Friday, March 28, 2014

Schlesinger Twins: Sarah's guest post regarding Rabbi Biderman

Sarah promised to discuss the Schlesinger Twins case with Rabbi Biderman if I posted his written testimony to the  court from 2012. I have fulfilled that condition  and I am looking forward to her guest post describing that discussion. I would also accept a guest post from Rabbi Biderman himself or from Dr. Schlesinger or one of his supporters.

 Allan Katz  has raised the central issue
R-Biederman, even if the kids were doing well with the father is it not important for the kids to have a relationship with a mother beyond the once a week visits, which have on several times being cancelled- especially at this tender age. Why does the father not remarry - being looked after by 2 fillipinos is not a home for them. Where is the ahavas yisroel for Beth - Is it because she is an outsider , there are no feelings for the plight of the mother. We are taught not to learn from the midos of the people of Canaan - apply this to Austria and Germany. The father is waging a war against his wife on the backs of his kids- he wants custody not because he can provide a better home and family life - 2 fillipinos - but to make Beth's life as miseable as possible. 
There are a number of issues that need clarification (besides those listed below).

1. Was his testimony based on his own observations or was he relying primarily on information from Dr. Michael Schlesinger

2. Does he view himself impartial or is he openly taking Dr. Schlesinger's side against Beth.

3. How does he think the twins are doing now relative to their peers - in language, psychological, social and developmental issues? It is two years since his written testimony have they significantly changed?.

4. Are the twins receiving therapy for their obvious language problems?

5. Is he against Beth regaining custody and why?

==============================



  • Anyone who is brainwashed or corrupt (or both) will always deny it when confronted, just like Sarah has done. She also refuses to comment on the following:

    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.
    Delete



  • when you show me said letters, I will personally call him and ask him!

    hows that?

  • 129 comments :

    1. Rabbi Biderman, Dr. Schlessinger and anyone else is wise for not responding to blogs about the situation. They wisely choose not to further a public spectacle involving two precious little children.

      Questioning why he hasn't remarried yet is absurd. He hasn't found a shidduch yet! Like many other Jews.

      And almost any parent would want custody of their children due to their love of their children. It further demonstrates his love and commitment to them.

      And every child's development, quick or slow, good or poor, is in the hands of Hashem not anyone elses. No one can "blame" a parent for a child's development whatever it is.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. CV why do say that a wise person would not respond to blog about the situation - and then you respond? Are you saying you are not wise?

        Your comments above indicates a major disconnect from reality and are totally absurd. Every child's develop ... is only in the hands of G-d!!!! Why are we "wasting so much money on schools, remedial programs, therapy etc etc? You are claiming that Dr. Schlesinger's actions of removing Beth from her children's live has no impact? That a parent who abuses kids is not responsible for how the kids grow up. What are you smoking?

        Delete
      2. DT: Because I'm across the Atlantic in New York and not personally knowing any of the families. So I am commenting as an outsider looking in sharing a sense of justice and fairness and truth. I'm not constrained as being an involved parent who doesn't want to publicly air dirty laundry and discuss family politics or respond to cheap untruths spewed forth by a bitter ex who multiple courts of law ruled against repeatedly.

        The children DO receive remedial programs and therapeutical help. Yet their development even with that assistance is what it is because of the capabilities bestowed by Hashem upon these children.

        Delete
      3. As an outsider from the US not personally knowing any of the families you probably shouldn't be commenting at all. Your opinion is worthless, because you don't know the details.

        Delete
      4. On the wrong trackMarch 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM

        But for traumatized children, as these two must be, merely remedial programs (where?) once a week and "therapeutical help" (who from?) will never be enough compared to what their mother's love and language input would do for them. CV - you are writing utter rubbish about God having given them their "capabilities" and therefore that is that. REMEDIAL PROGRAMS + MOTHERLY LOVE & SPEECH are what they need, EVERY DAY.

        Delete
      5. @CV it would be helpful if you wrote what you meant. For a self-proclaimed neutral observer who is far away from the Vienna and doesn't know the family - it is strange why you are defending Michael and attackig Beth.

        If you personally don't know these families then how do you know that the twins are receiving remedial help?

        How do you know that everything humanly possible is being done for them?

        Please also point out - since you claim to be totally neutral - what "cheap untruths spewed for by a bitter ex" . 1) that the children don't speak 3 languages with long sentences as claimed by the father 2) that the husband is not a psychiatrist and that his wife is not crazy and belongs in a mental hospital as he claims 3) that the children are not doing well being raised by 2 fillipinos 4) that the mother is not mentally ill and is not an incompetent parent 5) Rebbitzen Rosenberg's claim that the community is afriad to help Beth 6) that Beth didn't try to dump the kids in a mental hospital because simply because she wanted to get rid of them etc etc

        Delete
      6. It is no less strange than commenters from Australia posting here supporting Beth without any first-hand knowledge what's going on in Europe other than what he is fed by Beth.

        Delete
      7. I didn't notice that Beth's supporters from Australia or other distant lands supporting the father and not the "bitter ex wife" while claiming to be neutral. Claiming that he didn't personally know the families but possesed of insider information that the twins were getting complete therapy so that the only missing factor is whether G-d wants them to improve! Strange indeed.

        Delete
      8. As a resident of Vienna, I think I need to provide an explanation of
        DT's (6) above, ie "that Beth didn't try to dump the kids in a mental
        hospital simply because she wanted to get rid of them." The "mental hospital" mentioned here is a renowned Vienna hospital dept of child
        and adolescent psychiatry, including special needs, within a large
        neurological hospital. The head of the dept is a highly qualified,
        well-known child and adolescent psychiatrist, who, like most of his peers,
        is also qualified in neurology and adult psychiatry, and had years of experience at the university hospital clinic.

        I can only imagine that the twins were referred to this hospital by
        another pediatrician, as that is the usual procedure. So I guess Beth took them there on the outside doctor's recommendation. "Dumping them there to get rid of them" would not be an option, so whoever suggested
        this (was it you, "Sarah"?) was either badly informed or of evil intent.That is not normal in Vienna and no hospital would tolerate it. Children referred to this dept have already been noticed by outside doctors as needing specialised help and so they usually come for 1,2 or more weeks for diagnosis and therapy by specialists. The parents play a very important role: they are invited to take part in the therapy once the diagnosis has been established.

        Now if Beth took them to this excellent dept and, as I believe, the father removed them (there is a hospital procedure for this known as "revers", which means that the patient(s) is/are discharged without the medical staff's permission and the person who does this is responsible for any consequences), the boys can never have been examined, diagnosed and given therapy there. This would mean that the father would be responsible for anything that happened afterwards and there would be no therapy for the parents to be involved in.

        Perhaps this is what Dr Schlesinger feared and is the reason why he removed his sons from one of the best places in Vienna to get professional advice. If the doctors there had noticed what looks to the interested observer like a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde personality on his part, he, too might have been asked to get examined. As we know, the appeals court ordered this but it was never carried out. Once again, one comes to the conclusion that the boys are in the hands of a malicious individual whose only concern is that noone ever finds out what kind of person he really is and that the boys should be kept away from their mother.

        What a diabolical person! Not a good Jew at all.

        Delete
    2. Rabbi Biderman needs to tell us why he honours the father ans shuns the mother? Why he has no respect for his Rabbinic colleagues who are trying to bring shalom. Why he has helped the
      father to obtain custody and been
      complicit in denying the childrens
      mother the rightful place in their lives?
      Rabbi Biderman if you want the respect of your colleagues, Chabad,
      your community and the Jewish
      people in New York and around the
      world as well as the secular hierarchy
      perhaps you will be good enough to
      answer!

