On the 14th January 2014, British MPs sat in the House of Commons to discuss the custody case of the Schlesinger Twins in Vienna. Multiple MPs criticised the way the Austrian Courts have handled proceedings and the rulings made by various judges including Judge Susanne Göttlicher who was the judge in the lower court awarding the father 100% custody.
MPs openly called the courts “kafkaesque” whilst another MP claimed “corruption” was the driver behind the judge’s decisions.
There were also questions raised about the involvement of high court judge Konstanze Thau, who has no legal standing in this case, yet was in regular communication with Judge Susanne Göttlicher.
The clip below shows the main points raised during the debate although the full 40 minute film is included at the bottom of this page.
This is unprecedented that the British Government have debated a civil custody case. They see this case as a miscarriage of justice. It's not the time Austria has done wrong! The British recognise it, so will the EU.
ReplyDeleteHe is speaking in front of an almost empty house. 95% of the MPs are not even in the chamber. This is a made-for-TV performance. It is like when US Congressmen speak in an empty Congress except for the C-SPAN cameras, so the Congressman could get some TV time on a little watched channel so he can have something to campaign on, with him hoping to pick up a couple of extra votes when running for reelection by pandering to some special interest constituents.
DeleteYou are totally delusional! When will you accept the facts? What is left that you are still clinging onto?
DeleteHe's correct. The chamber is mostly empty.
DeleteHe's correct. dlc and M are totally delusional.
DeletePlay the above video for yourself. Bear witness with your own two eyes. The chamber, as evidenced in the above video, is virtually empty.
DeleteYouhare just watching a group of MPs who are passionate that there has been a miscarriage of justice, talking to the Minister for Europe. This debate
ReplyDeletewas voted over thousands of requests.
Do you really think these Government
officials would waste their time over
Michael Schlesinger unless they are
convinced there is corruption. This is
the British Government we are talking
about here. This is just the beginning.
Schlesinger should be shuddering in
his shoes and should not dare to put a
foot wrong. He should be falling over
to show he is a reasonable person.
What you just watched is just the
beginning!
Except that they have no role or influence in Austrian judicial proceedings. In fact, not even Austrian legislative or governmental ministers can influence or change a court verdict.
DeleteIn a normal situation you correct , but this is not a normal situation. The judicial have not given sufficient reasoning for their corrupt decision. The British Government will protect their citizen as this is a severe miscarriage of justice!
DeleteIn all Democracies the Judicial system and branch of government is completely independent from the executive and legislative branches, and neither of them have any ability or authority to overturn a judicial decision.
DeleteThe British Government have taken this unprecedented step! Maybe this law needs to be changed if it is felt a court is corrupt or maybe a new case is in order here!
DeleteIf the decision is just, the Austrian Court should prove it. Simple!
DeleteThis is NOT a British government debate but of members of parliament. The spokesman for the British government, David Liddington, who appears at the end of this clip is very circumspect in his comments.
DeleteI was one of the first commentators on this blog to be sceptical about the whole campaign which Mrs. Schlesinger is waging and, indeed, am still not convinced. However, it does appear that the husband is being particularly vindictive in restricting her access to the children even under the terms of the court decision. To be expected to pay to see her own children is scandalous.
Bruce USA's comment is particularly naive. The Austrian courts have proved it by having heard the case at various levels and appeals. It is up to Beth's team to prove that they are wrong.
David Liddington did ask for further information from Beth's lawyers. This case must be resolved for everyone's sake, especially the children. Common sense must prevail and harmony achieved. An option is to go back to Court but why prolong the agony? Good communication needs to happen and increased visiting. The father needs to think
Deletecarefully how he is portraying himself. He can resove the isue so easily for all concerned by being reasonable! If he choses not to, maybe he will not be favored by the next Court!
Brian -- if the father agrees to increased visitation by the mother granting her a good amount of visitation and at no cost to her, would Beth then agree to end all litigation, stop seeking to remove custody from the father assuming the greater visitation rights for her became binding?
DeleteIf so, I agree with Mr. Noffers that he should immediately grant her liberal and cost-free visitation with the children.
If she would NOT agree to legally binding to drop all litigation (and public posturing) against him seeking to take away custody from him, then I cannot fault him for limiting her to the legal minimum while she continues a legal assault against his custody.
I think the best solution is for to come to a legally binding accommodation with each other where she is granted legally binding greater visitation access without any cost to her while she agrees, in a legally binding manner, to drop any and all litigation against him seeking to remove his custody based on her being granted the additional visitation.
