Thursday, January 16, 2014

British MPs label case of Schlesinger twins ‘Kafaesque’, ‘a miscarriage of justice’

Jerusalem Post   British Members of Parliament have accused the Austrian judicial system of corruption, and alleged that a conspiracy has taken place, in relation to the case of a UK-born woman who has lost custody of her twin sons in Austria. [...]

Schlesinger, a Jewish woman from Manchester in the UK, married an Austrian man in October 2006 and subsequently moved to Vienna with him.

The marriage quickly broke down and both parents applied for sole custody of the children in 2009. At one stage, Schlesinger’s husband, a doctor, tried to have her committed to a mental institute by bringing paramedics to their home to sedate her, although this attempt failed, and her husband was subsequently evicted from their home by the police for this action.

Nevertheless, a judge in the Austrian family courts awarded the father full custody, despite the recommendations of the social services for the district where the family lived, and despite the previous ruling of an appeal court which had denied the father’s appeal against  an earlier custody award to Beth.

Before the July 2011 ruling, the court heard evidence from police, paramedics and a police psychiatrist all confirming that Schlesinger was mentally stable. However, the judge relied on a report of a court psychologist who wrote that she was mentally ill, although this assessment was subsequently refuted in November 2011 by a court psychiatrist who said that she had never suffered from mental illness in the past or currently.

The family court judge also ignored the demands of the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court ordering new assessments on her children and the father, despite significant developmental problems experienced by them, while the father has to date not been psychiatrically evaluated by the court, despite worrying evidence about his behavior.

Parliamentarians in the UK brought the case to the attention of the House of Commons on Tuesday evening, with MP Graham Stringer describing the case as “Kafkaesque,” and asked that the government take action on the matter.

“What has happened to Beth Schlesinger belies understanding,” said Stringer. “Authorities have taken decisions about her life and her children’s lives which are inexplicable and certainly unjust,” the MP continued [...]

“I don’t usually believe in conspiracies but in this case the decisions that were taken were so strange that one has to suspect that undue influence and conspiracy were taking place,” MP Stringer told the House of Commons.

“Brought to its bare bones, this case is about a violent father who has been violent towards the mother of his children and other members of the family and who has been given custody of two children,” Stringer concluded.[...]

49 comments :

  1. More PR churned out by this bitter irreligious woman. She is either talking to herself or talking to the wall. No one else is listening. The courts all heard this mentally unstable woman's untruths and all the courts threw it out and dismissed her paranoia.

    She needs to remember to take her pills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above, we have another poor soul who believes that courts are infallible. No, Dr Lake, they are not - neither in your country nor mine and so why would Austria be any different? Ironic that you should mention walls - in this case they actually play a role! Autistic children know all about it.

      Delete
    2. Austrian courts?

      http://helpbeth.org/private-eye-magazine-slams-austria-for-hiding-corruption/

      Enough said!!!

      Delete
  2. "Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office MP David Lidington addressed the concerns of MPs Stringer and Lewis but said that intervening in the judicial process would be extremely hard."

    This former couple will just have to accept the judicial process has reached finality and the decisions of the lower courts have been ratified by the Supreme Court. The courts have ruled and law has been upheld and the rule of law must prevail. The Alexander family is at the stage where the judicial process has been exhausted and a final decision has already been rendered and accepted by the highest court in the land. As some point the Alexanders will have to face up to reality, and that is she will have visitation rather than custody, like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would anyone think the judicial process had "reached finality"? Nothing could be further than the truth. The case can be re-run and/or taken to the European Court of Human Rights. Ms Alexander would be well advised to go to both - for the sake of her children.

      Delete
    2. The European Court of Human Rights takes very few cases. Especially divorce/custody cases. Filing a case with them is less than a long shot. The Austrian Supreme Court didn't take the case and neither will the European Court of Human Rights.

      Rerunning the case in the Austrian courts is meaningless unless there are a change of circumstances. And there isn't any. A person can sue all they want, but courts don't appreciate much frivolous lawsuits. And there is no reason for the Austrian court to rule any different the second time than the first time. Especially considering it already went through all the Austrian court channels from the trial level to the appeal level to the highest court of the land.

      Delete
    3. RCK, as there were substantial flaws to the case that went through all the Austrian court channels, there is very definitely good reason to re-run it. The European Court of Rights will not be subject to intervention by Austrians as happens in Austria all the time.

      Delete
    4. Wendy, I understand the woman feels the trials were flawed. Besides her ex disagreeing. the courts themselves disagree that the case was flawed. All the higher courts have already ruled that it was no flawed but rather just. The trial court, the appeals court and the Supreme Court. There is no reason to believe they will suddenly change their mind on a second, third or fourth shot.

      The ECHR rarely if ever takes divorce/custody cases. It is less than a long shot.