      ReplyDelete
    3. DT well spoken, indeed. As you actually don't know Mr Schlesinger personally, I suppose this is the end of this terrible smear campaign. You admitted yourself by your comments above, that you are not fit to have an opinion on the matter.I also doubt, that you have met Beth and her kids. What is your relationship and interest in this story?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @Interest you are right that I don't know Dr. Schlesinger personally - but I have seen the documentation which seriously question the validity of taking custody from Beth. I have talked to Rebbeitzen Rosenberg who has been in Vienna and spoken to members of the community and she validates what Beth and the documentation says ( and she took the time to write a letter to confirm Beth's point of view which I posted on this blog). I am a psychologist who understands that the switching of custody from Beth to two fillipinos when they were two - makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! Yes I have met with Beth and am impressed by how she is dealing with this outrageous situation. I have seen videos of the twins interacting with their mother - and it is clear that they love her very much.

        I acknowledge that Dr. Schlesinger has a point of view and I would welcome a guest post explaining that which seems outrageous. But there is so much evidence supporting Beth at this point that I doubt he has evidence that would alter my basic understanding.

        My interest in the story is because I am Jewish and it is obvious that as a Jew I am obligated to do what I can. If you want a detailed discussion of Torah sources to help those in distress - expecially helpless children - you can read my 3 books on child abuse.

        My main concern is that the twins should have an optimal family environment - i.e., be raised by their mother and not two fillipinos. Dr. Schlesinger's bizarre determination to have Beth declared mentally ill has been repulsed by a number of neutral psychotherapists who have found no evidence of depression or schizophrenia that he claims she suffers from. Makes you wonder whether he is projecting

        Delete
      2. RDE: Where have you met Beth?

        The custody was given to the father (any father should have the potential of having custody) not to any filipinos. Mothers who have custody also often employ a baby sitter when they are away or shopping rather than calling the non-custodial father to have the kids.

        Delete
      3. Quite clear to me that he is projecting

        Delete
      4. On the wrong trackMarch 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM

        Who is projecting what Lois?

        Delete
      5. @Zalman your illogical comment is characteristic of Dr. Schlesinger's supporters in this matter. You are claiming that Dr. Schlesinger's employing 2 full time fillipinos to take care of the twins - including taking them to school and picking them up while he has a full time job as a medical doctor provides the same degree of personal parenting that a full time mother who occasionaly uses a baby sitter for a couple hours a week provides?! It is irrelevant that he was granted full custody and not the fillipinos. They are raising the twins instead of their mother - not him.

        Or are trying to say that Dr. Schlesinger only spends a few hours a day working as a doctor while the twins are in kindergarten and the rest of the day he stays home and plays with them?! Which is it?

        Delete
      6. Single working moms with custody also hire a babysitter during the day instead of giving the kids to the non-custodial unemployed father. This is normal.

        Delete
    4. New Zelander...firstly you should learn how to spell New Zealand when choosing to use such a silly title
      Anyway yes I am in Australia, yes I dont know both parties, yes I am neutral HOWEVER
      I am a WOMAN, I am a MOTHER, I am a HUMAN BEING with FEELINGS,...
      I support the universal notion of children being with the mothers and fathers and not being denied their right
      EVEN IF THE MOTHER IS 100% MENTALLY ILL (which I am not claiming she is )
      SHE STILL HAS A RIGHT TO BE WITH HER CHILDREN. 1 IN 5 PEOPLE ARE MENTALLY ILL WORLDWIDE....ON THIS BASIS SHOULD WE FORCIBLY REMOVE ALL THE CHILDREN IN THIS CATEGORY FROM THEIR PARENTS AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE PHILLIPINES BECAUSE ITS CHEAP LABOUR
      Please......
      And since 90% of Phillipinos are Christian lets just let them instill their values into the Jewish ones

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. The mother DOES have visitation rights and DOES see the kids.

        Delete
      2. Zalman must be another member of the Schlesinger family as his/her comments are not indicative of any great amount of understanding of the needs of young children. Are you trying to say a mother should only see her children for a few hrs/week and never give them a bath, read them a bedtime story, say their prayers with them or kiss them goodnight? Never be there in the middle of the night if they wake up crying? If this is how you think - and I think it is - your attitude is particularly sadistic. I hope you have nothing to do with the twins (or any other kids) because people with feelings like this should be kept as far away as possible from children.

        Delete
    5. Sarah perhaps you could also ask Rabbi Biderman why he forwarded confidential emails to him from Beth, expressing her grave concerns that
      Judge Constancz Thau was a friend of the Schlesinger family and a member of the Jewish community was herself
      involved in the case, to Dr. Schlesinger and Judge Thau without obtaining Beth's permission?
      What integrity does this show?
      Isn't this against Halacha?
      Who's side is Rabbi Biderman on?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Rabbi Biderman really illegally forwarded confidential mails to the father and to that judge from the Jewish community who bizarrely became involved in this case on the father's side although she had no right to be on anyone's side at all? Is there evidence that Rabbi B. actually did this, Michael? Reading on this blog about so many horrific aspects of this case causes me to wonder how many members of Chabad in Vienna and of the Jewish community have committed acts in its course which are on the wrong side of the law. Do you know, Michael, if the judge reacted to Rabbi Biderman's ill-mannered, illegal behavior? Or if Judge Thau has had to answer for hers? Googling leads to accusations that she may have abused her authority several times in recent years.

        Delete
    6. To the naive bible basher (CV) who says that everything is in God's hand. What a total crock of ****. If you do believe in God you will also know that God does not tend to make things appear out of nowhere - we all develop and grow and achieve through the miracles of loving parents, nuturing, care and the ability to use our own judgement to speak out for those less fortunate than ourselves.

      Are you advocating that anything anyone chooses to throw at us is God's will and that nobody should interfere? In the same vain, if someone were to come into your home and take all your stuff, attacked your family and left them for dead, would you happy accept that as God's will? What about the rest of the 613 mitzvot, particularly those which are between fellow human beings?

      I know Beth and her family personally and I know how long this situation went on with her bearing it all quietly before she reluctantly started going public, purely through desperation to help her children. Her family are quiet, dignified people - do you think they are enjoying this frenzy of publicity???? It's also interesting to note that the whole situation could be more clearly understood if her former husband and those who support him were to make a statement to justify their actions. But they won't do that, which only serves to indicate that they simply cannot justify their position.

      It also doesn't take a genius to look at these poor children and see how far behind their peers they are in terms of cognitive development.

      So to bury your head in the sand, turn your back and not show one iota of compassion or curiousity in the face of what appears to be a horrific injustice in the self righteous belief that it somehow makes you a truly religious person, is frankly a disgusting abuse of Torah and a Chillul Hashem. It is people like yourself who have led to the passive acceptance of domestic abuse, child molestation and neglect that plague the Orthodox community and is a stain on our religion.I'm sure your perverted interpretation of faith helps you sleep easy at night, just in the same way a security blanket helps a naive child.

      Benjamin - Manchester

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I agree heartily with you, Benjamin. Not only CV but also Rabbi Biderman, through his silence, are giving their approval to some of the worst possible kinds of family behavior. They should be criticizing and ostracizing a father who is known to have been a tyrant to his unfortunate young wife from outside the Vienna community (there are enough witnesses to his violent behavior), but through NOT doing this, are condoning his aggression and his abuse of his own children (by depriving them of their mother).

