Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Schlesinger twins: BBC NorthWest News 14th January 2014


186 comments :

  1. Can anyone confirm that the Alexander family is wealthy and bankrolling their daughter's Public Relations campaign against he ex?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can anyone confirm that the father is receiving charitable financial assistance from the Jewish community in Vienna to wage his custody "legal" campaign?

      Delete
    2. If it is true, as you imply, that the father is receiving financial assistance from the Orthodox Jewish community, this clearly indicates that they support his position. It is therefore prudent to conclude that the Rabbonim and frum community realize that the father is correct in this dispute and that the father has solid ground to stand upon in his position on his dispute with his ex.

      It shows that we should all support him.

      Delete
    3. No Legal SupportersJanuary 19, 2014 at 8:23 PM

      They may be supporting him financially but it is another matter whether they support his court actions. They may be giving him money because they feel it would be the children who would suffer if they don't have clothes, food, etc... but it might be the case that the father misuses this money on other areas like his "legal" case.

      If there are Jewish leaders in Vienna that support his case, please can you provide the name of one such person.

      Delete
    4. Mr Cash,

      Mr Cash - try asking ESRA!



      Delete
  2. So, in a nutshell, this woman's entire complaint consists of that she is not mentally ill. And she therefore should have custody rather than the father.

    Even if she isn't mentally ill that does not mean the father should not have custody. The court determined that the father should have custody. This despite the court recognizing and acknowledging that the mother isn't mentally ill.

    Not being mentally ill isn't a reason for the father to not be entitled to have custody of his children. The courts determined the father is best suited for having custody of his children and that it is in the children's best interest that they be in their father's custody despite agreeing that the mother is not mentally ill.

    Now that the trial court as well as the appeals court ruled as such, with the verdict having been confirmed by the Supreme Court, there is finality. The woman has reached finality on this matter as far as the legal system is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The woman has a very serious complaint. As a mother she is indeed entitled to have custody of all her little children. As a father I recognize that little children must be with their mother and that is not offence to anyone.
      Nowadays that father are often treated like criminals I rarely side with mothers but in this case based on the information reported it appears that the mother is right.

      Delete
    2. No she is not "entitled" to have custody. The father is just as entitled to have custody.

      And it certainly appears the father is the better custodian considering the public rampage this woman has gone on raises questions as to her mental stability.

      Delete
    3. The father used fraudulent means to obtain custody. Anyone who isn't outraged by what happened has connections to the father's family.

      Delete
    4. Dr Lake is unlikely to be qualified in child psychiatry. If (s)he were, (s)he would know all about the research that shows the poor emotional and academic outcomes for children who have been separated at an early age from their primary carer, in this case their mother. And, Dr Lake - if you were an empathic person, you'd also know that far from being a "public rampage", the mother's efforts to inform the public about the crimes that have taken place in the Austrian court are the only way a stable mother could react to the cruel, sadistic actions of the father.

      Delete
    5. Most people who have followed this case for a long time would agree with you, Clear. It must also be obvious and extremely embarrassing to members of the Jewish community in Vienna by now to know that it is being claimed by many that one of their own intervened in this case, thereby breaking Austrian law. It occurs to me that one particular rabbi has not been at all vocal in attempting to convince the father of his cruelty to his children - the rabbi who has always been the father's mentor. Would he not be the best person of all to talk some sense into this man?

      Delete
    6. The father is the twins primary caregiver, not the mother. He, like every divorced father, has every right if not obligation to seek custody of their children and bring them up as is their halachic and natural obligation.

      Delete
    7. The father is not frum at all and therefore should not have any custody rights to the children.

      He does not even wear a Kippah.

      Delete
  3. As long as this bitter woman continues her P.R. war against the father of the children, I think it is correct and right that he limit her visits with the children to the minimum legally required and that he continue requiring her to pay for those visits as is legally required.

    Once she stops her harrasment and media war by giving interviews and having editorials written and petitioning her local MP, then the father should grant the mother additional visitation and stop making her pay for those visits.

    Until she stops her campaign, he should keep her to the minimum. She'll have to learn that she cannot attack him publicly and make a spectacle of the poor children that she is using as pawns in her war games and expect him to bend over for her while she is doing all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annabel, I think you'll find the father was cancelling visits and restricting her access to the children long before any publicity began.

      If he doesn't like the current publicity, why doesn't he agree to sit down and negotiate the matter for a satisfactory conclusion for everyone. Besides, if the father believes he has done everything correctly, he should issue a public statement in justification and not try to hide behind negative comments on a blog, I think that speaks for itself! Publicity only offends those who have what to hide!

      Delete
    2. Sad for the boys that their father doesn't appear to want to act as a role model for them. If they are forced to live with him till they're 18, they'll certainly pick up many of his (bad) habits, eg secrecy, vengeance, uncooperativeness. Who would want their children to be brought up fully by person with characteristics like these?

      Delete
  4. what a load of absolute rubbish. Beth should have won custody of her children. Its funny how the report was written by someone that was connected to the judge that said she was mentally ill. It was all fabricated just so the father won custody.
    There is reams and reams of evidence in Beth's favour but the courts have NOT taken this in to account. Its all totally one sided with the father.

    These boys have had teeth removed and Beth wasnt allowed to know why. That is totally odd at their age and being a dentist myself it must have been because they were left with bottles for hours to suck. Or that the father doesnt brush their teeth!!!

    The boys I have been told are in therapy.. why is that?? ITS BECAUSE THEY NEED MOTHER THERAPY and whatever therapy they have will NOT work. Its a mothers love they need.

    If Beth hadnt done all the publicity then Austria would get away with this miscarriage of justice and no one is prepared to see that happen

    what goes round comes around and one day when the boys are older they will see that Beth has fought so hard for them and then the father will have to answer them. In the mean time damage is being done to these innocent children

    To all the people above that are quick to blame Beth. I wonder if any of you are woman and how you would feel if your children were ripped from you..

    Lastly the courts have all decided the father should have custody but when "proper" reports are done on everyone eventually lets see what happens...
    The corruption will cave in very soon when all the truth comes out.. WATCH OUT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not a man to know how a father feels when his children are ripped away from him. Like happened when Beth walked out and falsely accused him of abuse resulting that he had his children taken away due to her false allegations.

      Justice has finally prevailed and he successfully overturned that wrong against him when she took the children away from him. There was never any reason the children should have been taken away from him in the first place when Beth walked out of the marriage.

      The children, when older, will eternally appreciate how hard their dad fought to have custody of them.

      Delete
    2. @Linda Rose: who are you to judge the father, do you know him??? Do you know, what was discussed behind closed court rooms???? No you and all of us don't know. Only the information, Beth is feeding a sensational lusting public with, which really shows oblivious ignorance and naivite. Have you seen the horrible pictures of the twins, the BBC aired? It is obvious, that the father was rewarded custody. Her arguments are laughable.

      Delete
    3. I get the feeling Linda Rose might be quite relieved not to know the father, having seen the fate of the children since they have been in his (and who else's?) care. He has not taken care of their teeth, for instance. In Vienna, only children of uneducated or very sick parents (alcoholics, drug addicts) need to have their front milk teeth extracted. Normal children no longer require nappies in the daytime at the age of 4. The parent with sole custody is required by law to provide the non-custodial parent with certain types of information about their children. This father has ignored this. These boys should have grown up bilingually, like very many others whose parents speak different mother tongues. They are not. And the sentences they are speaking at nearly 5 years of age are also spoken by children as young as 21 months! Most children of their age speak quite normally, in full sentences. Something is radically wrong´and one can only pity the twins for not being able to speak both German and English as their peers do. A paediatric neurologist in Vienna has claimed that they also speak some Hebrew but to my knowledge, this doctor does not speak that language in order to be capable of asserting this. Observer: we are not ignorant or naive. We are educated, empathetic people who can easily recognise a fraudulent court case in which the victims are two innocent young children.

