Sunday, April 13, 2014

Schlesinger Twins: Beth's open letter to Michael - erev Pesach

Michael,

You don't respond to my private emails so perhaps you will understand why I have resorted to contacting you in this way. We don't see see eye to eye on anything but at least on one thing we may agree: what we are all going through is horrible and humiliating. I'm sure you wish for an end to it as much as I do.

However, for us to reach any kind of resolution, I think it's time you faced reality and answer these fundamental questions. For your own sake more than anyone's, the truth, however ugly and unpalatable, needs to come out.

1) Why did you marry me? The week after we were married you repeatedly banged your head against the wall and said you had to punish yourself, that you were a bad person for marrying me. What did you mean? Were you forced into it? By whom? Why?

2) Why did you talk to 'Janet' about taking me to ESRA so deceitfully? It seems you wanted to get rid of me as soon as I had the babies. Why?

3) Why did rumours go around the community that I called the police and had you evicted? That wasn't true and the police documents prove it.

4) Why did you want to have me committed to a mental hospital when you knew there was nothing wrong with me?

5) Why are you obsessed with trying to label me mentally ill when you know it's not true? After both ESRA and the police psychiatrist confirmed there was nothing wrong with me, why the rumours around the community that I was mentally ill? This was all behind my back while I was breastfeeding our babies and recovering from a painful caesarean. Why didn't you talk directly to me if you were genuinely concerned about me?

6) Why were there vicious rumours going round the community that I neglected the children and they had to be taken away from me because I couldn't look after them properly? The Judge even wrote that you did not disagree with all the positive reports about me as a mother:
“The mother takes good care of the children both in their daily care and upbringing and concerns herself with their welfare. This is well attested in the submitted reports in the file, including the reports of the Social Services (second district) and the statements from play groups. This point (the care of the mother for her children) is also not disputed by the father.”
7) Why did you go behind my back to Rav Pardess to tell him stories about me during our marriage? What did you hope to achieve by this? Why did he never call us both together to talk or hear me alone?

8) Why do you want to deny our children their mother? You told me in the coffee shop that you would be a mother and a father to them. Don't you see that's not possible?

9) Why are Fillipino women looking after our children instead of their mother? Does this mean that you haven't had the support of your family that you expected?

10) Our little boys cannot talk. They have many problems and need their mother's love to help them grow and develop normally. Why are you denying them that chance? Is your hatred for me so great that it overrides the love for your own children?

11) Do you really want the best for Sammy and Benji? Do you want them to catch up with other children their age?

12) When will you stop denying they have severe problems and need their mother's love and care?

Our boys will be 5 years old next month. Don't you agree they have suffered enough?

As you sit at the Seder table (hopefully with Sammy and Benji) discussing the miracle of Pesach and celebrate 'freedom', perhaps you could give these questions some thought. I don't think you feel free at all. You have trapped yourself in a very tragic situation but you have the chance to release yourself if you will only concede.

The mother of your children,

Beth

56 comments :

  1. What can we do to help, apart from Daven?

    And talking about davening, does anybody know Beth's Hebrew name?

    May Chag HaPesach be a זמן גאולה for Beth, her kids and all of Klal Yisrael.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rav Eidensohn: Please publish, with Beth's permission, she and her sons Hebrew names.

      Everyone should daven for them. As our prayers freed Gilad Shalit, so to may our prayers free the twins to have the loving care of their mother as much as they need and want, which for small children is the majority of the time if the mother is devoted. attentive, and empathic, which Beth clearly is from all the evidence presented on this blog.

      Delete
    2. Baila Rochel bat Tzivia. Binyamin Leib ben Baila Rochel and Shmuel Ze’ev ben Baila Rochel.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, A friend!

      Delete
  2. Beth's problem is that she is too holed up into the past and she is incapable of being amicable and ready to resolve her hatred of her former husband. Why is she asking about why he married her (and throwing in unsubstantiated accusations to boot)? Is she seeking resolution? Obviously not. She is seeking retribution for her old grudges against her ex.

    Virtually all her above points are about alleged past grievances. Her problem is she is focused on the past when she should be seeking resolution not war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your problem is that you don't understand that you are proposing a basically Christian concept of forgiveness. The pain Beth is experiencing is not from some long forgotten incident that she insists are nuturing the sense of degredation - but is the result of ongoing actions her husband is doing. Her children have been taken away from her. Her children are not doing well. the community has made her an outcast.

      I assume you would just forget about your children and say it was time to get on with your life.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Beth wants the answers to some of her questions because she is being held in a limbo not of her choosing.She wants to move on. To suggest she should just "move on" as if nothing happened smacks of the same amorality/cruelty that snatched her children from her(to all their detriment)and demand to know why she cant get over it and move on. Can't you see they are stuck, and unnecessarily so. What is being done to Beth and her children is heartless. Why no one takes Mr
      Schlesinger to task for the children's obvious lack of care is outrageous.May this lack of conscientiousness rest heavy.on all of you who are turning your backs on the real situation.