        Delete
    7. It is very simple: Beth MUST publish the courts' reasons for their decision, which she has obviously received as being the active party involved. In the beginning, I thought poor woman. Naturally the kids should be with their mother. But, the more this really bizarre PR campaign evolves, the more I start doubting her story. It lacks credibility. She she publishing some very selective bits of the court's protocols, that are completely inconclusive and are open sometimes to interpretation or are simply wrongly translated. Is she fooling us??? If she wants people to continue to support her, she must PUBLISH the court's reason given for their final
      decision.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I agree with Simple, though with less anger

        Delete
      2. @ Simple, those of us who know Beth and her family personally have no doubt whatsoever that everything she says is the truth. But from what we've all seen of the father's supporters on this blog (and maybe of the father himself), in particular an extremely obnoxious one who called him- or herself "Bubbe", I don't believe there is any reason to believe a single word they say. There is a great difference between people who make a sincere, loving, warm impression like the Alexanders from Manchester, and those who totally lack any kind of empathy, like the father's supporters (evidenced by what they write on this blog). We, Beth's friends and family, will never stop supporting her, no matter what is published or where - for the sake of Sammy and Benji. Going by what we know about domestic violence, sociopathy and the abusive happenings in various Chabad communities around the world, we are convinced that Beth and her boys are the victims of all of these and more. The failure of the community in Vienna to enable a foreigner and her children to receive comfort and love when in dire straits for the above reasons is shattering.

        Delete
    8. Simple im not sure she is allowed to publish it. But if she is then i think you have a point there. We need to understand the court's logic for such a drastic and dramatic act.
      I personally have a gut feeling that the mother is the good and the father is the bad.

      ReplyDelete
    9. Why doesn't the father publish the Courts decision, togwther with their reasoning? If it is fair and he feels it is justified, surely it would be in HIS
      interest to do so!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Court Reasoning also has a pt.

        We should get all the relevant court information if we are to form a reasonable opinion. All this passionate posturing and mud slinging for one side or the other is stoking sinas chinam. The basic issue is a valid one for the public to be exploring: IS THERE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT THE MOTHER WAS NOT CAPABLE OF RAISING THE CHILDREN HEALTHILY, or not. And if not, then why was a full time working father given custody?

        Delete
    10. Gut feelings are irrelevant here - we need facts. I agree with Simple. Let us first see the court's verdict, then we talk. Surely, she is allowed to publish it. Everything else she was also allowed to publish.

      ReplyDelete
    11. It is the mother waging the PR campaign, not the father, of whom no one has ever read nor heard any comment. Therefore, if she wants to be believed, she has to publish the reasoning indeed. Fully agree with Simple's comment.

      ReplyDelete
    12. I dont think either party is allowed to publish this legally. I believe in austria its against the law but not sure about Beth as she is british.
      Either way this is a very sad case where.the children should be allowed access to both parents and should stop being punished. How sad for them

      ReplyDelete
    13. Vienna's Corrupt RabbisMarch 29, 2014 at 11:49 PM

      There have been enough official documents published on this blog so far to give a very clear indication of what has happened. Austria's corrupt courts and corrupt Rabbis have a lot to answer for.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Vienna's Corrupt Rabbis We certainly have a pretty clear picture of what happened, both in the Schlesinger family and in the courts. The British parliamentarians grasped the situation easily, as, it seems, did experts like Rabbi Eidensohn and AllanKatz. Anyone who knows anything about gender studies and family dynamics will also have got the point fairly quickly. There appears to be no other explanation for Sammy and Benji's catastrophic lifestyle than that unnamed individuals from the Vienna community succeeded in influencing the family court judge.

        Delete
    14. The docs Beth has published are indeed very inconclusive and very one sided. There is no clear indication at all what has happened. If she wants to be taken seriously, we need better proof.

      ReplyDelete
    15. I'm back and no, there will be no guest post from me. If you look at the original exchange, where everyone was all afire about how Rabbi Biderman claims the poor boys speak 3 languages fluently, I asked for proof of this claim and said that I would then personally speak with him and ask him about it.
      However, as we have seen, Rabbi Biderman's statement is far from an evaluation of the boys' abilities. It simply states that they are doing well in kindergarten. From this document, everyone is engaging in this serious breach of hilchos lashon harra?! Because the children are doing okay in school? Because he has the audacity to claim the truth?! A truth that apparently hurts the mother's case so much, everyone would prefer the truth be otherwise- that the kids suffer?
      In this document, Rabbi Biderman shows impartiality and simply states factual info.
      But no! That doesn't sit right with the apparent haters who read this blog! Let the lies and distortions evolve (and devolve) until we make the Rabbi! the community! Vienna! into the terrible villains we want them to be! Truth or not, we will paint them the way we choose to see them.
      Rabbi Biderman has not helped the father obtain custody, he has simply spoken the truth about the children's state while at school.
      Pro Beth people, you have only hurt your cause! By maligning Rabbis and communities -as we have now seen, without cause- you have alienated many, myself foremost among them.
      Earlier I said I was eager to help Beth regain custody if there was any specific plan in place. Regrettably, your bullying tactics have made me want to disassociate myself with anything related to Camp Beth.

      I am leaving this site. Feel free to twist my words, like so many of you insist on doing regardless of facts, but the truth stands,


      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. let's be sensibleMarch 30, 2014 at 1:27 AM

        Shame on you Sarah. This is not Michael v Beth. This is the future of their children we are discussing here! If Rabbi
        Biderman made a statement saying the boys were doing well but hid the truth that in your own words "they are
        below par" then Rabbi Biderman has the
        responsibility of making sure that appropriate professional evaluations are periodically
        done on ths boys to assess
        their needs. Are these done
        and why can't they be shown
        to Beth so that she can be
        assured that her children are
        receiving the best help for
        their needs. Also why are they not able to speak at almost 5
        and what help they are
        receiving and how the boys
        can be helped when they go
        home to the father or to Beth?
        Let's be sensible Sarah!

        Delete
      2. @Sarah you are the one who is twisting words. Where was it claimed that Rabbi Biderman was the source that the twins spoke 3 languages? The comments prior to your make no such assertions as you can see from the top of this post.

        Your hysterical response is not the result of the pro-Beth twisting etc but because of some realistic questions that were raised concerning Rabbi Biderman's motivation for voluntaring information to the court.

        You comments are further indication that Dr. Schlesinger supporters are not able to answer reasonable questions about a disturbing case.

        Bottom line you originally requested that Rabbi Biderman's letter be published on this blog and if that was done you would speak to him. I simply noted the questions that would be appropriate to ask him. Your tirade simply isn't helping resolve this issue.

        Delete
      3. Sarah How could Rabbi Biderman tell the Court, that the children were doing well, when they were unable to
        speak coherently at 3 years old (still can't at 5)
        and were self harming?
        Perhaps you should ask him to comment, as you promised!

        Delete
      4. On the wrong trackMarch 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM

        Sarah, why don't you tell readers who it actually was who claimed the boys could speak 3 languages? We know for sure that it was the pediatric neurologist they see (saw?) in Vienna's 9th district. And his staff, eg a speech pathologist, made remarks about where the boys should be living! A speech pathologist! Her job is to deal with their speech problems, not which parent they should be with! And then Rabbi Biderman stated for the court that they had settled in and developed psychologically in kindergarten, WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT STATE THEY WERE IN WHEN THEY STARTED OR ABOUT THE STATE OF THEIR SPEECH. All of this looks to me like there was someone in the background, giving a pediatric neurologist, a speech pathologist and Rabbi Biderman INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT TO WRITE and each of these professionals took the dictation at face value. Rabbi Biderman should have met the boys personally (children are the most important members of the community) to confirm what he was being told by the director of the Chabad kindergarten (Chanie Eidelman) and the other 2 should have been sufficiently critical NOT to have believed what someone (who????) was dictating to them. I believe there were also other people who made misleading statements to the court about the twins, possibly Rivka Mendelssohn and Batya Binyamini. Seems to me like there is a den of iniquity operating within Chabad in Vienna - shame on you all!