      Delete
    4. The father has taken care of his beautiful children in a commending and exemplary manner. Both physical and mental health needs. The father cannot possibly teach his children a second language, especially one he is not proficient in. They are developing at a very good pace for children who have their natural deficiencies in growth that Hashem bestowed them with.

      Delete
    5. So are you saying that the children's lack of development is Hashem's will! If so mother cannot be blamed for their lack of development as she has been, The children need extra help, not by strangers or therapists, who might assist in some way, but they need the love and encouragement which only their mother can give With the best will in the world, the father cannot do this alone, as the children are still failing, comparing them to other children of the same age. .

      Delete
    6. Looks much more to me, Columbus, as if they have developed the deficiencies you mention since they were taken away from their mother so traumatically. If the dad speaks German, why aren't they speaking like other nearly 5 year olds, who in the UK would either have started or be about to start school? These poor children must have lacked the language stimulation that they were getting up to the age of 2 yrs, 2 mnths. Most people would never call that, as you do, exemplary. They would regard it as shocking and depriving the children of their rights. Of course the father can't teach them a second language, silly! He should enable them to have the advantage they could have if they were with their mum more often.

      Delete
  5. BUT he isnt thinking of his children now... Whatever the issues are between the parents he should man up and let them have both parents in their lives.. They should be allowed to see their mum when they want to and let her be in their lives.
    Stop damaging the children. They dont deserve this punishment... No children do..

    why cant 2 parents even if they hate each other be civil for kids.. I know its a huge ask but you dont want them to be damaged long term and thats what will happen
    Can you not see that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If she would be satisfied

    ReplyDelete
  7. If she would be satisfied obtaining more visitation hours and not having to pay a fee for visitiation, I would support that new arrangement. And perhaps the father would to.

    But she isn't satisfied with only that. She wants to take away the kids, again, from the father's custody. She did that once before, when she walked out of the marriage, and she is trying to do that again now. See her comments in the above video. She doesn't just want more visitation; she wants to take custody away from him again.

    Until she ceases that effort, he can't give her half of what she demands. He isn't willing, and he doesn't have to, to lose custody of his children a second time. He lost custody to them once before, for 18 months, when she unilaterally walked out of the marriage. He isn't going to let that happen a second time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M - 50/50 would be fair, I'm sure you would agree. Your arguments are all about power and control. Hers are about love. Boy, am I glad I didn't marry someone like you.

      Delete
    2. 50/50 is rarely granted in custody cases. Invariably one parent is the primary caregiver and residency custodian. In this case it is the father. And that is a very wise choice.

      Delete
    3. It is anything other than a wise choice in this case and would only be wise if the mother were chronically ill and unable to take care of the children or if she were on drugs or a convicted criminal. To forcibly separate a mother from her children for no reason is a very UNWISE choice. Especially to a father who has abused both the mother and the legal system.

      Delete
    4. It is the mother who has been abusive.

      It is the mother who attempted, initially successfully, to forcefully separate the children from their father.

      Delete
    5. How did she do that? Didn't it all start with the father trying to have his wife committed to get rid of her?

      Delete
    6. Wasn't it the father who started this horrible affair by trying to get her committed to get rid of her?

      Delete
  8. Not sure I'm allowed to ask this question, wasn't following all of R.D.E.'s shmiras Halashon shiurim... but, I think the more we understand the picture and the circumstance the better...

    Is Beth frum? Her parents frum? Her ex?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I clearly was not implying she is not frum and he is, or vice versa...

      I was just trying to understand the full picture...

      Delete
  9. Is Beth frum?

    What on earth has that got to do with anything??!!

    As followers of this will know I am not a supporter of hers and am sceptical about her story (I'm not anti-Beth neither) but I think that question is prejudicial to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Custody should be with the frum parent.

      Delete
    2. Really, Sally?
      So your only criterion for custody is their level of religious observance? Ridiculous!

      Delete
    3. I don't know if religious observance should necessarily be the only criterion, but it certainly should be a major one.

      Delete
    4. Marvellous! I can really see the Austrian courts being swayed by the fact that the mum wears trousers and the kids don't have funny tassels under their shirts.

      I'll put the first part of your comment, Columbus, a little more starkly. "I am certain that the level of religious observance should not be the only criterion". It most certainly is an important factor but does not outweigh others. IF the father is unfit (and I am far from convinced that this is the case, by the way) then I couldn't care less if he was the av bet din.

      Delete
  10. So again the father is using the children as weapons. They are NOT toys. They are humans and if the father cannot see the damage so far that this has done then he is a very selfish man.
    Dont you think if the father compromised it would be better all round. There are strange things in newspapers everyday. You never know what can happen if a new case happens. Isnt it better to take some control and try to compromise instead of risking everything.
    I remember my rabbi saying any man that takes his children away from their mother is not a true jewish man..
    I am sorry but in all of this its the CHILDREN that are the most efftected not the father or mother.. I wish the people on this forum would see that..

    With regards to the custody going to the frum parent. Never heard so much rubbish in my life.. Why??????


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother is using the boys as toys and as pawns in her public relations media war against her ex. She is damaging her own children and Baruch Hashem the courts saw through her evil and therefore did not grant her custody.

      Gedolim have stated that a woman who takes away a father's children from him lost her chelek in Olam Haboah and is put in cherem.

      And of course custody goes to the frum parent if only one is frum. Because the non-frum parent will be teaching the children to do the aveiros, as she is not observant.

      Delete
  11. she certainly doesn't appear frum here. As much as I strongly believe in her motherly right to be equally involved in her children's lives, under normal circumstances, if there's a significant deviation from the given religiosity in which the couple were holding when they married - this must be taken into consideration by the court in deciding the degree of influence each parent should have in their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the media video above and pictures elsewhere, she is wearing pants, running around in short-sleeve shirts and her hair is completely uncovered.

      Who knows what sins she would introduce the children to if she had custody. Thankfully she doesn't have custody.

      Delete
    2. The father doesn't wear a Kippah!

      Delete
    3. The father does wear a yarmulka.

      Delete
    4. Maybe he wears one in shul (when he rarely goes!) but he certainly doesn't wear one in the street or at work. I have seen him!

      Delete
  12. The children only see their mother on a tuesday and every other Sunday. She is not allowed to know anything about their welfare, She is not allowed to go to their school, NOTHING. She is treated like a criminal. Infact I think criminals actually get treated better than her.
    I believe the couple are from the same background with regards to religion...
    What makes it even worse is that she has to pay to see her children. Its just terrible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Contextual PerspectiveJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:52 PM

      If someone's ex-wife is going around badmouthing her ex and calling every press outlet and giving interviews attacking her ex, it is completely reasonable for the ex-husband to not cooperate with her and stonewall her, as much as legally possible, until she stops publicly attacking him.

      Delete
    2. All of Linda Rose's comments are simply absurd. Where is the logic of her argument? Does she pursue any personal interests here? BTW, he is religious and she is completely NOT. Her parents are traditional. They way, she uses her children in public is disgusting. If it was her, who would have won custody, no one would pursue this story any further. But, as we can see from her behaviour, justice has prevailed!

      Delete
    3. The father doesn't look very religious on his Facebook page.

      Delete
    4. He looks like a bit tzadik. Halevai other yidden should have as much zchusim as he.

      Delete
    5. So if someone looks like a tzadik we can assume he is a tzadik?? Do his zechusim now include blocking all access of the children to their mother? Is this the behavior we expect to see from such 'gedoilai yisroel'?

