Over the past 3 years, the inboxes of the leaders of the Viennese
Jewish community have been flooded with emails of requests and emotional
pleas to intervene to help relieve the continued suffering of Samuel
and Benjamin. And yet the so-called leaders continue to bury their heads
and refuse to take responsibility for this tragedy happening on their
doorsteps while the rest of the world looks on in horror and disbelief,
desperately doing all they can to help.
With the writers’ permission to publish them, here are two of the most significant letters that fell on deaf ears:
===================================================
From: Jonathan Arkush
Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Subject: Alexander custody decision
To: Beth Alexander; Rabbi Schlomo Hofmeister; Chief Rabbi Paul Eisenberg ; Raimund Fastenbauer; Ariel Muzicant; Oskar Deutsch
Cc: “‘President’ of British Board of Deputies“
Dear Colleagues and Rabbonim,
I am deeply troubled by the judgment, having been given its key
points by a German speaking relative who read the full decision. While I
am an English rather than an Austrian lawyer, I do not believe our
family law in this area to be dissimilar. I continue to be at a loss to
understand why the Court did not take as its starting position that the
custody of young children should be with their mother.
As I understand matters, the Court stated in the judgment that it
disregarded all suggestions made by the father that the mother was
suffering from any mental illness or should be unfit in any other way.
The basis of the decision was simply that, after two years in the
father’s custody, it was in their best interests that this continued.
This seems to me to be a very inadequate foundation for the decision
that leaves these young children in the custody of the father, which in
effect means child-minders for much of the day, and the mother with such
restricted access. The position is made worse by the father’s tendency
to cancel access visits by the mother.
I hope that I have not misrepresented the Court’s decision, as I have not yet seen a full translation.
I would like to express on behalf of the British Jewish community
deep disquiet and strong reservations about this latest decision.
May I ask my colleagues who lead the Jewish community of Austria to
make any suggestions as to what might be done to bring this deeply
regrettable state of affairs to a just conclusion?
I realise that the Court has made a decision, but is it too late even
at this stage to persuade the father to agree to a community-supported
mediation ? I can assure you that we in England would do all in our
power to assist the process if such mediation could be arranged.
With cordial regards
Jonathan Arkush Jonathan Arkush
Vice President
Board of Deputies of British Jews
========================================
From: Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag
Sent: 10 June 2012 22:42
To: Chief Rabbi Eisenberg,Rabbi Josef Pardes, Chabad Rabbi Jacob Biderman
Cc: Mag Raimund Fastenbauer (Secretary General of Board of Jewish Community Vienna)
Subject: Beth nee Alexander
בס’ד
נחום נתן גוטנטג
רב דק”ק ווייטפילד
Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag
Whitefield, Manchester
M45 7PD
UK
10th June 2012
20th Sivan 5772
Chief Rabbi Chaim Eisenberg
Rabbi Yosef Pardes
Chabad Rabbi Jacob Biderman
Vienna
Kvod Harabbonim hachashuvim shlita
Please pardon me for intervening like this from the outside, but as
you know the case of Beth nee Alexander formerly of Manchester is
causing anxiety.
From our perspective we can see a young lady living far away from her
parents and family, having gone to get married in a foreign country and
community, with that marriage broken down, now deprived of custody of
and access to her children. She finds herself now set against a former
spouse who has the advantage of local family support, natural community
affinity, and knowledge of the civic law situation. Through the
involvement of the civil authorities the mother has lost custody of her
children and is now being deprived of access to them.
It would appear that justification is being made for this situation,
based inter alia on some allegations that there is mental health problem
with Beth or her family.
To an outsider these sound like biased accusations that would tend to
get made in aggravated break down of a marriage. But they are simply
not fair nor just. My wife taught Beth at Yavneh Girls High school in
Manchester . She remembers her as a kindly, quiet and very fine student.
Family Alexander in Manchester is a family with a good name for
solidity and communal involvement. I believe that it is simply an
unworthy slur for Beth and her family to be characterised in a manner
that I understand that they are being portrayed, and most unfair. There
are always two sides in any situation, and one would expect a kehilla
and its leadership to ensure that reasonably fair play is being
maintained. From what it appears in this situation, however, and for
whatever reason, there is an unfairness and an injustice being
perpetrated against Beth, a single woman in a foreign country, without
proper support – pitted against a family, in a community with all the
connections naturally available to them.
I believe that you as the rabbinic leadership of the Vienna kehilla
have it within your power to provide fairness to the situation and
relief to Beth and her family. I write to you collectively dear honoured
rabbonim, to appeal to you – please do that which is in your power to
have this matter sorted in a manner which will reflect fairness and
justice and uphold the good name of the esteemed Vienna kehilla.
The hanhogo of a kehilla is in the joint hands of rabbonim and baaley
battim, and for that reason you will I am sure agree that it is correct
and appropriate for me to write at the same time to the lay leadership
of the kehilla, which as you can I have done.
With many thanks
Bevirkos kol tov
Jonathan Guttentag
1) Rabbi Biderman has made voluntary statements to the court (most notably in May 2012) under his own name (not from the kindergarten office), in support of the father. Why would he do this? He clearly HAS involved himself so it is impossible for him now to claim he is impartial.
2) If Rabbi Biderman’s position is justifiable, why are you defending him under anonymous comments on a blog? Why doesn’t he speak for himself and write a statement explaining his position as a guest blog post. This case has reached a large enough audience around the world with enough people posing genuine questions, for ‘Rabbi’ Biderman to be a man and answer some of them. His silence raises even more questions than the one’s posed to him here.
Until these points are addressed, we all are entirely justifiable in being angry at Rabbi Biderman and his Chabad colleagues for being silent in the face of such an injustice.