        Delete
      5. Either a. everyone in vienna is engaged in a massive cover up operation claiming the twins are happy at school - or b. they actually are.

        which is more likely? And what motivation would so many people have to say "a lie"?

        fact is, according to what eyewitnesses have seen, the boys are doing well in school. Whether they would do even better in the care of their mom is a very different question. So, Rabbi Biderman was accurate, and honest. Nothing to discuss

        Delete
      6. How do these eyewitnesses know the boys are "doing well in school" if they have never been examined psychologically, eg at the hospital mentioned here somewhere, that their father apparently took them home prematurely from? Or are the teachers at the school psychologists or even child psychiatrists?

        Delete
    16. Did I read on an earlier Daas Torah blog, that when Beth entered the kindergarten one time, the Director of the kindergarten Rivka Mendelsohn, informed the father she was there. Was that 2012 the same year Biderman made his statement to the courts saying his director of the kindergarten informed him the children were developing well psychologically? Can we assume then, that it was Rivka Mendelsohn. If it was you Rivka Mendelsohn that reported to Rabbi Biderman in order for him to do a statement to the Court, are you brave enough to come on Daas Torah and state what your professional qualifications are please. If you do not, then everybody can presume you are not a qualified Psychologist.

      ReplyDelete
    17. The proof is in the courts decision and reasoning. Can anyone give any reason why Beth should not be given more access to her children?
      If the father feels he is being reasonable in denying his children their mother, he must give his reasons!
      If he is standing by the courts reasons he must say what they are!
      If the father does not respond this, the
      media campaign will continue, not only  by Beth, but by her supporters.
      You will never shut us up until we hear
      the truth. Why are Sammy and Benji
      being denied their mother?

      ReplyDelete
    18. where is my comment?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Sarah it appears above. I don't spend all my time moderating posts and sometimes there will be a delay before I get to them. It is rather strange that you have taken the trouble to reply to many comments but now all of a sudden after I fulfilled your condition for speaking to Rabbi Biderman by posting his letter - you become hysterical and announce you are leaving this site. As a psychologist I would say that is pretty strange and indicative of something significant that you are concealing.

        Delete
      2. Sarah, you have not honored your proposal of speaking to biderman if his letter was posted. This is typical behavior of those in Vienna against justice. They twist their words and deny the undenyable. Is it any wonder no one believes a word that comes out of the Vienna camp?

        Delete
      3. Sarah said she would speak with Rabbi B. after proof was produced that he supports the father. I too, fail to see where he writes that he supports the dad. kids okay in kindergarten does not equal support for dad.

        seems to me that dt is not vey objective

        Delete
      4. Of course Rabbi Biderman supports the father with his remarks! He only wrote positive comments, just like teachers often do on school report cards, so as not to get the parents too worried. So from his comments we don't really know anything about the boys' achievements or deficiencies. If Rabbi Biderman had wanted to be neutral, he would have informed himself about the twins by chatting with them or reading a story together or playing with them. I see no evidence of any of those activities in his statement so this immediately makes me suspicious of his intentions and lack of meticulousness.

        Delete
      5. let me get this straight. anything positive, even if it's the truth, shows support of the father and cannot be told/spoken/written/relayed?
        And if Rabbi Biderman had chatted with the boys and then wrote something positive, it would still be -as you say- in support of the father?
        Rabbi Biderman is not a kindergarten teacher or psychologist and he was not asked by the court to provide his assesment of their abilities. He was probably asked how they are doing in school. To answer that question, he asked the relevant parties and recorded their response. How in the world is that supportive of the father?
        Why would the court ask a Rabbi about the twins development? They wouldnt. They would ask how the twins are faring in school .

        Is that clear enough?

        Delete
    19. In response to this comment: nyone who is brainwashed or corrupt (or both) will always deny it when confronted, just like Sarah has done. She also refuses to comment on the following:

      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.

      I claimed that I'd talk after seeing proof. I have seen no proof that he is in support of the father. The fact that he writes that the children are doing well, is presumably in response to the court requested to know how the children are doing at school. They are doing well, so he presented that. How is that support of the father, again?

      ReplyDelete
    20. I am not hysterical but I am fed up. Distortions and name calling and lashon hara are never okay without a clear reason. Tell me how this helps the boys.
      And as a psychologist, I'd have to say you are way off base. Best to stick with the motzi shem ra.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. When someone becomes very emotional and starts making statements which are not directly a response to the discussion under hand that it is not off base to say that something being concealed has been triggered. Your baseless claim that this is simply lashon harah and motzi shem rah is clearly an emotional - not rational response.

        No one is saying anything different from the beginning of the discussion - and yet your response is clearly overwrought. Your response is not the rational cogent one that has characterized your response up until now. If you can calm down - perhaps we can return to discussing the issues.

        Delete
    21. Sarah the only person who is behaving rationally and reasonably here is Beth. All she wants is to be a mother to her sons and there is no reason why anyone can deny her this right!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. how is beth behaving reasonably? by attacking a community and rabbi, she'll get her boys?

        sure, let her go for it.

        Delete
    22. On the issue of whether or not the mother, Beth, receives sufficient time with her children, nowhere to my knowledge has this DT blog or Beth's own blog said how much time the court awarded her in visitation.

      Without this vital piece of information none of us here can judge whether she is being treated fairly.

      Once we know how much visitation time she has we can compare that to the many other divorced couples of how much visitation time the non-custodial time typically receives on average and what the normal range of time is.

      From the little that has been posted it is apparent than Beth receives visitation more than once a week. I think something to the effect of one weekend day every week plus a full weekend every few weeks.

      If so, that seems pretty much in the range of what non-custodial parents typically receive. And indeed she may be receiving above average visitation time than other non-custodial parents.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. On the wrong trackMarch 30, 2014 at 9:54 AM

        Zalman - first you state that we don't know how much time Beth has been allotted for visitation and then you comment on what you think the situation is! If you don't know, there is no point in posting here on this topic at all! And when you finally find out, it will be necessary to take into consideration that these children were brutally separated from their mother, which can have significant effects on speech development. They would thus require considerably more time with the person who normally floods her children with language - the mother - than other children who are able to speak in an age-appropriate manner.

        Delete
      2. Beth receives more visitation with the children than most non-custodial divorced parents do. She should be very happy.

        Delete
    23. Zalman it seems that you know what limited visiting Beth has with the boys. You are probably aware from previous blogs that the father frequently cancels
      visits for various reasons.

      He also makes the handover arrange ments so difficult making Beth and the
      two boys travel long distances to
      meet. He has refused generous offers
      from the chief Rabbi of Vienna to do tbe handover, locally, for free. He
      would rather that the handover
      happens at a supermarket where Beth has to pay 50 euros each time to see her sons!

      This is not a normal case that you refer to. These children are not thriving in
      the care of their father. They were
      doing well in the care of their mother
      for two years and photos show them
      with beautiful front teeth.

      Since they have been with the father they have had a total of seven teeth
      removed. Benji had another one removed two weeks ago! Highly irregular at their ages. Bad hygiene?

      The boys are below par and cannot speak coherently in any language
      although they will be five in May!

      They have had numerous therapies in the three years they have been with the
      father, including horse therapy!
      The only therapy left to try is mother therapy.

      Any intelligent person can see that the
      boys are not thriving without their
      mother! In their verbal silence
      they are shouting out for her!

      It is time for the father and the courts
      to realise they got it wrong! The best
      place for Sammy and Benji is with their
      mother.

      The father, an intelligent doctor, needs to put a stop to this fight and do the
      best for his sons who are not thriving
      in his care and need their mother.