      Delete
    6. According to Maimonides (based on Tractate Yevamot of the Babylonian Talmud 49b-50a): "One whose merit surpasses his iniquity is a tzadik".

      Delete
    7. A tzadik wouldn't try to have his wife and mother of his children sectioned. This is usually the action of a weak man who can't cope with a situation. It happens everywhere. He may think he's the first to have done this but there were millions before him. Nor would he try to stop her from seeing her children when she is perfectly sane.

      Delete
  13. @observer.. Those pictures were taken while the children were in the fathers care.. Get your facts straight..
    Its clear the kids are suffering. Thats the worst part

    ReplyDelete
  14. If she is irreligious and he is religious that is reason in of itself that he should have custody even disregarding all the many other good reasons he should have custody.

    It is untenable to give custody to an irreligious parent when there's a religious parent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, as the father went to arkoyos (non-Jewish court) which is a far more serious aveira than the (probably false) allegations being made by anonymous commentators here against the mother, I think that deems the father irreligious and that alone should forfeit any religious/halachic/Jewish argument that he should be given any sort of custody whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. It is the mother who initiated the arkoyos case.

      Delete
    3. Preb. How do you know this?

      Delete
  15. if she is less religious than him (not at all obvious) but he is neglecting their basic developmental needs on some fundamental level (also not clear, but that is her allegation - that they are far behind where four year olds should be in terms of development and that she is not given any information as to why) it's kind of shocking to suggest he should obviously get custody.
    of course, his supporters here will say her allegations of neglect are unproven, etc - but interesting how his supporters, at least on this blog, more often prefer to ignore any specifics of this case and cast this as just another crazy woman abandoning her marriage to a perfectly stable man. i can see being skeptical, saying we don't know all the facts, etc, but simply assuming she is outright lying has no basis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. em -- same about her denials of being mentally ill. We can be skeptical that the claim she is mentally ill or paranoid is accurate but we cannot outright dismiss that she may indeed suffer from that illness.

      Delete
    2. Very interesting. There seem to be people who believe the father to be stable and the mother mentally ill, while others believe the opposite. It would therefore be imperative for the father to be examined by several impartial psychiatrists, as the mother already has been and declared free of any mental illness. This was ordered by the court in 2011 but was never carried out. Here we have a substantial flaw in the proceedings of the type referred to by the British MPs in the House of Commons.

      Delete
    3. basically agree. the difference is that one issue seems more easily verifiable. there seem to be dueling experts on the question of her mental state, with no real weight on the side of those who say she is insane (ie, even the court that denies all her requests apparently does not accept it). regarding the children, at this age the questions are fairly straightforward: eg, do these four year olds actually not speak enough to tell their mother what they do all day? if the answer is yes, something is going on, and i have a hard time figuring out what the justification (not legal, but moral) is for their mother being given information on what it is and how it is being addressed.
      as for mental illness, at this stage in the game, it is also possible that she is paranoid but that said paranoia has been caused in large part by unjust experiences. in which case it seems pretty cruel to then turn around and use it to justify those experiences...

      Delete
  16. Lets face the truthJanuary 17, 2014 at 2:15 AM

    Is the father frum? Why did he not take the children to Shul on Simchat Torah? This proves:

    a) The father is not frum
    b) The father is not interested in showing the twins Jewish experiences like this

    Given the number of Rabbis around the world, including the mother's ex-headmaster, showing such vehement support for her, strongly indicate that the mother is in fact frum and is interested in the Jewish welfare as well as the health, emotional and pyschological welfare of the children.

    Sadly, the father is not interested in any of those things!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a) The father sends the children to Yeshiva.
      b) The father is very interested in bringing up his children frum, as seen above and in everything else he does.

      Delete
    2. The mother's ex-headmaster lives in Australia! He left Manchester at least 13 years ago...........

      Delete
    3. Avi, what are your thoughts on the children's teeth being removed? Do you think this is normal parenting? On both children?

      Delete
    4. It is possible that there is a congenital medical problem causing dental decay. I have patients with this.
      Anyway, what's that got to do with relying on the opinions of Rabbis from the four corners of the world who have no recent knowledge of the protagonists?

      Delete
    5. Now come on, Avi! How long have you been a dentist? In Vienna, dentists at the Youth Clinic say that practically all the patients whose front teeth they remove need this done because some idiot has left a "sippy" or bottle full of something sweet in their mouths at night to keep them quiet and help them fall asleep. The disaster is that they don't take it out till the middle of the night or the next morning.

      Delete
    6. I'm not a dentist - I'm a GP.
      I agree that the overwhelmingly most likely cause is as you say but there is a *possibility* of another cause, which if you read my comment carefully, you would have noticed. In fact, you seem to be aware of this by your use of the word 'practically').
      A very close relative, who IS a dentist, has seen plenty of kids who have had to have teeth removed for the reason of the 'sippy' as you say. None of the parents have been deemed unfit parents and in any danger of the children being removed from their care. I do appreciate that it would be another factor if the allegations of child neglect by the father are proven or at least very strongly suspected. It seems that the police, social services and various levels of the Austrian judiciary do not feel that this is the case.

      Delete
    7. We don't know why the teeth have been removed so any reasons posted here are entire speculation. They could have been removed as an act of violence if for example he lost his temper and hit them so hard their teeth came out. No one knows. We can say for sure, that he shouldn't be given the award for the world's best father when most children have a full set of teeth at the twins' age. I would be intrigued to learn of the reasons why the courts took the children from the mother. I have a feeling the accusations cited against her were far more flimsy. If the same standards applied to the father, he would be in prison by now faced with child neglect charges.

      Delete
    8. Beth has proven herself to be an unfit mother.

      Delete
    9. Tuli what is your competence to make such a judgment. Are you 1) a psychologist who has evaluated the mother 2) a social worker has access to the facts of the case or 3) the father?

      Delete
    10. DT, you haven't had any problem when Beth and her relatives posting here claims against the father. Suddenly you have a problem only when the mother's competency is questioned?

      Delete
    11. Tuli, why did you categorically say the mother is unfit? What is the basis for this serious allegation? Generating publicity against an injustice doesn't count, neither can you use the circular argument that the Austrian courts took custody from her as any 'proof'.

      Do tell - why did you call her an unfit mother?

      Delete
  17. @Linda Rose: how would you know, that the pictures were taken under the father's care? Again, this doesn't make sense. Especially, that the pictures were provided by her!!! These pictures clearly show, how much she has obviously neglected her kids under her care, which she cleary doesn't realize! The father definitely should have custody right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, father, what about their teeth?

      Delete
    2. It is quite common and normal for children's baby teeth to be pulled by the dentist if their infected, so that the permanent teeth can replace them.

      Delete
    3. I am a dentist in the UK and that is not true. Children only have milk teeth removed if

      a. The parents do not brush them daily
      b. If the children get left with bottles in for hours with sugary drinks
      c. The teeth just decay

      I find the comment that M has put to be totally untrue and why both children?

      M please can you explain

      Delete
    4. Whilst M is replying to this question, can he also confirm that the children's mother was invited to be present to comfort her children during these traumatic unusual teeth extractions! Humanity before religion!

      Delete
    5. There can be no humanity without G-d and Torah observance.

      Delete
    6. What has G-d and Torah got to do with a mother's physical comfort to her precious children. The dentists question still needs an answer as well as my own about the childrens teeth!

      Delete
    7. M, where is your answer? More secrecy?

      Delete
    8. @ Columbus: What utter rubbish! Who says there can be no humanity without God and Torah observance? I can't believe your intolerance. Most of the world does not believe in your God or study the Torah. And none of these people are humane? You've got a lot to learn. I hope the father isn't as narrow-minded as you are. He walked out when his kids were screaming in pain after a bris so I guess it's unlikely he showed any humanity at all by allowing the mother to comfort the boys after what must have been yet another very traumatic experience for them - having their front teeth pulled out at an early age!

