widely known and more and more external people read the documents from a position of neutrality, the more they are horrified.

    You can keep beating your drum about the courts rulings, and "respecting the courts" but it has no credibility any more.

    It is now accepted by everyone other than Schlesinger's blind supporters that the courts have not been fair regardless of the yardstick you use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're going to have to live with the results since Shlesinger exhausted her appeals and the Austrian court decision is final.

      Delete
  11. Sons of divorce, school shooters
    W. Bradford Wilcox | National Review Online
    Another shooting, another son of divorce. From Adam Lanza, who killed 26 children and adults a year ago at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., to Karl Pierson, who shot a teenage girl and killed himself this past Friday at Arapahoe High in Centennial, Colo., one common and largely unremarked thread tying together most of the school shooters that have struck the nation in the last year is that they came from homes marked by divorce or an absent father. From shootings at MIT (i.e., the Tsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia's "list of U.S. school attacks" involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.
    This is not to minimize the importance of debates about gun control or mental health when it comes to understanding these shootings. But as the nation seeks to make sense of these senseless shootings, we must also face the uncomfortable truth that turmoil at home all too often accounts for the turmoil we end up seeing spill onto our streets and schools.
    The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer. My own research suggests that boys living in single mother homes are almost twice as likely to end up delinquent compared to boys who enjoy good relationships with their father. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has written that "Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States." His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that "such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates."
    Why is fatherlessness such a big deal for our boys (almost all of these incidents involve boys)? Putting the argument positively, sociologist David Popenoe notes that "fathers are important to their sons as role models. They are important for maintaining authority and discipline. And they are important in helping their sons to develop both self-control and feelings of empathy toward others, character traits that are found to be lacking in violent youth." Boys, then, who did not grow up with an engaged, attentive, and firm father are more vulnerable to getting swept up in the Sturm und Drang of adolescence and young adulthood, and in the worst possible way.
    Of course, most boys who grow up in a home without their father turn out okay. They pick up the right cues from a conscientious high-school soccer coach, flourish under the watchful eye of a devoted grandfather, or benefit from the consistent discipline of a strong single mother. But every year enough fatherless boys fall prey to the ministrations of a gang or the rage induced by a high-school bully or the emotional fallout of painful divorce to end up causing real harm to themselves or the members of their communities. So, if the nation is serious about ending the scourge of school shootings, it must also get serious about strengthening the families that are our first line of defense in preventing our boys from falling into a downward spiral of rage, hopelessness, or nihilism that can end in the kind of senseless violence that Karl Pierson, a son of divorce, visited upon Arapahoe High this past Friday.
    - W. Bradford Wilcox, who was raised by a single mother, is a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Follow him on Twitter @WilcoxNMP.


    http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/sons-of-divorce-school-shooters/?utm_source=today&utm_medium=paramount&utm_campaign=121713

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tuli: "You're wrong. There's no halacha that someone has to respond to lies someone else is spreading through a public relations media campaign. There is no reason to believe Shlesinger's media lies any more than there is to believe Dodelson's media lies about her husband."
    There is a Jewish concept that silence is an admission of guilt. If Mr Schlesinger chooses not to respond to anything that has been published in so many media outlets, it is probably because he knows it is all true, "shetikah k'hodah". Even Weiss has issued statements to respond to the Dodelson's campaign. Tuli or any other pro-Mr-Schlesinger commentators have yet to hold up an example of a single 'lie' that appears on the mother's website. I'm afraid this seriously undermines your credibility, but don't let that stop you posting more comments, perhaps under a different name.

    Tuli: "You're going to have to live with the results since Shlesinger exhausted her appeals and the Austrian court decision is final."
    You are certainly winning points on compassionate grounds! Basically, you are admitting an injustice has taken place, probably deliberately, and then saying to everyone, they have to live with it. You sound like a lovely person!

    D.P. Moynihan - I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Perhaps, some people reading this, may have thought you were trying to use some crazy statistic to justify the father having sole custody in some way. But then it occurred to me that this could not possibly be the case because everybody knows that statistic reports like these are skewed and usually designed to propagate an agenda. The statistical sample was only taken in the US and therefore is not correlated to Europe unless it is adjusted for factors such as gun laws, lifestyle, TV, etc... Despite this report stating "most boys who grow up in a home without their father turn out okay", it fails to mention any study or impact of children being brought up by fathers alone. I hope readers won't be misled into thinking that all children brought up by the mothers turn out bad, and all children brought up by fathers are perfect.
    Would someone be able to tell me whether this report was used in the judge's decision as the basis for the custody ruling?
    We know that Mr Schlesinger himself grew up without a father ( http://helpbeth.org/jewish-telegraph-22-11-2013/ ) which could explain why he is what he is and the impact his behavior is having on his own children.

    I thank the commentators here ( whoever they are/he is ) for posting comments apparently in support of Mr Schlesinger so that we can be absolutely clear why there is no justification to the 100% custody decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please provide a single proof of the various unproven allegations by the bitter ex-wife. There is no proof. It is simply her unproven allegations.

      Delete
    2. Yawn! Please provide an example of one such allegation that you "know" is false.

      Delete
    3. Yawn? Allegations must be proven, not disproven.

      Please prove you stopped beating your wife.

      Delete
  13. Tuli - The British Parliment would not be interezted in pursuing an investigation if there are only "unproven allegations". This point is an obvious one except to someone like yourself who clealry has a vested interest or an agenda that they are dedicated to pursue no matter what contrary indications or evidence Are presented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The British Parliament never intervened. One MP, representing the wife' families district, stood up and made a 25 second reference to the case after her family petitioned him to do so. I doubt even he knows a whole lot about the case on the other side of Europe.

      Delete
    2. Tuli, why don't you save everyone a lot of time here, by stating what you believe to be the truth rather than simply picking at everyone else's comments.

      It would help this discussion further if you could describe your relationship/allegiance with Mr Schlesinger. Is he paying you?

      Delete
    3. I've never seen or spoken to Mr. Schlesinger. I am simply a member of the public who is a lover of the truth. And to hear a bitter ex-wife in the midst of a bitter custody dispute to publicly spew unsubstantiated, dubious and unsupported allegations against her ex-husband, such as that he maltreats and malnourishes his own flesh and blood children, is a crime she is committing against humanity and more importantly against her own children.

      Delete
    4. "Observer" - do me a favor. Just an observer???
      "I just happened across this blog..." - laughable

      It is common among narcissists and sociopaths that they don't answer "awkward" questions and instead accuse others of the very things that they have issues with. This is used to create a diversion in the hope they don't have to answer to them.

      It is ironic that you are using yet another name to ask if Zebulun is "posting here under multiple false pseudonyms"!
      When asked if "Tuli" has any relationship with Schlesinger, suddenly there are accusations that other commentators are Beth herself!
      Next you are going to accuse Beth of being mentally ill......oh wait...

      This lack of candor on your part only serves to help people distance themselves from you as you reveal more about who you are.

      Now that you seem more comfortable writing in the public domain, why don't you ask Daas Torah if you can write a guest post (under your real name!) to address some of the issues you find so disturbing? I think this would be a fair platform for you to air your views and it would give you more credibility than a few incoherent, ranting, angry, anonymous comments posted under multiple names.

      Delete
    5. I think Zebulun thinks I am Tuli. I'm not.

      Have a nice day.

      Delete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.