      He needs to stop being selfish and do the right thing for his sons and let Beth be a mother to them.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Brian has stated the obvious. His evaluation is correct. The children belong with the mother. Period.
        The father's behavior is despicable, starting with his ideas and ways of being a husband to his holy wife.
        The Beth campaign, conducted with lashon hara, insinuation, unfounded accusations, insult, lies and obfuscation has mortally wounded her case and alienated this one here who stood on the front lines to help her.
        Both parents' behavior was directed primarily at wounding the offending ex-spouse using the children's welfare as the weapon.
        After all is said and done the last words will follow the lines of Dr MS was a horrid husband, Beth was an inadequate wife, the children were developmentally not doing well and instead of pulling together they accused and blamed one another in an escalating cycle of at the very least verbal abuse. The children were removed from this toxic environment and given to the care of the parent whose life centers in Vienna as opposed to the foreign wife who would surely take them to the house of her father as it is written.
        This is a bias of the courts which I still fail to understand. Sancta terra and sancta sangua clearly at odds with one another.
        No amount of smearing and screaming is going to address this.
        I repeat here for the umpteenth time. This is a civil court matter. The civil law has been breached. The children were awarded to the local parent.
        This case belongs with a top notch public international law attorney who will have to address the conflicting laws of Britain, the country of the mother's birth and Austria, the country of the father's birth and residence.
        This entire campaign has shot Beth in the foot, imo, and wasted valuable time and energy in what will never be rewarded. No one can force anyone to do anything, ever. This campaign is hurtling down the wrong path.

        Delete
      2. The children were removed from this toxic environment and given to the care of the parent whose life centers in Vienna as opposed to the foreign wife - Gila not sure - kids taken from the mothers custody
        Maybe we can argue about tactics, but the voices here are also calling upon the rabonim and the community to empathize with the mother and kids. The bias of the courts has more to do with connections than philosophy.

        Delete
      3. No wonder the father was granted custody. If the mother had custody planned to run off to England with them, away from the city they were brought up in and away from the city the parents marriage was consummated and lived in, and away from the father's city of residence, then he was rightfully awarded custody to prevent her from moving far away with the children.

        Delete
      4. @Brav your logic is exquisite. Obviously in any case where one spouse is an outsider we must award custody to a member of the home team to prevent the kids from being raised elsewhere. You obvioiusly view the children not only the possessions of the father but also of city where they were born. The basic idea that priority should be given to what is good for the children - is missing from your mind. I'll tell you a secret - children are not like dogs or pet canaries.

        Delete
      5. It was suggested above that Beth may have intended if she had been awarded custody of moving with the kids to England. That is what my comment was in response to.

        Usually a custodial parent cannot move far away from where the marriage and upbringing of the kids were so that they would be living far away from the non-custodial parent.

        Delete
      6. @Brav I was the one who suggested a challenge to Dr Schelsinger to motivate him to take the court ordered psychiatric exam which he has in defiance of the court - failed to take.

        I proposed that this custody case should be decided on the basis of his psychiatric exam. If he passed it then he should retain custody and Beth should stop fighting it. But if the test shows he has serious issues then Beth should be awared full custody and allowed to return to England with the twins.

        I haven't heard anyone claim that Beth threatened to run off with the twins or in anyway go against what the courts ruled.

        Delete
      7. Brav If your logic is that the court gave the father custody so that Beth will not be able to take jer children to her native country? why did they limit her visits with
        the them?

        Beth still lives in Vienna and has done so for nine years, so don't use this as an excuse.

        The boys are entitled to loads
        more time with their mother!

        Delete
      8. @Brav I was the one who suggested a challenge to Dr Schelsinger to motivate him to take the court ordered psychiatric exam which he has in defiance of the court - failed to take.

        Do you have documents proving that he was so ordered and has in fact refused?

        I am so far seeing a lot of propaganda, and a lot of unsupported statements. I think for people to take this at all seriously facts, actual documented facts need to be presented.

        So far the the only actual documented fact that I have seen is a Rabbi's letter. Forgive me if I disbelieve the video of the children, but given enough time, enough recording and some fancy video editing and we can easily make a video depicting the behaviors we want in children.

        So you have made this assertion that he was ordered by the court to take a psychiactric exam, and that he has refused. Please provide the documentation to back up both of those claims so that we may see what the actual truth is.

        Delete
      9. Goodness, Brav, I hope you're not married to a "foreigner". You sound like one of those awfully narrow-minded guys that women should beware of. There are masses of children whose parents are separated and who live in 2 different countries. Their vacations are arranged by taking it in turns in the countries of residence of their parents. "Running away" is hardly the correct expression! Gives away your ignorance!

        Delete
      10. Rabbi Tzadok
        On this blog we have repeatedly asked the father for the reasoning for the Courts decision. If he feels
        he has a right to the children and
        feels it in their best interest that
        they have limited visiting with her
        Don't you think he should
        presenting these reasons at least
        to respected Rabbis such as
        yourself, Rabbi Eidensohn, Rabbi
        Kennard. To date we have seen
        no grounds for the Courts
        decision. Meanwhile the children
        are behind par and cannot speak
        coherently in any language and
        mysteriously have missing teeth.

        Where is the justification to deprive two young children of their mother?

        Delete
      11. Lauren

        I would take the court docs from anywhere. However, why would the father engage on this blog? Not for nothing but this blog has very much become part of the PR campaign against him, and seemingly without having ascertained all of the facts. He has no reason to believe that he would be dealt with evenly or fairly.

        Meanwhile the children are behind par and cannot speak coherently in any language
        Says who? Have they been evaluated by a neutral child psychologist, or are we going on a clip of a home video that the mother put up?

        mysteriously have missing teeth
        Again says who? There is another respected Rabbi, who is in charge of the kindergarten where the children attend that says:
        They further claim that this is demonstrated by the fact that Samuel needed a number of teeth removed. I refuted these claims

        It appears that he is saying that they have not had teeth removed. Where is the proof to the contrary where is the documentation?

        Where is the justification to deprive two young children of their mother?
        Great question! I would like to see the justification. Three different courts however, have seen fit to rule that way. I would like to see why they feel that such is the case.

        Delete
      12. Thank you Rabbi.

        Photos show Sammy without his front four teeth. No reason has
        been given why

        Beth was not told and only found out when she collected him on a visit. For some reason Beth is
        given no information about the
        boys welfare or education. She
        finds as she sees.


        Witnesses in Vienna have verified that the children can't speak
        coherently, lack condfidence and
        do not behave like other children
        of similar age.

        Rabbi where is the courts
        reasoning for their decision. Jonathan Arkush of the British
        Board of Deputies has looked at the decision and has made a public statement that this case is a severe miscarriage of justice
        and a stain on Austria. Why
        should an eminemt Barrister and
        Vice President of such a
        respected Organisation involve
        himself and make a public
        statement of this nature if he did
        not believe it to be true.
        There are many questions that
        still need to be answered.

        Delete
      13. Rabbi Tzadok, the father has engaged here on numerous occasions, but always using a pseudonym! How do we know? He has an aggressive style that is easily recognisable, although of course we are only making educated guesses every time he posts. As his mother tongue is German, his English is also recognisable as that of a non-native speaker. I imagine we have all communicated with him directly over past months. If only he would pen a guest post under his own name though! Then we could engage in friendly discussion with him instead of needing to be so critical of his refusal to explain why he is not permitting his sons to see their mother more often.

        Re the boys' language: I believe there are people in the community who refer to the boys as "retarded" behind their parents' backs and there are certainly many who have actually experienced the twins personally. If someone has spent a whole day with them (the 6 or so hours ordered by the court), it's easy to conclude that their speech is both developmentally very behind because of the trauma they've suffered, and that impediments are obvious, probably because of the missing teeth. A proper psychological evaluation, as was to have been carried out at the neurological hospital the mother wanted to have them admitted to but the father prevented, was ordered by the appeals' court but never performed. This should be done - there is no doubt - but until such time as it is, those who see the twins are able to come to a few lay conclusions.