      Delete
  18. @observer: If you read the blog carefully you will see that the mother lost custody of the boys which were taken from her at 2 years 2 months. The picture in question was taken by the mother as this is on her blog when the boys were over 3. Thats how we know.. She hasnt neglected the children. She just took the picture on a visit she had.

    To all the religious people on here. What i find extremely strange is that
    the father doesn't even put Tzizit or kippot on the boys. He chose the secular court and not the Beth Din!
    Can anyone answer that one please... You are all going on about the children going to the most religious parent but how can you call him religious if he doesnt do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course the father puts on tzitzis and a yarmulka on the boys. He also sends them to Yeshiva.

      She chose the secular court when she initiated the case against him. He just responded to the case she filed.

      Delete
    2. The father is pure EVIL. He has cancelled the visit tomorrow. Just seen on Beth's blog. He has said they are not well. They need their mother.. When kids are ill thats what they need. I am so upset with the father for using these children as weapons. Totally unfair

      Delete
    3. Children need their father as much, if not more, than their mother. This evil woman in the form of a mother wants to take them away from the father as she previously did when she ran out of their home with the children for over a year.

      Delete
    4. But by punishing the mother, the children are actually being punished more? What will the father answer when the children are able to speak (which they should be able to do now at over four and a half) and ask why they have been denied their mother!

      Delete
    5. If you are saying the children need the father as much as the mother (can't see why) more. Why is the father denying his children their right? If the father thinks the mother has done wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? Isn't time to try to put matters right and find
      a way for the mother to be properly in the children's lives!
      The children have been punished enough now! A good solution needs to be found, not fot the father and not for the mother, but
      for the children!

      Delete
  19. What is so puzzling is why the father wants the boys all to himself! Afterall he said the mother was crazy because the boys couldn’t speak 50 words by the time they were two. My child can’t say one word and she is over two, but since he has had them they have been in the chabad Kindergarten, yet they still hardly are able to talk! He has to take them to therapy and have Philapinos to look after them. He has to organize all of that. He is top doctor. When does he have time to work and have any sort of life? Why is he doing all of this to the detriment of his children.

    It is so obvious to any outsider that they are not thriving in his care!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother grabbed the children all for herself and took them away from the father when she ran off with them.

      The children, meanwhile, with their father has been excelling.

      Delete
    2. That is great that the children are excelling. My intelligence tell me that the children can't speak whole ssentences in any language at over 4.5. Were only toilet trained when they were over four and are being kept down at least one school year.

      Delete
  20. "PURE", cc? Perhaps that's just a tad over the top...

    Maybe just maybe they really are under the weather and he, as a responsible parent in whose custody these little tikes have been entrusted, is taking care to have them rest and heal properly.

    I would hope he'd convey to the mother that he'd be happy to offer her an extra day or two after they're better.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You would think he would give her an over night stay. That would be even nicer of him. He doesnt seem to be nice at all and isnt thinking of his children at all. Just using them as weapons

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would he give a woman who is publicly attacking him and calling all sorts of nasty things anything more than minimally necessary, especially if there's a rish she'll use that to indoctrinate her hatred into his children.

      Delete
    2. What a childish attitude! I hope it's not the father's...

      Delete
    3. If he wants to take the moral high ground as he wants us all to believe, then he shouldn't make the children suffer by restricting access to their mother.

      I don't think this father is the Tzaddik he is trying to make us all think he is.

      Delete
    4. He does not care about his children - it's crystal clear. If he did, he would allow their mother far more access. They love her, they want her, they need her! They beg her not to leave them on the rare occasions when she's permitted to see them and cling desperately to her, knowing that their few hours of joy and motherly nurture will always be interrupted abruptly. Those poor, poor, children. It makes me want to cry, just thinking about how cruel men can be.

      Delete
  22. That would be nice if the father put in some extra visits as soon as the children are better, perhaps some overnight stays. Kids generally bounce back very quickly. He can then show all the people on this blog that he is decent. It will be good if he can answer the dentists questions about the boys teeth. I have never heard of teeth getting infected and to need four out in one go. That must have been some infection. I hope the doctor is well qualified to take care of his children as they seem to be very run down! It could be that he also doesn't feed them properly. How can he manage his job his home and his kids. Its obvious he isn't doing too well Maybe the children"s mother could assist! She's has to be the best person rather than hired help!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get a grip. If you think the father, a medical doctor no less, has purposely done medical harm to his precious children, then you need to check your intelligence for deficiencies.

      Delete
    2. I think you need to get your facts straight before you write something like this on an open blog.
      The children are in a terrible way suffering from trauma and yet the father doesnt seem to care.
      Its beyond me how any person mother or father do NOT put their children first when it comes to their lives.
      By depriving them of their mother as the father has so much hate is not the way you should deal with this
      The children in the end will walk away

      Delete
    3. No way do I think the father would harm his children. I have the feeling that he himself was abused by someone very close as a child! He has not given a full explanation about the children's teeth nor lets the mother know anything about their medical psychological or educational well being. Why the secrecyt what is anyone supposed to think of the father? I am sure tne father wants respect !

      Delete
  23. Give us one way the children are excelling as I cannot think of 1

    Make sure the reasons you provide are valid

    ReplyDelete
  24. A message for the father if he is reading this... I am sure you are a good father to the boys but they also need their mother.
    Children from a young age get traumatised and can effect the rest of their lives.
    Whatever issues you both have with each other should be put to one side and it should be about the boys.
    If the father is so worried about the mother taking them out the country then he should allow her over nights but have some document by the courts that she has to return them.
    PLEASE PLEASE consider the children. Everyone is watching the case and everyone wants to see the kids happy which they are clearly not

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course the mum is not going to take them out of the country! She only wants the rights that an innocent, loving mother who has never been convicted of any crime is supposed to have - for the sake of her children. This father is just damned selfish and only cares about himself. And he should be aware that men guilty of domestic violence and of dubious mental health are the wrong types to be bringing up children. The DV was seen by other people, ie there are witnesses, and the dad has never been examined by a proper psychologist or psychiatrist. What's wrong with the family court in Vienna to have allowed all this?

      Delete
    2. The father is right to not allow her to take the children out of the country if there's a risk she'll keep them out of the country.

      Delete
    3. The father is not right to break the visitation agreement, nor is he right to distort court proceedings to force a conclusion that he thinks is right.

      There is no justification whatsoever for the behavior being displayed by the father.

      Delete
  25. By reading all the comments above i think the father is doing everything he possibly can to not let the children see the mother.
    By cancelling visits. By not allowing her to go to the kindergarden etc
    In an ideal world he would love her to pack up and move back to the UK and leave her boys. Thats plain to see.
    NO mother will walk away so i hope he realises that..