Is this the father' suggestion or yours? If it is the fathers then maybe it should be put to Beth.
DeleteBrian, I have to agree with you. It does sound like "Uclair" is the father or someone close to him speaking on his behalf. It can't make sense to "hammer out" negotiating deals here on this site without knowing who is speaking. That would be completely crazy.
DeleteI would imagine the mother would be more than willing to agree to a sit-down legally-binding discussion around a table, but as we have seen, the father is unwilling to even take this step.
I fail to see any reason why the father is not honouring his court-ruled visitation, that should not feature as part of any pre-condition. Contact with the mother is the children's right which the father seems to be confusing as a negotiating chip.
It is unfortunate that he dislikes all the media attention he is receiving, I guess he knows deep-down how to make it stop.
He has shown the world what he is, and even Avi Noffers is repulsed by these actions from the father.
Brian - I want your opinion if that's a fair and just outcome for all.
Delete(If you do, I agree with you. If not, you're likely looking at the continuation of the current situation with no voluntary changes.)
We can't negotiate or discuss what could be acceptable on a blog when we don't know who we are talking to. The father needs to be willing to sit round a table.
DeleteI think Brian has put it exactly right.
DeleteIn the meantime, to suggest the current outcome is fair, and to suggest the father behaving in a disgusting manner, is simply ridiculous.
The father needs to sit down at the proper negotiating table, not an anonymous blog.
So let me rephrase.
DeleteIf the father and mother could reach a legally binding final arrangement whereas the current arrangement is changed to giving the mother liberal additional visitation hours and overnight weekends every other weekend, and removing any fees for her, while legally guaranteeing the father maintain his current status as primary custodian of the children, I would fully support such a change.
If the latter guarantee to the father can be made legally binding I would wholeheartedly support such a change in visitation. If the mother would refuse to guarantee that to the father, then it is difficult to fault the father for not giving the mother what she seeks without receiving those assurances from her.
Uclair, who are you and how do we know you can negotiate on behalf of the father?
DeleteI'm an outside observer offering personal observations. I am not party to either parent nor am I friends with either. I am surprised anyone would mistaken me for a negotiator or party. I wouldn't think they would be posting on a public forum with negotiations.
DeleteAs an outside observer you are failing to notice some very important observations, like the fathers deliberate disregard of the children's visiting rights with their mother.
DeleteThe only people who should be negotiating are the two parents. It is not for you or anyone else on here to put forward proposals for either side.
To show what a reasonable man the father is perhaps he can find an alternative method of handing his children to Beth for their visits
ReplyDeletetogether, illuminating the extortionate
amount she has to pay, Stop
cancelling visits on whim and
providing evidence if absolutely
necessary to cancel and make
provisions for the boys to have regular
over night stays with their mother.
There is nothing the court has to prove. It is Beth who has to prove that what she writes is true.
DeleteWell, the British MPs seem pretty convinced otherwise they wouldn't have spoke so harshly about the case. The multiple independent journalists writing in the international press, including large secular national papers also seem to be pretty convinced. I am sure they would have seen the court papers before publishing anything.
DeleteFinally, to counter what adara says above, the Austrian courts have given no justification whatsoever in their rulings awarding the father 100% custody:
"Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con): This case has caused considerable concern among my constituents. At the start of the hon. Gentleman’s very fine comments, he talked about the Austrian judicial system following the rules of natural justice. Is he aware that in the judgments handed down by the judges there has been no explanation as to why Mr Schlesinger was favoured over Mrs Schlesinger? They simply issued a judgment with no explanation. That surely cannot be in line with natural justice."
The Austrian justice system in this case has failed to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Beth has gone way beyond proving her case, where are the Austrians to prove theirs?
MPs are politicians not judges. Politicians pledge their allegiance to whichever party will deliver the most votes or donate the most money to their political campaign.
DeleteWhich is why judges decide court cases and not elected politicians beholden to special interests.
What natural justice? One out of the two parents have to be given primary custody. This is the case even if you're dealing with two living wonderful parents. At the end of the day, as good as they both are , one will have custody and the other visitation.
There is no reason to favor one parent because of her gender. And courts don't routinely state that the non-custodial parent is bad.
Why have the courts favored the father over the mother for custody? Why has the Austrian court failed to give a clear reason why they chose the father? The fact that they are failing to provide such basic details means that there was probably corruption deciding on the outcomes. The father is so ill-suited as a parent (as can be seen from taking out the children's teeth) that even the corrupt judges couldn't provide even a pretence of a reason why such an individual with previous documented violent behavior should be given custody.