        Children's baby teeth don't normally fall out till around the age of 5 - could be a bit earlier or later. So if some of the boys' front teeth were missing at the age of 2, how did it happen? Were they knocked out (of both) in an accident, did someone "king hit" them, did they just fall out, were they surgically removed, did one of their carers "treat" their trauma by giving them a bottle of sweetened milk? Enough people have noticed this for it to be hard to believe that the teeth are not missing (or have we another case of the Emperor's new clothes?). Rabbi Biderman refuted not the claim that the teeth had been removed but the assertion that the children were in "a very bad state' or endangered by their father because "Samuel needed a number of teeth removed".

        As far as I'm aware, the 3 courts either did not give any reasons at all or gave reasons which were patently absurd to justify their depriving the mother of her sons. One of them may have had something to do with her - like the majority of people in the UK or other parts of the British Commonwealth - not being skilled enough to insert a suppository into 2 screaming (with pain) children in the deliberate absence of the father on the 8th day of their lives.

        Rabbi Tzadok, I know from the Internet that you support other children who are forced to obey rules imposed on them by irrational adults. I'm sure you would also want these unfortunate little boys to be happy, which children who have been torn from a loving mother will never be. If one reads the testimonies of victims of church, Chabad and many other kinds of institutional abuse, it's clear that their suffering pursues them their whole lives.



        Delete
    24. Beth's visitation rights are detailed here:

      http://helpbeth.org/custody-decision/

      This visiting arrangement is far less than most non-custodial parents. No overnights and no weekend.

      It should also be noted that the father regularly cancels these vists without explanation:

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/schlesinger-twins-documentation-of-dr.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/schlesinger-twins-another-cancelled.html

      Zalman, please check your facts before posting again.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. We know the father cancels because beth claims so? That's proof?!

        Delete
      2. @disbelief it is bad enough that Dr. Schlesinger falsely claims that Beth is crazy but now you are claiming that she is a liar and forges documents!

        Or perhaps you didn't bother reading the previous comment. Please look at

        http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/schlesinger-twins-documentation-of-dr.html


        From: Christine Schlotter
        Date: 2014-03-09 19:08 GMT+01:00
        Subject: AW: Besuchscafe Aneli mj. schlesinger
        To: Beth Alexander

        Sehr geehrte Frau Schlesinger,
        ich bin nicht sicher, ob ich Ihnen schon gesagt habe:
        Herr Schlesinger kann die Kinder am 16.3.2014 nicht bringen.
        Nächster Termin ist 23.3.2014 9:00 Uhr.
        Mit freundlichen Grüßen
        Christine Schlotter
        ==================================
        translation

        Dear Mrs Schlesinger,
        I an not sure if I already told you:
        Mr Schlesinger cannot bring the children on 16. 3.2014.
        The next appointment is 23.3.2014 at 9am,
        Kind Regards,
        Christine Schlotter

        Delete
      3. Does Beth receive any Yomim Tovim during the year? She only described the weekly schedule.

        Delete
      4. Rabbi Eidensohn we have seen on this very blog how a certain former millionare used false email addresses to email you, and even himself, documents.
        Can you please post this with the full header, as that will help in ascertaining it's authenticity. Likewise can you please give an explanation as to who Christine Shlotter is and how she is involved and part of the chain of communication.

        Delete
      5. Rabbi Michael Tzadok:

        Of which former millionaire do you speak of?

        Delete
      6. Rabbi Tzadok: this is interesting. Are you claiming that perhaps Lev Leviev mailed documents to Rabbi Eidensohn? But he's surely still a millionaire (and more), so it can't be him. LL (or whoever this wealthy person was) also mailed himself documents? I find this a little hard to follow.

        Are you implying that the mail from the visiting centre Aneli, where the boys are now handed over, might be a fake and actually sent to Rabbi Eidensohn by this mysterious former millionaire? To be honest, I don't understand what this person could have to do with faking mails to the mother from the visiting centre. Frau Schlotter is apparently the qualified individual (in childcare or similar) who supervises the handovers. The mail has not been scanned and so could possibly not be equivalent to the original. However, as the father has evidently failed to appear with the boys/ one boy on over 50 occasions (mother's statement), it seems very likely that Frau Schlotter in fact did write this mail.

        Delete
    25. Pnina if the father does not do the right thing for his boys, there is so much publicity on this case that the boys will know how the father and the court
      denied them their mother.


      They will grow up to make their own decisions and probably hate their
      father, just like Michael hates his own father! Why does the Schlesinger
      family create so much hatred?

      What will happen to Michael's career? Time passes fast. Children grow up
      quickly. Sammy and Benji will not
      remain little boys forever, in the clasp
      of their father. They will not even have
      to listen to the courts. They will be able to make their own decisions.

      Look at the damage that is being done
      to them in the meantime. If reasonable
      action is not taken for the good of the
      boys. It will be the boys and Michael who suffer, not Beth, because she is
      doing her best for her sons!

      If Michael wants to inflict pain on himself, that is his choice. Why doed he chose to inflict pain on his sons when we have seens tons of photos showing the fantastic activities Beth does with the boys and most importantly how happy they always are when they are with her.

      ReplyDelete
    26. To the Jewish community of Vienna ,
      RDE has provided you a safe place to be ' mocheh' - to protest against injustice and express support for the plight of a Jewish mother and the suffering of her twins. It is also a safe place to convince us that the reality is different. By not using this blog – we hear your silence and of course Hashem sees and hears the silence as well.

      ReplyDelete
    27. How can you say fro the outside what causes a development delay?

      As a serious psychologist, you should be aware that you cannot tell based on the facts you have on hand.

      If you found out that the children just have different talents than other children and that the father is not to blame for the development delay, would you state this openly here on the blog? Where would it leave the children's privacy rights?

      So, from the start, it is not a good idea to discuss the children's development issues on a public blog, while citing their full names.

      I suppose that the custodial parent could ask for a cease and desist.

      And, by the way, this would be an argument against the mother in front of the authorities... If she gave you access to the film, e.g.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @Patience as I have noted in the past - despite your obvious intelligence - you have difficulty understanding the nuances of written English

        Delete
      2. "you have difficulty understanding the nuances of written English"

        Well, I do not seem to be alone, since you were not even able the translation of Rav Biderman's affidavit and conclude from it that the evaluation of the children's progress is not from him, but from the kindergarten headmaster...

        but at least, english is not my mother tongue...

        Delete
      3. R' Biderman is a major player in the saga and that is why he is being approached by various Rabonim from all over the world. he says -1 I refuted the allegations - on what basis ? = amateur jornalism !!! and then he tries to bring proof from the kindergarten headmaster that the kids are progressing implying maybe that the home environment is contributing to the progress. Refuting the allegations does not answer the concerns for the children's development - even if MS was a perfect father , the kids need a mother in their lives and less stress. R Biderman has conveniently ignored this and so in the spirit of Pesach ' hardened his heart '.

        Delete
    28. How do we know what caused the development delay! What is obvious is that Sammy and Benji have had many traumas in their short lives.

      First they were ripped from their mother, the hand that fed them. You
      would not do that to an animal!

      Then they had teeth ripped out being
      allowed to be comforted by their
      mother! The boys do not look like other
      children of the same age because of
      their missing teeth!

      They do not behave like other children of the same age, as they can't
      communicate.

      They are not treated like other children
      of the same age because they have
      been denied their mother!