    What makes this a huge injustice is people are siding with the father and there is a reason. They are all scared to speak up. They know what is happening is wrong but they just cant speak up.. The father has a huge hold over everyone or it is coming from above him. Must be
    Its a disgrace and inhumane
    No one gives a damn about the kids. They are innocent and no one sees that..
    Being used as weapons at 4.5 is absolutely out of order
    i wish people could see this and how they are suffering xx

    ReplyDelete
  26. Terry, I think we might definitely suspect the father is using people above him in the Jewish community, including some who have very strongly influenced him all his life, to prevent Samuel and Benjamin - his own children, for whom he should be showing love and respect - from leading the lives to which they are entitled: free of prejudice against their mother, free to have her participate in their kindergarten activities, free to spend nights with her, who carried them for nearly 9 months and gave birth to them, free to be happy. None of these things is happening. These unfortunate boys have a father who doesn't care about their welfare. So who is responsible for all this horror? Presumably the Jewish community in Vienna knows but, as you suggest, nobody dares to utter a name or names. So many people in the community have been involved in this case, from Liliputians upwards. But they have all either supported the father or lacked the moral fibre to speak up and do something about the appalling way he's bringing these poor kids up. How can rabbis and judges support a member of their community who does not care for his children's teeth, lies about how he excels at child-rearing (!!), prevents them from seeing their mother and engages all kinds of people within the community to conceal the facts? The public's respect for the community in Vienna is going down very fast.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with Peter Pan. What he says is right because the British Government in England are taking up the case, something quite unheard of. They muat be very worried. So should now the father the courts the Jewish community in Vienna. Put things right now for the children's sake. Just let them have proper contact with their mother, as is their right or , watch out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The British government is not taking up the case. The wife's parents family asked their local MO to make a brief statement in support of them. He made his 25 second statement and done.

      Besides, no legislature, certainly not a foreign one, can overturn a court verdict ratified by the Supreme Court. Even the Austrian government cannot legally overturn a court verdict.

      Delete
  28. A suggestion.. for the sake of the boys could both parents instead of going through so many legal channels and twisted bitter arguments some how arrange a meeting with a few people to come to an agreement so the boys have both parents in their lives
    If this could be done the mother I am hoping would stop all the media etc etc

    Something needs to be done so that the boys dont suffer long term. At the moment they are only 4.5 but the longer this goes on the worse they will get
    I just thank g-d they have each other..

    I really believe all the rights and wrongs of this case the children come first. Even if the mother and father hate eachother put those differences aside. Look at the boys that you both love so much and fix their broken hearts. They cant explain but the sooner this is resolved the better for everyone

    Maybe someone out there has some ideas.. even if the father feels its to late for this. I think he really needs to consider it for his boys and their future

    Amen x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheila --

      Good idea. But some concerns:

      1) The legal process is exhausted. It has completed and a final decision rendered and ratified by the highest court in the land. Anything further is a legal long-shot.

      2) The mother indicated she wants nothing short of custody. It is unclear that if the father offered her more access, more visitation, easier visitation, overnight visitation and other accommodations that it would satisfy her. She apparently will accept nothing less than custody. If she continues pursing that demand I cannot imagine how the father can give her additional accommodations while she is attempting to still take custody away from him.

      Delete
  29. No one said the British Government or any Government can change a court s decision but there are flaws and no proper reasoning which begs an enquiry. This sort of publicity will do the damage, not that of the mother who only wants to love and care for her boys. Sheila Braverman's suggest ion is good and should be considered by both sides!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mediation can happen at any time. I believe mediation works by going into a meeting WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS. I cannot understand why this would not be in the interest of both parents. The mother has stated many times that she would happy to discuss the children in such a forum but the father is blocking all requests. Why? It is highly presumptuous to veto any meeting even if he suspects he knows what will be presented. Maybe there will be things discussed in the meeting that come as a surprise to him?

      FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, JUST MEDIATE!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Why did she refuse to mediate when she had custody and denied the father too much visitation? Now that the shoe is on the other foot she wakes up?

      Delete
    3. How do you know she refused to mediate? Another baseless allegation!!

      If the father refuses to mediate, he has no right to complain about all the publicity on blogs etc... He should expect this case to reach an ever increasing audience the longer this goes on.

      Delete
    4. M - Whatever has happened in the past, however hard it is for the father he now has to think of his children.
      This is not about the mother or father. This is about their precious boys who deserve to have both parents in their lives. Its not their fault
      They must have loved each other in the beginning to have got married and had children so why make them suffer now.. They didnt ask to be born!

      BOTH PARENTS MUST MEDIATE to save the children growing up in this awful situation.
      Its not about the mother or father its about the BOYS

      Amen

      Delete
  30. 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 above 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 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
    2. RDE/DT: WADR, are you stating that the "Modern Orthodox view" is that it is okay to publicly and blatantly trample and violate Halacha by going in public with

      a) uncovered hair

      b) sleeveless shirts

      c) pants

      d) mini-skirts leaving the knees uncovered

      Really? Which MO Rabbi supports this? Rabbi Hershel Schachter C"V?

      Delete
    3. She actually distributed photos and films showing her in all those states of undress to the BBC to air in the media! All in the above BBC video.

      Delete
    4. Yovin I would assume you are aware that in Modern Orthodox circles there are different standards than in the Chareidi world? If they are baseless then you would be doing them a service by explaining why they are wrong.

      Yovin since you seem to view yourself as the resident expert on proper female dress - please write a guest post with the sources for your standards and a clear indication that there are no authorities that say otherwise. You might want to include the first teshuva of Rav Wosner in which he criticizes the Mishna Berura for not having strict enough standards because Rav Wosner claims he misunderstood his sources. If the Mishna Berura can "err" in matters of tznius I assume that the masses can also. Please provide some enlightenment on this subject

      Delete
    5. RDE/DT: Yes, I'm aware MO has lower standards. But to say there standards are non-halachic and violate halacha??!? What I outlined above is unambiguously violations of halacha. Sleeveless shirts and uncovered hair and showing the upper leg?!? Which MO "rabbi" approves of such? I think you are wrong that this lowness is a MO standard. Do you know of any rabbi who approves of that?

      Maybe Ill write a guess post. Give me a bit of time.

      Delete
    6. you might want to check out this site

      http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=7851 in particular the writings of Rav Henkin regarding tzniut cited on there.

      Regarding hair coverting of a divorcee - there is a heter of Rav Moshe Feinstein in certain circumstances. described there
      ==============================
      A divorced woman has a rabbinic obligation to cover her hair. Whereas the Torah level obligation is limited to a married woman, the rabbinic obligation is on all Jewish women, except for never-married Jewish women and girls. Please see Shulhan Arukh, Even HaEzer 21:2 and the Bet Shemuel there.

      An exception may be in cases or situations where haircovering would serve as an obstacle to the woman's eventual remarriage. For an example of such a decision, see Igrot Moshe, Even HaEzer IV 32:4.

      Delete
    7. @Yovin the point that you need to prove is that a woman who is commited to keeping mitzvos and keeps them at the standard of her community - even though there might not be a clear source for leniences - is she disqualified from having custody of her children because of that.

      I don't think you will find a single source for such your thesis

      Delete
    8. Uncovered hair of a divorcee has some sources in limited applications. But sleeveless shirts and mini-skirts leaving the knees exposed have no sources, Modern Orthodox or not. They are clear violations of halacha.

      (And if one parent is not fully observent that ought to be a consideration in whether she has custody rather than a fully observent parent who will teach (CHINUCH) the children to be Torah observant.)

      Delete
    9. @Yovin again you are making an assumption without citing anybody. An anonymous commentator does not have much credibility as a posek.

      You haven't established that her level of observance is any different than his. For all we know his level might be significantly lower.

      But of greater importance you haven't found a single source that a parent whose level of observance is consistent with community practice that he/she should lose custody if it isn't the level of Shulchan Aruch.

      Therefore before poskening for everyone that she needs to lose custody you should first learn a bit more and check your facts.

      Delete
    10. RDE/DT: What "posek"? You didn't bring any posek other than for uncovered hair. Sleeveless and mini-skirts have no poskim and you didn't cite any. Do we need to find a SH"UT to show that going out in a bikini is assur?

      Her level we see she is violating halacha. She provided the proof herself with her photographs. Him we haven't seen proof of anything he's doing wrong.