      Delete
    5. There are in fact many custody cases that have been dealt with by the ECHR. I'd say, RCK, that you just don't want the mother to go there! The ECHR is not about taking or not taking a divorce case. It is about whether a Court has breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Two breaches are obvious in this case:

      1. Removing very young children from their primary carer - their mother. This is a breach of right to a family. It is also torture - there is an article against torture and removing a young child from their mother is exactly that, torture.
      2. Unfair trial. Everyone has the right to evidence to support their case, the time to prepare etc. The mother's evidence was ignored, there was a falsified psych report. etc.

      The reason 90% of ECHR applications get rejected is because the applicants do not follow the correct rules - they are very strict there because they have so many applications.

      Delete
    6. The father is the primary caregiver of the two children.

      Delete
    7. Removing the children from their father is an equal form of torture.

      Delete
    8. Theft Doesn't Justify PosessionJanuary 22, 2014 at 2:35 AM

      The father removed himself from the children when he attempted to commit the mother to a mental hospital through illegal means. He then later, removed the children from the mothers care. This is a form of torture! To return them to their mother now would be a repairing of a previous injustice.

      If I steal a car and then the police take it from me to return it to its original owner, I can't say the police have stolen it from me. They are returning what was never rightfully mine in the first place.

      The father has no rights to custody of it was obtained by illegal means. PERIOD!!!

      Delete
    9. The mother began the saga when she unilaterally walked out of the marriage and took the children away from their father.

      Now the father has had his custody rightfully restored by the courts.

      Delete
    10. Wrong! The father tried to get the mother committed! Would you want to stay if someone tried to do tbat to you? Wrongly accused!

      Delete
    11. Wrong! It was the father who tried to have his wife committed. Would you stay in a marriage if this happened to you? Wrongly accused!

      Delete
    12. The mother had good reasons for 'walking out'. No sane woman would tolerate domestic violence if she didn't have to. Both men and women can understand this I think.

      Delete
    13. M , the father was not the primary carer of the children when they were taken from her in a court case with major flaws. Look up the definition of a primary carer! Now he is but he wasn't then.

      Delete
    14. She lied. There never was the slightest form of domestic violence. And she walked out before she was committed.

      Delete
    15. gavriel, the mother has made all her comments in public under her own name. If you are calling her a liar, stand up and say your real name and how you know she is lying. Until then, you have no business making such comments on this forum.

      Delete
    16. Pandora's box seems to have been opened on this page. May I suggest that we all refrain from making uncivilized remarks about people lying? Surely everyone's goal should be to consider the welfare of the twins and not to argue like small children.

      Delete
  3. When was the last time an MP got up on on behalf of a man?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea. But every injustice should be fought at every level. Maybe this is something you should take up with your government on your own case as that debate it totally irrelevant here.

      Delete
    2. personally, I understand her. On a global level, I feel that "finally a woman is getting the underbelly of a twisted judicial approach to family issues". But as an individual, I think if I was that mother (or father in her position), I'd want to fight too.

      Delete
  4. Infallible Austria..a country of the highest standing:

    http://helpbeth.org/private-eye-magazine-slams-austria-for-hiding-corruption/

    I think not!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An interesting fact is that the new Minister for Justice in Austria is determined to stop the up till now legal giving of orders by the minister to the courts. Austria is far from being the angelic good example of how an impartial judiciary should function.

      Delete
    2. This article hits the nail on the head! There's corruption in every direction in Austria but the culprits rarely suffer for it. Corruption in the Jewish community will lead to punishment, one would hope. Chabad communities are in the (negative) headlines again and again, especially recently, and it's satisfying to note that numerous abusive rabbis are sentenced for their crimes against young children and children. It will be interesting to see if any names from Vienna pop up in the press in the near future.

      Delete
  5. Irreligious? The father doesn't even put Tzizit or kippot on tbe boys. He chose the secular court and not tne Beth Din!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother is the one who initiated this case in secular court not beis din.

      And the father is not only frum he even sends his children to yeshiva!

      Meanwhile the mother goes around with her hair uncovered, wears short sleeve shirts and pants.

      Delete
    2. Good heavens, Dress! It is beyond my comprehension that you could imagine a Cambridge grad in Vienna, a western city, getting around in inappropriate clothing. Of course she wears short sleeves and pants - that's an accepted way of dressing in Austria! Do you think she wants people to think she's come straight from a Shtetl in Galicia in 1900 or so? Despite respecting national dress, I do not believe a young woman of her standing has any reason at all for covering her hair (!!), except on the ski slopes or in Fasching (Carnival), or dressing inappropriately for her age in Central Europe. And if you are writing on behalf of the father, I think you need to explain to him something that he, as a supposedly educated doctor, apparently does not grasp: being pious in any religion includes living according to the precepts of that religion. Merely calling himself "frum" and boasting about sending his children to "yeshiva" do not make him a good human being.

      Delete
    3. Umm, breaking Halacha is NEVER an "accepted way of dressing". Anywhere. She ought to be ashamed of how she publicly tramples on the Torah.

      Delete
    4. He ought to be ashamed of the way he has corrupted the judiciary in a secular "civilized" country. Corruption in NEVER acceptable.