      Does anyone, including the father, the Courts and the Jewish community in Vienna consider how the boys must feel.

      What are the judgments based on?
      Beth is a perfectly capable mother, better placed tban most to care for her children. If she had custody she would not have to employ outsiders (phillipinos) to look after them.

      No one has presented any reasons why Beth should not have custody of her children or very much increased visiting!




      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Their speech development will have been impeded by the lack of front teeth too, Rochel. I also suspect that the tense atmosphere to which they were subjected at home at the beginning of their lives - resulting from the father's apparent inability, even as a trained doctor, to comprehend the needs of his wife and children and his subsequent rages - may have had a disastrous effect on their learning to speak.

        Delete
      2. Yes I agree Naomi. The father sounds very strange. I wonder what his speciality is and. I wonder if he is employed? Here in
        England we have heard about some strange cases concerning doctors. I think RDE is correct in
        saying that he needs an assessment. He needs to prove our theories about him wrong.
        Most importantly assessments
        need also to be done on the children. Not talking at 5? the
        father and school refusing
        assessments.. Something very dodgy. Our Government are right to get involved!

        Delete
    29. The development of the child's brain depends on loving, warm, secure , caring and responsive interactions between child and parents which create various new brain pathways - when a secure, caring, warm and responsive environment does not exist the kids becomes stressed and over time the stress becomes toxic

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q-r_YSUGGw

      It is not just the father who is to blame for this non-nurturing environment but the courts , rabonim and community that support the present status quo

      ReplyDelete
    30. lets see all court documents to understand the judges thought process. sure to be enlightening!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Why is Beth not publishing the court decision and only selectively publishing tidbits she thinks helps her?

        Delete
    31. Perhaps the mother feeds the kids tons of sugary foods during her visitation time in order to rot the teeth and then blame the father.

      Any proof she doesn't do this?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. You are obviously correct that she probably doesn't have proof against your claim. After all we don't have any proof she is not a Nazis or an Arab terrorist and similarly we have no proof that she didn't feed the kids junk foods in order to blame the father. I am sure with your sick imagination you can figure many other things she doesn't have proof to defend herself and so she must be guilty!!

        This is another example of Dr. Schlesinger's supporters living in a strange paranoid world which has internal logical consistencies - but is not connected to reality.

        Delete
      2. How often does the father or the fillipinos brush the boys remaining teeth?

        Delete
      3. Dentist: Twice a day.

        Delete
      4. BT how do you know?

        Delete
    32. That is good to hear. How do you have this information. Are you the father?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. No, I'm the kids dentist.

        Delete
      2. @BT if you are in fact the kids dentist could you reveal your name and how long you have been their dentist? If you are simply a troll then your comments are not helping clarify the situation. If you don't want to reveal it on the blog please send the information to me at yadmoshe@gmail.com so I can verify it.

        Delete
    33. Rabbi Biderman needs to come out and explain why he has helped contribute to a serious miscarriage of justice. This is a man I presume who has had the happiness and joy of bringing up his own children. How could a Rabbi do what he has done to a young mother and her children. It beggars belief. His statement to the Court was arrogant to say the least. What about Mrs Biderman, where does she stand in this disgraceful affair. Rabbi Biderman, don't think people are going to give up on this injustice, we are not going away, and you are not looking good. If you think you can hide behind a Court verdict, you are not a wise rabbi, but a very stupid one

      ReplyDelete
    34. Are you there to supervise and make sure the children's teeth are cleaned twice a day? Also if their oral hygiene is so good, why has it been necessary
      for you to remove seven of their teeth
      over the last three years?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I am pleased to inform you that, in fact, the kids did not lose seven teeth over the last three years. In fact the only teeth they lost was a baby tooth in its natural progress.

        Delete
      2. So, BT, could you be so kind as to explain to us what happened to the others?

        Delete
    35. BT when replying to my last comment asking why you removed so many of the boys teeth so young and how you know for sure that their teeth are
      brushed twice a day, I have another question!

      AFS accused Beth of giving the boys too much sugar when she so rarely
      sees them? How can Beth be blamed
      for the state of their teeth?

      Why have you not contacted Beth
      directly,: or asked the father to
      regarding the good dental hygiene and welfare of the boys teeth during the meagre few hours they are with Beth?

      Beth seems to be blamed for being an inadequate mother. If we are to judge who is the better parent why do you
      think the father is the better parent?

      In the boys best interest the father has not communicated whatsever with Beth regarding the welfare of their
      teeth, which is imperative, wouldn't
      you agree in the circumstances?


      As he has failed to do so, it is another example of where his battle for cusody
      over the caring and welfare of his
      sons clearly shows.

      A good parent would give as much information to the other for the welfare of the children.

      Michael Schlesinger is clearly not one of those parents and must be questioned.

      I would suggest that a reason for the boys lack of speech may have something to do with the unusual extraction of teeth in their young formative years which is the time they are developing their communication skills. Teeth are necessary for speech!

      I am so pleased you have come to the blog in the interest of the children and look forward to your reply.

      ReplyDelete
    36. STOP!!!
      Can we stop bickering please.
      Surely the only thing here which matters are the twins.

      Can someone tell me how what the law is on how much time should Beth be allowed,

      As a father of a 2 year old I see him crying for his mummy and cannot stop and feel so sad. These boys are crying and the mother never comes surely this is the issue.

      This is a complete disgrace, why are we all so cold.....

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I agree - even if the father was perfect , denying the kids a ' mother' is criminal

        Delete
      2. My grandchild is also exactly 2 years old, David, and when I see her with her mother it is so touching. She's luckily also very happy to be with her father but you can see the special relationship she has with her mother and how important that is for her total wellbeing. She also gets a huge amount of language input from her mother in the form of songs, games, general chitchat and stories. Her mother has been taking her to the Vienna children's museum Zoom since she was about 8 months old, as that's the age at which their activities start. She's also been taken to Dschungel, the children's theatre in the Museum Quarter - these are things mothers and fathers can do with their children in Vienna, which has become a wonderful place for children to grow up in. It's actually a pity the 9 judges don't seem to know Zoom, as I remember hearing Beth was criticized strongly in court for exposing the boys to Zoom activities - even though babies are welcome for certain ones! The judges can't have babies or grandchildren, I fear...

        Delete
    37. Bt who are you?

      Samuel had his four front teeth extracted at the age of three!

      This fact cannot be denied!

      Benjamin has had three teeth
      extracted over the last three years, one wss extracted just two weeks ago.

      The boys have not lost any of their teeth through natural progression!

      The father and the kids real dentist need to explain.

      No one has come up with any justifiable reasons for anything
      regarding this case and this is why the case now has to be reopened under a
      new judge, a new court with the world
      watching to make sure justice is finally done!

      ReplyDelete
    38. To all those people who are 'unable' to speak out against this injustice because they haven't seen some documentation or other, I haven't seen them swayed by any of the docs that have already been published. There was the letter from biderman, the letter from Schlesingers lawyer refusing the handovers be done by the chief rabbi, and still there is no official responses from Schlesinger and his corrupt rabbis.

      No matter how many pages of the thousands of court documents that get published here, there will always be people that want to see more or who can come up with further wild allegations as to why the father should have sole custody and why he is justified in cancelling the mothers visits. Let wait for an official guest post responding the existing documents in the public domain before anyone demands more docs.

      ReplyDelete
    39. I agree published. Still awaiting sensible comments regarding the boys teeth. Most worrying, especially for the two little boys!
      However, no one really cares about the children, do they!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Where has BT got to? He or she, if really the boys' dentist, must know exactly what happened to their teeth but has not said very much so far.