      There is no justification of "community practice" when that practice is against halacha. Besides, you haven't shown that it is any (even modrn orthodox) community practice to go around sleeveless and in a mini-shirt exposing above the knees.

      Of course if one parent is observant or fully observant and the other is partially unobservent of the Torah it is better for the child's CHINUCH to be placed in the custody of the fully Torah observent parent.

      Delete
    11. if she is observing in the same way she always did (and yes, there are communities of shabbos observers where women routinely dress like she is in the picture), then it seems odd to assume her ex, who married her as is, is significantly more observant, doesn't it?
      none of which even gets to why only her dress is taken as evidence of "observance" but his (alleged) actions are not seen as reason to think he is less fit to impart torah values.

      Delete
    12. You obviously didn't bother looking at the Nishmat site that I provided where Rav Henkin talks about some of these issues.

      I also assume you would have posuled a certain gadol hador whose wife didn't cover her hair - because that was a common practise at the time.

      You can't simply trash a person who is committed to keeping mitzvos and follows the community standard. Rav Moshe Feinstein says that a recent convert who doesn't observe Yom Tov properly and other doreissa halachos is still considered to be a kosher convert even though she accepted to do all mitzvos - because that level of observance is what she observes in the community.

      You have to find poskim who agree with you that a violation of halacha - even if that is normal in the community will categorically invalidate that person for custody of her children. I doubt that there is such a psak.

      Furthermore you issued your "psak" without bother finding out if the ex husband is more observant.

      Even your latest psak that if one parent is more observant than the other it is better for the child chinuch to go with the more observant - is only relevant if there are no other factors. Obviously in most cases including this one there is a lot more critical issues that have to be evaluated before issuing a psak.

      You should read Rav Eliashiv's teshuva reporting abusive parents to the police when the child will end up in a less religious family perhaps even a non-Jewish family. Obviously he wasn't aware of your "psak" when he issued his.

      Delete
    13. I did look at your link to Yoatzot. Rabbi Henkin only discussed uncovered hair in that link, not sleeveless and mini-skirts. (Besides, this grandson of Rav Henkin zt'l is not a big rabbi or anything.)

      That godol hador you referred to was not a godol hador at the time that photograph was taken when he lived in Africa (near Israel). And it was clearly not in accordance with halacha. No one ever claimed otherwise. Besides, that picture only shows partial uncovered hair, not a sleeveless shirt or mini-skirt exposing above the knees. So I'm not even sure why you mentioned it.

      Again, if "community standards" are wearing bikinis or mini-skirts, that is absolutely zero excuse.

      So what other factors should be considered, in your view, that is more important that the children's chinuch?? Perhaps the mother is the abusive parent?

      Delete
    14. try this http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=8267

      I was referring to a different gadol who did not live in Africa (near Israel) and his wife did not cover her hair - and it did not posul him.

      You keep repeating your assertions as if they are self - evident - but they are not.

      As I said - please find me one teshuva that says what you are asserting.

      Delete
    15. It doesn't make uncovered hair allowable because you found a rabbi whose wife had uncovered hair. Besides, the rabbi you are referring to (in New York/Boston) was quite controversial. And he himself said he didn't force his wife to cover her hair due to shalom bayis. He himself said a married woman must cover her hair.

      And all that is besides the point. It doesn't even address Beth's prancing around in a mini-skirt that leaves above her knees exposed and a sleeveless shirt. No rabbi, MO or otherwise, will say that doesn't violate halacha.

      Delete
    16. I looked at your second link to Nishmat. Besides as I said this Rabbi Henkin is no big rabbi, even he is only saying b'dieved b'dieved a tefach. This very weka daas yochid (if even that) notwithstanding, the photo of Beth is almost completely sleeveless, way more than a tefach.

      Delete
    17. yovin that is not the rabbi I was referring to. we are going around in circles.

      Find me a teshuva that agrees with your assertion. Until you do your assertion is meaningless.

      Delete
    18. RDE/DT: The same teshuva that says a woman can't go down 5th Avenue wearing a bikini says she cannot go out with a sleeveless shirt. Where does it say a woman can't go in public with only a bikini?

      Delete
    19. You are totally avoiding the issue. Where is the teshuva that says a woman who is committed to keeping Torah and mitzvos and is following community standards concerning tzenius - is penalized in a custody case?

      Delete
    20. 1) It's intuitive that if one parent does follow halacha and one does not, that point works in favor of the halacha following parent in a custody decision. (Even if that is not the only factor and even if the weight of other factors might change the equation. All things being equal following halacha vs. non following halacha favors the halacha follower for, if nothing else, reasons of chinuch and not causing the child to violate halacha.)

      2) She isn't following "community standards" regarding tznius. It isn't possible to define tznius as including sleeveless shirts (way more than a tefach) and mini-skirts. And there is no frum "community" that has a standard of wearing sleeveless shirts and mini-skirts.

      3) You haven't addressed the impressibility of wearing a sleeveless shirt.

      Delete
    21. I also notice that in the photographs she supplied of her with the children she did not put a yarmulka on her children. That does not bode well for chinuch.

      Delete
    22. Again you are making up allegations with no basis. The more reasonable question is whether the father puts a yarmulka on his children. That does not bode well for chinuch!

      Delete
    23. Yovin you are the classic case of when someone who has nothing to say they pound the table.

      You obviously have no support for your assertions but you keep repeating them as if that makes it true.

      Delete
    24. Yovin, if you hear about a neighbor or friend where the (happily married) parents are not "frum" and you suspect their child is not being brought up with the level of Chinuch that satisfies some arbitrary standard you have set, are you endorsing the kidnap of this child, rehousing him/her with "frum" adoptive parents and then corrupting a court to make this kidnap legal?

      I fail to see how this is any different to the action you are endorsing here.

      Delete
    25. Father is not FrumJanuary 21, 2014 at 1:41 AM

      Yovin, you have absolutely no way of knowing how frum the father is. For all you know, he may eat chazir on yom kippur washed down with a milkshake and a gid hanosheh. However, on the basis that she is seen with sleeves higher than her elbow, you are prepared to take the risk and hand him 100% custody with the mother allowed no input into the children's health, psychological well-being and emotional development.

      I think you are a very dangerous person for even bringing such wild views to the table.

      Delete
    26. RDE/DT: Actually you simply ignore the difficult questions posed to you which you lack a reasonable response to. We know that she dresses in public against halacha, sleeveless shirts etc. And her public halachic violations will hurt the children's chinuch.

      These are two points you simply ignore.

      And I don't see why her failing to put a yarmulka on the children has anything to do with the father who we have no proof to suspect of that or anything else. (Other than unsubstantiated allegations without proof, unlike the mother who there is photographic proof of.) The father sends the children to (Chabad) Yeshiva with a yarmulka.

      Delete
    27. I agree with Yovin. No one has answered the very pertinent questions he's asked. I believe this is because their are no reasonable answers for the reason's Yovin has outlined.

      Delete
    28. Levi in YerushalayimJanuary 21, 2014 at 6:21 AM

      Vehamavin: Your example is a bad comparson to Yovin's point, which is a valid issue here. If the two parents are married and living together, it is what it is. There's nothing to do. (Although, theoretically if the Sanhedrin were around it indeed would be better to take the innocent child out of sinning parents home since they are not providing them with the proper chinuch. And Sanhedrin or any Beis Din with the power to do so very well might have done so.)

      But here if one of the parents is generally frum and one is generally not frum, it is 100% better that the children be with the frum parent if that parent is healthy.

      As to the specifics of this case I cannot speak authoritatively. I don't know the level of frumkeit of the two parents. But I have not seen anything at all documenting the father being lacking in frumkeit, despite the numerous unproved and unsubstantiated hearsay being leveled at him on this blog. On the other hand it is patently obvious that the mother goes around in halachicly forbidden dress.