      He should wear a Kippah and then maybe he can talk about halacha and Torah.

      Delete
    5. Don, are we talking about Mea Sharim or Austria in 2014?

      Delete
  6. Am wondering if God is supposed to be judging which of the parents is "more religious" or "irreligious" in a custody case. I think he would be laughing at the people who chose this basis for deciding which parent should get custody!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Hashem would choose to have children brought up in a home that teaches them to keep mitzvos rather than in a non-frum home that teaches children to do aveiros.

      Delete
    2. Would it be better for the children to learn the following aveiros from the father instead?

      1) Going to arkoyos
      2) Not taking the children to shul on Simchat torah (or hardly any Shabbat)
      3) Corrupting a secular court system for your own means
      4) Lying and trying to put your wife in a mental hospital even though she is not mentally ill?

      Are these the aveiros you are concerned about children learning from a non-frum parent? In this case I agree, and wholeheartedly think the children should be brought up by the frum parent - the mother.

      Delete
    3. The mother is the one who initiated the arkoyos case.

      The father takes the children to shul on Shabbos and sends them to Yeshiva.

      Meanwhile the mother runs around town dressed like a goyta against halacha.

      Delete
    4. Serious AllegationsJanuary 19, 2014 at 8:17 PM

      If you wish to make serious allegations like these, the least you could do is put your name to them. It is cowardice and not at all credible to make such statements and expect everyone to believe them. No one does, except those who are close to the father and who write under multiple pseudonyms.

      It would be the equivalent of me making statements like:

      1) The father walks around Vienna without any head-covering and hardly ever takes the twins to shul.
      2) The father doesn't even live with the children, who are being brought up by Filipino nannies.
      3) The father is neglecting the children as can be seen by both children having multiple teeth removed.

      Delete
    5. Hey! You've got me thinking. As (1) and (3) are true, what are the chances that (2) is too? This is a possibility nobody has mentioned before and makes your point about cowardice slightly irrelevant. If the father is working as a doctor or studying for GP or specialist exams, he might not be living with the boys. Do the nannies speak good German? Or are they speaking English to them? Or Tagalog? However nice and well-meaning they may be are they good for the twins? Has anyone seen them at kindergarten?

      Delete
    6. Maybe if the mother became frum and dressed halachicly, she'd get more time with the children. As it is she is a negative influence.

      Delete
    7. Maybe if the father started following Halacha, and wearing a Kippah, then he might be able to use religious arguments.

      Right now, we have established the father is not frum and not a fit parent. It seems clear to me that whatever measure you use, the mother should have custody and the father should be outcast from the Jewish Community based on the Chillul Hashem he has caused. (Don't say it was the mother who caused the Chilul Hashem, she didn't corrupt the courts or restrict access to the father in this way)

      Delete
  7. The father has children in Yeshiva? How do you know that? Does he have other older children we should know about? How do you know the mother wanted the case to be heard in the Secular courts? What help have any Rabbis given in this case? I think this is a case of human rights before religious rights!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is well documented that it was the father who went to arkoyos (non-Jewish court) not the mother for the custody case. Anyone who disagrees should state this publicly with their full name and title and email Daas Torah for verification. Arkoyos is a big aveira. How can anyone regard the father as being frum??? He should not be regarded as part of any Jewish community in the world for his behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is the mother who initiated the arkoyos case. And she runs around town dressed like a goyta in violation of halacha.

      Delete
    2. How do you know it was the mother who initiated the arkoyos case? Have you seen the court documents?

      We have all seen the father run around Vienna without any head-covering!!

      Delete
  9. I think we need proof on this point. The father should be able to give the evidence to Daas torah to verify. He also needs to verify who is actually looking after the children and why hires help expect the mother to pay high maintenance when she is more than capable to take care of her own children. No proper answer regarding the teeth. Nothing the father is doing makes any sense. He now needs to show that he putting his children first!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know whether the father wears a yarmulka when working or not. Many frum people don't wear yarmulkas to work. But in the video of her on this website she has her hair uncovered, is wearing pants and has her upper arms uncovered. These are blatant, outright and public violations of Jewish Law that she is trampling upon publicly. That is much much worse than whether a yarmulka is worn or not. The father, otoh, sends the children to yeshiva. She would likely send them to goyish public school if she C"V had custody.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yovin she is Shomer Shabbos as is her whole family and is Modern orthodox - not chareidi - and she adheres to Modern Orthodox views.

      You also are wrong about claiming she would send the children to public school - she is firmly committed that they should have a good Orthodox education.

      Delete
  11. Who cares how she dresses?

    The issue here is not which is the morereligious parent but rather which is the more caring, responsible parent.

    Has the good doctor denied any of Beth's horrifying allegations, such as her four year old sons in diapers and not talking yet all of which indicates serious child neglect.

    He can wear the biggest cuppel in the world for all I care. If he is guilty of child neglect it don't make the slightest bit of difference.

    ReplyDelete

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