        Delete
    40. I dont understand why everyone is debating about the intention of Rabbi Bidermans letter. Why doesnt one of you who lives in Europe or better still Vienna just go and speak directly with him and ask him directly why he is not supporting Beth. If I lived close enough to Vienna I would just go to the source and request a meeting and if a rabbi refuses to meet without giving any grounds there is a problem here. Why all the ongoing assumptions...visit the synagogue, speak with the kindergarten director...go to the Source to prevent misunderstandings. Make petitions that we can all sign to take to Rabbi Biderman and to the Chabad director if they will not be exposed to this blog...let them read it at bedtime before they say the shema to see if it rocks their concrete consciousness at all. At the end of the day they are still human beings. Every day without the mother is deep trauma to these little boys
      On another note there is something called the Hague Convention to those of you who dont know about it. It is a Universal law which supersedes national laws stating that children from separating parents with different countries of citizenship must reside in the country where they have spent the majority of their life unless certain extreme situations are present like a war etc. This is something important for everyone to investigate before they get messed up having children with a partner from a different country.

      ReplyDelete
    41. Hi Ev you make some valid points. A delegation should go to Vienna to speak with Rabbi Biderman. Perhaps better still he can come to England to
      speak to us here. I am sure we can arrange for his expenses to be paid.

      ReplyDelete
    42. Why would a very busy rabbi come to Vienna to speak with you even if you paid?
      Sounds quite irrational to me. Dont know anything about him but if he is a real Rabbi then Beths story is only one of millions of things he would be dealing with on a daily basis. However you never know...really...has the Manchester community attempted to engage with Rabbi Biderman or invited him to come to your community expenses paid?
      If you think a delegation should go to Vienna, then work towards acting upon it in a way that Biderman or the Chabad directress are aware. Find ways to contact them and try and make an appointment to meet with them and then see if any real progress can be made that way.
      Obviously your community's methods till now have not been working, so different avenues need to be explored. Maybe ???? you have all been taking the polite English approach and now its time for some empowered Israeli type action. Shouldnt be hard to get delegations to come from Israel to support you if you need fearless friends. ...like Im sure contacting the rebbetsin who wrote the prior post would know a few appropriate people in Israel.

      ReplyDelete
    43. You are very empowering Ev.
      I agree that Rabbi Biderman may be very busy but this case is escalating and Rabbi Biderman is very much a central player. He runs "caring environments, schools. This issue affects two of his pupils. The boys, contrary to what we are told are not on par with their piers so there is something wrong. He cannot dismiss this sorry state of affairs, because he is too busy. We can all say that! Rabbi Biderman is no more busy than me. He can chose what he does with his time.
      Yes you are right Rabbi Biderman must show respect. So far I can see that he pays no respect to the Chief Rabbi of Vienna. The Heads of our British Board of Deputies in the UK. I but he has time for President Shimon Perez during his stay in Vienna.

      Rabbi Biderman needs to be held to account and yes you are right, we in the Uk are being to polite!

      ReplyDelete
    44. What is the point of discussing this issue all over again? It is over! 3 different courts and 9 judges have decided. This is final! No one in his right mind might assume that the verdict will be reversed because of some internet bashing by some ill informed commentators? The fact, that 9 judges decided against her, only tells me, that her side of the story is not the way, she wants us to believe it. I happen to be familiar with the Austrian judicial system and I can tell you that not even politicians and prosecuted millionaires managed to have the same power and influence over 3 different courts (including the supreme one), than this young trainee doctor from a modest family. Who can take these allegations seriously?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. But there is good reason to believe the young trainee doctor did not act on his own, Observer. Don't forget there must have been several people behind him with power that a member of a modest family will not possess. There are judges in the Vienna community and also Chabad rabbis. I'm familiar with the Austrian judicial system too and know, as do most Austrians, that orders are often given to judges from higher up. Chabad and other rabbis are today lucky people in Vienna, especially with the city council, which wants to make amends for what happened in the Shoah by granting the Jewish community exceptional favors. I don't doubt that these 9 judges were influenced for obscure reasons that the public will not be informed about for a long time, ie until the main news magazines get hold of the story. In the meantime they have been gagged (by whom?) and so nobody reads about "The Mystery of the 9 Judges". Only the Jewish community gossips behind the main actors' backs......

        Delete
    45. Biderman has shown his position in this case. Why even bother thinking he should still be involved in any communication over Beth and the children. He should now be regarded as a non-entity.

      ReplyDelete
    46. We in England disagree. All is not what it seems. That is why the British Government is taking this matter seriously as well as the Austrian Ambassador to London. This matter is far from over. There has been no proper reasoning for the Courts decision.

      ReplyDelete
    47. Brian, yes, it is what it seems, even if it is hard to swallow! The British government can not take it up. First, they cannot intervene regarding a legal decision in a foreign country and once presented with the full evidence, that she obviously has failed to share with the MPs, the whole story will evaporate. It is clear that those MPs, that raised the matter in parliament are only looking for popular votes later on. Even they cautioned, that they have first to look into details and talk to her lawyers. Don't worry, nothing will happen. The various courts have certainly communicated their reasoning. The only person, who loves publicity and has failed to communicate the reasoning is the mother. Where there is smoke, there is fire. I am convinced, she is certainly not telling us everything.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. "Where there is smoke there is fire" - I wonder what you think of the father. He must be an inferno!

        Delete
      2. @ Observer, soon you might be the one that finds it hard to swallow.

        What makes you so sure the British Government cannot take it up?

        What is your place in Austrian Society to feel confident to say that?

        Beth has failed to share what with MP's?

        You say don't worry, nothing will happen, one could say that when they have money to bribe!!

        So Beth has failed with her publicity and to communicate the reasoning.

        Maybe you are an expert with publicity and communication.

        I expect you agree with Rabbi Bidderman's statement to the Courts then

        Delete
    48. Observer where is the Courts reasoning? The British Board of Deputies have seen the decision but they have stated there is not sufficient
      reasonong and have publically stated
      that this case is a miscarriage of
      justice and a stain on Austria.
      This statement cannot be taken lightly.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Suppositories and children's museums cannot possibly be the reasons why the father was given custody of these children. But if they were, the 9 judges have made a laughing stock of themselves!

        Delete
    49. To OBSERVER, and how are you familiar with the Austrian Judicial System, are you a lawyer?

      ReplyDelete
    50. It has to be said that supporters such as the British Board of Deputies and The British Government have not stuck their necks out for votes. They have
      not taken Beth's word. This is total
      emotional abuse on the children, which is now going to be recognised
      as a crime in England with up to 10 years Iimprisonment. Even if the father doesn't want to admit it he is guilty of emotional abuse to his children, as he is depriving them of their mother for no
      good reason, he knows they are failing
      to thrive in his care but he is obstinate
      and selfish and will try any therapy
      except mother therapy!




      ReplyDelete
    51. I agree with you Tova Hollander. In his statement Rabbi Biderman without being qualified to say so and without issuing a proper assessment, said
      that the children were doing well
      psychologically. They were not then as
      one of them was self harming!

      In spite of being his kindergarten for three years, they still are unable to speak in complete sentences.

      What reasons does Rabbi Biderman
      give. What recent assessments has he
      done on the children and with what qualifications?

      Is Rabbi Biderman supporting the
      father's emotional abuse of the children? Didn't he make a statement
      to the court about their psychological
      state without any qualifications.

      This is no different to the father professing to be psychiatrist, in an attempy to have his totally sane wife
      ccommitted, whenhe was not.

      Both these men have told lies and must be reprimanded!

      Chabad must not stand by Rabbi Biderman

      Serious questions need to be asked.
      .Rabbi Biderman s deceit must not
      be allwed to bring the good name of
      Chabad down!



      ReplyDelete

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