      Delete
    29. Wow!!!! what does this have to do with the issue of a man who ordered his wife incarcerated in a mental hospital under false claims that she was mentally ill who produced a false report of her being mentally ill to deprive her of not only custody but of normal access to her children etc etc.

      All you keep repeating is how horrible wearing pants are. BTW it seems that owning an iphone is worse or having unfiltered internet etc or voting for Rav Shmuel Auerbach.

      Even regarding pants - the best you can do is fine anecdotal evidence that the Chazon Ish was strongly against them. He was also strongly against shaking hands with women - which I assume that Dr. Schlesinger does on a regular basis. So would you also say that since he probably has an iphone and shakes hands with women - that he is an unfit father and should be denied custody? Why don't you go to Rav Chaim Kanievsky and tell him that all couples where the husband voted for Rav Auebach need to be divorced and the father should be denied access to his kids so that they won't get corrupted.

      In sum according to your repeated assertions and standards it is obivious that neither parent should have access to the children and that a high percentage of Orthodox parents would need to divorce
      ===============
      Please sit to the point - show me one source that a mother should be denied custody on the basis that she wear pants in a community where that is the norm.
      =====================

      Delete
  31. Therr is so much anger and resentment between the parents, but is anyome questioning how the parents feel? At 4.5 years, they can't speak, but even if they could, would tbey be able to express themselves? They are overwhelmed because they can sense from both parents that they are the cause of this! Just for being born! Beth and Michael marriage because they shared similar values and together brought tbese children into into tne world. The marriage unfortunately broke down, as tragically marriages do every day, Orthodox, or not! It is now time for the parents to put their feelings aside and to come to the table, without any preconceived ideas to talk! Just like pious Rabbis discuss these two responsible parents must have mediation for the sake of their precious sons. No threats, no hatred, just pure love for these two gorgeous little boys, who deserve to grow up with love and free of any animosity! Beth, Michael. This is the way forward!

    ReplyDelete
  32. It is important to mediate because if this case is heard in a new court with all its flaws the judge will not look at the father very favourably if he has refused to mediate.
    This is the best way to help the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I absolutely agree. Father: how about a mediator who has nothing to do with either the Austrian judiciary or the Austrian Jewish community? Then you could feel it would be fair. I honestly don't know how you can work each day in the caring profession of medicine with all this hanging over you.

      Delete
  33. The Chazon Ish was asked whether nowadays it is permissible to wear slacks. To this the Chazon Ish responded that in spite it being worn by many, it is absolute pritzus to walk around in such a garment, adding that he was convinced if at the time of the Sanhedrin a woman would have appeared in public in slacks, she would have been brought to Beis Din and stoned for behaving with gross indecency.

    Cited in Orchos Rabbeinu, Vol. 1, page 226.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow!!!! what does this have to do with the issue of a man who ordered his wife incarcerated in a mental hospital under false claims that she was mentally ill who produced a false report of her being mentally ill to deprive her of not only custody but of normal access to her children etc etc.

      All you keep repeating is how horrible wearing pants are. BTW it seems that owning an iphone is worse or having unfiltered internet etc or voting for Rav Shmuel Auerbach.

      Even regarding pants - the best you can do is fine anecdotal evidence that the Chazon Ish was strongly against them. He was also strongly against shaking hands with women - which I assume that Dr. Schlesinger does on a regular basis. So would you also say that since he probably has an iphone and shakes hands with women - that he is an unfit father and should be denied custody? Why don't you go to Rav Chaim Kanievsky and tell him that all couples where the husband voted for Rav Auebach need to be divorced and the father should be denied access to his kids so that they won't get corrupted.

      In sum according to your repeated assertions and standards it is obivious that neither parent should have access to the children and that a high percentage of Orthodox parents would need to divorce
      ===============
      Please sit to the point - show me one source that a mother should be denied custody on the basis that she wear pants in a community where that is the norm.
      =====================

      Delete
  34. Have all the blggers forgotten that it was the father who took this case to the secular court. Therefore it was the secular court who made the decision which was not based on frumkeit. The decision is flawed hence the debate in the British Government. The father has not answered the dentist s questions regarding the teeth as well as why he tried to get the mother comitted and out of the way. I think the new Court will make a decision very different to the last!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother initiated the secular court case.

      Delete
    2. Can everyone agree with me on my below post...

      Whatever has happened in the past, however hard it is for the father he now has to think of his children.
      This is not about the mother or father. This is about their precious boys who deserve to have both parents in their lives. Its not their fault
      They must have loved each other in the beginning to have got married and had children so why make them suffer now.. They didnt ask to be born!

      BOTH PARENTS MUST MEDIATE to save the children growing up in this awful situation.
      Its not about the mother or father its about the BOYS

      Amen

      Delete
    3. Yes Sheila I totally agree 100% because of all the irregularities. If the case was heard in a new court the father could well lose the children altogether which will be very sad for the children and for him. Is he prepared to gamble with the happiness of his children. Havent they been through enough? Isnt it better to mediate now?
      We are all adults. they are little children. Its time to put the children first

      Amen

      Delete
  35. Do you have it on good authority from the father that it was Beth who initiated the secular court proceedings? If so can you ask him to
    clarify the following: The father tried to
    get Beth committed and then a false
    psychological report was I submitted
    to the court. Is he now saying he would
    have preferred to have mediated. If this is so he would not have custody now, which he fought for, albeit throug dubious means. Is he now saying that he would like to mediate to prevent the ugly truth coming out in a new court in front of tbe world and for his own self respect and for the good and happiness of his sons and to bring this whole sad affair to a satisfactory conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too late. Beth lost. She exhausted all her court options. If the Supreme Court of the land ruled against her. It's all over for her. She can rant about human rights, European courts, etc. But she lost it all. The whole world disagrees with her. She can spend the next 30 years fighting and crying in court, but she blew it.

      Delete
    2. V I am sure the father must be a level headed man not as hysterica as you sound. After all he has the custody of two precious little boys. He hasn't denied beth access. He just doesn't like all her publicity and I don't blame him. Isn't it time for him to have a rational conversion ?

      Delete
    3. No, if I would give him advice I'd certainly advise him to do his best to keep beth away from the children and to insure that legally she has minimal access to them. A psychopath who thinks airing her dirty laundry and family issues in the media is a danger to children and thus she should be kept far from them.

      Considering the father's success at all court levels up to the supreme court of the land, he has done a fine job keeping her away. Now that she has exhausted her court options, she has time to reflect on why she lost access to them by all the judges who heard her case.

      Delete
    4. 'V' - You're flinging the word "psychopath" around rather freely for someone who does not at all sound like a qualified psychiatrist - to describe the mother. Your emotional outbursts make me wonder if you even know what a psychopath is! I doubt it very much. Please check the meaning of big words before using them indiscriminately like this. The mother is very clearly NOT a psychopath.

      Delete
    5. v, you sound like you have some issues of your own to deal with. Do you want to talk about your own childhood? Is there something bothering you?

      Delete
  36. Don't you think what you are saying is rather unkind. What would you do if you were in the mother's position. Would you jusy give up on your children who you gave birth to. Is this what you are saying. Don't you think we should try and help these people to communicate for the saku of the sons they brought into the world together

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The father should not give up his children who he fathered. He should give the mom a little more time with the children but he should maintain custody of them.

      Delete
    2. I fully agree. We SHOULD try to help these ppl to whom H' entrusted these two precious neshamas. To see such matters as mere court battles of winner takes all is a huge distortion of all that is holy

      Delete
    3. I think the father should allow them to stay the weekend with their mother,. A few hours on a Sunday is not enough. They must be so confused and not understand. PLUS if mediation could take place now then it will solve any issues for when they get older
      It would be no use the father bad mouthing the mother to the children and vise versa.