DeleteM, do you take us all for fools???
But has the Court provided proper reasoning for their decision and if so what is it?
ReplyDeleteRead the court documents and rulings. All the answer as spelled out by the judge!
DeleteWe don't have access to the court rulings. We know Mike Freer has read them as he has stated that the rulings provide no reasoning for their awarding custody to the father. If you have access to court papers saying otherwise, please email them to Daas Torah and he can confirm for all of us. Until then, we will have to believe Mr Freer.
DeleteMr. Freer has not made any representations that he has access to the court documents. All he has indicated is that friends of the mother appealing on her behalf have claimed, without evidence, that the court documents don't document the many reasons the court chose the father to award custody to.
DeleteTo suggest an MP will stand up in British parliament and simply echo something they have been told by a member of the public is lunacy! Mr freer obviously had reason to believe this to be the case. Can you show that you know Mr freer's words are untrue. Right now, I have the choice of believing an MP in parliament or an anonymously posted comment on a blog!
DeleteIf you feel strongly, show the relevant document to daas Torah for confirmation.
Until then, you'd be better to keep quiet!
I don't think anyone is saying that politicians can change the decision of the judges but in this case they are taking a special interest which has nothing to do with votes. They want justification to be given for the decision. This case begs to be heard again. The father clearly isn't interested in sitting round a table or offering improved visiting or even keeping to any court order. Can he ever be trusted?
ReplyDeleteM - I have just read what you have put above about one parent having custody and the other visitation and take on board that but what I dont get is the amount of cancelled visits beth has had and also that she is only allowed minimal contact to her children. They should have both parents in their lives and be allowed to have a normal life. Both parents should be able to go to their kindergarten. Both parents should know about their , teeth issued, both should be able to take them to shul and spend shabbats together. why cant the father see that? I dont get it
ReplyDeleteeveryone is saying issues need to be discussed and before the kids are even more traumatised. how can we do this on this forum. will the father email the mother? call her? how can we start communication?
please do this for your kids
I'm fully sympathetic to increased visitation for the mother if that allows the father continued primary custody.
DeleteI am in favor of the father complying with the existing visitation agreement before anything can be discussed. Why are some points of the judges ruling more applicable than others?
DeleteAnd if the father fully and faithfully complies with the existing court ordered visitation agreement, will then the mother be satisfied or will she still be coming back with even more demands? (Such as for demanding to taking full custody.)
DeleteShouldn't the father be complying with court orders anyway? I'm not familiar with Austrian law, but I'm quite sure blackmail is illegal there too!
DeleteGood points Mandy Cohen. Perhaps if the father and mother don't feel they can speak directly at this time, perhaps someone can help to mediate, Hopefully, the father is well intentioned and wants to resolve the situation with out any more animosity.
ReplyDeletejust a thought. would the father not allow 50- 50 custody what I have with my ex husband. just means we both have a say? After reading back the above comments I seem to feel its q blackmail. the mother can have nore visiting if the father has custody. why can't custody be shared and then put an end to all of this? it cant be healthy for anyone
ReplyDeleteDo you demand that all mothers who have primary custody immediately give 50/50 custody to the fathers who only have visitation?
DeleteNo, only in cases where the custodial parent is violent and has shown this by removing the children's teeth.
DeleteThis is clearly not a normal divorce/custody situation as it was discussed in British parliament. There are overtones of corruption and questionable rabbinic behavior here.
Please don't group it with other situations, this case, probably like many others, is unique.
In that case it is good the custody was not given to the violent mother.
DeleteWho B like to identify himself and answer why he is making false claims about Beth. Making false claims is totally unhelpful in trying to find a solution!
DeleteBT if the case goes to a new trial and Beth wins custody,:do you think the father be content with the same arrangement that he is offering her?
DeleteDoes anypne know iif the two little boys are getting their visiting with their mum at the moment? All seems to have gone very quiet. Could this be a lull before a storm?
DeleteI was asked for my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think thar the two parties need to start talking sensibly through appointed mediator/s to find a saisfacory arrangement. If this case goes back into court the court will probably not look favourably on the party who has refused mediation. The cost if court case for each side will be enormous. This money can be better spent on the children. It is time for both mother and father to agree to mediation without threats, so that peace can be found for all concerned.