      We all need to help for the sake of the boys.

      Delete
  37. v - You are a disgrace to the world. No mother should ever have to lose their children or go through what Beth has
    So tell us what you have quoted above "she has time to reflect on why she lost access to them" Why was that seeing you know so much??
    All the judges know the father. Thats clear to see. He has the backing of all of them and so much evidence hasnt been presented but it will be and then they may have a big problem.
    Its clear that a judge called Thau knew the father from the community and intervened in this case.. isnt that bias??? This UK mentioned on the parliment speach made in the UK last week..
    I think she should be getting worried. I know I would be for sure

    You are very unkind. Like ringachange has said she has carried these boys for 9 months, was their primary carer and now being treated like a criminal
    It is law for the parent with custody to tell the other parent about development, schooling and their welfare
    Beth doesnt know anything.. That is something that the courts will next time round will be aware of
    Thats why mediation is the best option for the sake of the children.

    You clearly are a heartless and selfish person, Infact evil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. poppy - it is you who are a disgrace and a heartless, evil and selfish person for wishing to place these innocent children into the hands of psychopathic mother who could do them harm as she has demonstrated by making these poor children into her pawns in her war chessgame.

      The Supreme Court of Austria judges do not know the father at all. (Nor do the Appeals Court judges) Don't be so paranoid. Stop thinking all the judges in Austria know the father and support the father due to some perceived friendship. The father isn't an all too important and known figure in the entire Austria with its population of 8.5 million citizens. You'd think we're talking about Kurt Waldheim with the paranoia being displayed here and by the bitter ex-wife who lost fair and square in court, which determined the father is a better parent.

      Some dooface MP representing the family making a speech of a few seconds in support doesn't mean much. It is fairly easy to get a local Congressman to support a constituent in a dispute against someone else in a foreign country.

      This father fathered these children and it is obligation, duty and right to bring them up. He should let the mother have a little more time with the children but he should maintain custody of them.

      Delete
    2. I am not saying to take these children away from their father, I am just saying that the mother should be allowed to see the children more often..

      Regarding the supreme court. I am not so convinced that they dont know the father. You will disagree with me but my main concern is the children
      They should NOT be made to suffer. I dont care what you say

      Do you actually know the father as it seems like you do.. There is 3 sides to every story, His side, her side and the truth. BUT there are innocent children suffering and thats not fair.

      Delete
  38. What is custody? Is it one person having control over another. The couple loved each other enough to get married and bring two sons into the world. The father is no more entitled than the mother. There is nothing wrong with the mother. She loved her sons like the father does. The father can't take care of the boys 24/7 . He needs to work. He needs a life! Instesd of hiring help the mother could look after her children. If the father doesn't like the publicity he should start communicating to put matters right
    By just lashing out, and denying Beth contact, he is punishing his sons. The boys have been hurt enough now. It is time to talk!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After reading the comments V posted above, I would be reluctant to place so much as a gerbil in his care, or the fathers care for that matter. They have demonstrated the humanity and soul of a barbarian.

      Both V and the father may think they have won, but they have lost far far more than they realise after reading what they have become. They clearly wish to opt out of the human species.

      Delete
    2. If I have understood this correctly, do commentators like V wish to applaud the father for:

      1) Taking custody away from the mother back in 2011 using illegal means?
      2) Keeping visitation with the mother down to a minimum few hours each week (that are regularly cancelled)?
      3) Bringing down the reputation of the entire Jewish community in Vienna in this age of fast-paced global communication?

      Perhaps I am missing something, but if I had to put money on which person was the psychopath, I think it would be a pretty safe bet to say it is the father.

      The courts finally proved, after extensive, multiple assessments, that the mother neither suffers with any mental conditions nor has suffered in the past. Has the father ever been assessed? Why doesn't he get this done? What is he so afraid of? Is he scared that something from his childhood might be exposed?

      Winning in courts is one thing, but you only get the credit for winning if the court is unbiased and comes to their conclusions based on evidence presented. Given most of the mothers evidence was suppressed by the courts, and given the blatant bias throughout the entire proceedings, it is a bit pathetic to call it "fair and square".

      Delete
    3. ringachange: That's not a bad idea. Instead of hiring a baby sitter the father can "hire" the mother for those hours, instead of a baby sitter.

      Delete
    4. Good idea ADF if the father payd the mother tp babysit. This could counteract the high maintenance the mother has been made to pay having been made to work unreasonable hours in order to do so. Instead of the father employing transiemts who speak a number of languages, the father will have the security of knowing the boys are safe in thr care of a mother who loves them. The boys are entitled to their mother's love and her time could not be better spent. What a good suggestion AFS!

      Delete
    5. Also Seed is right! Did the father win the case fair and square. Someone asked why the British Government are involving themselves in this case. This is their reason. It is rare for a Government to do this and they spent over Half an hour of their precious time and the minister has asked for more information. Government s don't usually get involved in such things but there is a first time fot every thing and it looks like this case is not only setting a precedent because of its nature it looks like it will make history. Just a bit of work to do before it does a lot of sensible ideas are being put forward on this blog. Perhaps the father should consider them!

      Delete
  39. If I were the father I'd be terribly ashamed of the disgrace I've brought on the Vienna Jewish community. From the out-of-control mails from his supporter v, it's to be presumed that the father is behind them. Now if he has a mentor from way back within the community, why is this person not trying to talk sense to him. The father will become an outcast as the truth gradually comes out and the headlines in Vienna tell the whole population of Austria and the rest of the world as well that it's not only other countries where there are the most gruesome scandals withing the Jewish (mostly Chabad) communities.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I believe his mentor is rabbi Josef pardes. He has been a father figure to Mr Schlesinger from a young age.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rabbi pardess is from the mizrachi shul in Vienna. He is originally from Israel I believe. As Schlesinger grew up without a father in his life, rabbi pardes acted as a father-figure, mentor and so much more.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Then wouldn't Rabbi Pardess be the ideal person to play a leading, conciliatory role in this case? His name has not been mentioned so far at all. I feel very sorry for the father that his own father was apparently removed from his life so early. As we're all influenced by our early childhood more than anything else, it could be that being deprived of his real father, who I believe is very much alive but not allowed to have anything to do with either him, his sister or the twins, is the reason this man is behaving in such a heartless way toward his children? But if this is so, how is it that Rabbi Pardess has not been able to influence him?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rabbi Pardess has an email address that is easy to find online, it would probably be a good idea to email him. I am told he often councils young boys who are going through troubling times.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is the story of Mr Schlesinger's father if anyone is interested in some background:

    http://helpbeth.org/jewish-telegraph-22-11-2013/

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have just read on the site the following:

    The visiting centre are closing down. My last visit with them is next Tuesday. Another proposed visiting centre charges even more money per visit and does not offer Tuesday mornings.The father insists the handovers must be supervised but has refused the kind offer of Chief Rabbi Eisenberg to supervise the handovers personally at no cost. He has also refused Rabbi Hofmeister’s suggestion of me seeing the boys at the Rabbi’s house on alternate Shabbatot.

    The father has also refused to allow me to pick the children up from the kindergarten. Nor will he bring the children to my apartment or allow me to pick them up from his apartment. He refuses to communicate directly with me and hasn’t made any suggestions how the visits can continue

    TO THE FATHER- why are you doing this??? I understand you are upset and have your reasons not to like the mother but you are NOT thinking of your boys
    This is so upsetting, How can you be so cruel...
    If you hate your ex wife so much that is NO reason to deprive your sons of their mother

    Action is needed as the father is being so unreasonable

    ReplyDelete

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