      Delete
    3. Beth had her children stolen from her by a monster and a biased (and some allege corrupt) legal process. Let's not forget this...

      Delete
  3. A very heart-wrenching, yet noble and caring letter.

    May it soften the stubborn hearts for the sake of these two precious neshamos.

    ReplyDelete
  4. English Yid
    I disagree. It is important to know where you came from in order to know where you are going! A clear example
    of this is the festival we are preparing
    for and which Beth mentions, Pesach

    Much of what has happened between

    Beth and Michael is because of lack of communication. It is clear from
    Michael's actions that he clearly
    wanted to get rid of Beth and take
    possession of their sons. He had this
    overwhelming need, but has he ever
    really considered the effect it has had
    on Sammy and Benji?

    The court may have made a decision, but based on what? Is the judge there
    each day to see how these boys are
    lacking in their development?

    As Beth has said Michael really needs
    to do some soul searching this Pesach and ask himself if he is doing the best
    for his boys by denying them their
    mother? Is he going to tell them the
    truth? If he doesn't. Others will?
    Doesn't he want to be loved as a father
    and respected in his profession as a
    doctor. Does he want to be able to
    hold his head high and to be regarded
    as a mench, or does he always want to
    have a finger pointed at him with
    people from around the world saying
    look their goes that awful spiteful man
    who denied his children their mother?

    As Beth said whilst Michael sits at the Sedar tomorrow, he needs to really do some soul searching and think very
    carefully what the future holds.

    It is a good time noe for Michael outstretch his hand towards Beth for the sake and future of their sons.

    Chag Sameach

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not a bad letter, but it could be better. I think the problem with most of Beth's campaign is that the tone is too accusatory. I am not saying she is not 'right', or that she is not entitled to be upset, but I am not sure if it is conducive to the supposed goal. Tochacha always needs to be given with the utmost care, respect and - yes - love towards the other person in order for it to be absorbed.

    People accusing the Vienna community or even Austria as a whole, same thing. It will just create even more closed ears and even more animosity towards Beth in the community.

    Rabbi Eidensohn, you are a psychologist. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can get your message across by private communication or private mediation - I would agree with you. In this case it hasn't worked and in such cases if you don't get the other person's attention then you might as well give up.

      Given the nature of the case I really don't see how Beth can expect to ever improve the life of her sons any other way. This is not just psychology but also halacha.

      In sum, it is saying that a person who is in great pain - should not cry out in pain because it bothers people.

      Delete
    2. Miri
      You are looking at this like a tug of war! Why should Beth suck up to Michael? This is not about
      Beth or Michael this is about
      Sammy and Benji!

      Where do you mention them?

      Beth is fighting for her boys not
      only because she has been completely wronged and her children taken away from her
      excellent care for no good and explained reason, but because the boys are not thriving in their father's care!

      It has been almost three years now that the boys have been solely with their father, but are failing to thrive in his care!.

      If this can not be resolved amicably between the two parties,
      with Michael's complete
      cooperation, the case clearly
      needs to be taken back to the
      court and a new case opened
      presenting the facts as they are and with the boys best interests truly at heart!



      Chag Sameach

      Delete
    3. Read my comment again. I said the exact opposite.

      Delete
    4. Miri
      Perhaps you would kindly clarify.

      Are you sayimg it is Beth's tone
      that you disapprove of. Not what she is asking?

      Delete
  6. After reading this post I prey that Michael sees how Beth feels. whatever his feelings are towards her the boys should come first.
    I feel alot is down to pride. You probably agree they need their mother just as much but dont want to give her the satisfaction. ITS NOW ABOUT THE CHILDREN not both the parents. Both grow up and let the boys havd a happy life they so deserve. Amen

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't read everything in this saga, but I read this letter. If the things she says here are all true, then it seems that he is under someone's grip. Probably his mother. He is unable to have the bigness to go against her(or whoever it is) and does all of this to please her. That doesn't necessarily mean that she(or whoever) wants quite all of this, or even realizes that it is totally wrong, because it is somewhat symbiotic that Michael sees this as the only way to satisfy her(or whoever) and she(or whoever) takes his word for it and derives a certain pleasure thereby.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Esther LowensteinApril 14, 2014 at 2:39 AM

    Katche-lab, you're undoubtedly right about this man being under someone's grip. His mother is a new suggestion. The main possibilities so far have been Rabbi Biderman, the Chabad rabbi in Vienna who founded various Jewish educational institutions but who refuses to do a single thing to enable these boys to lead happy lives, and Rabbi Pardes, who we believe to have been Michael's mentor over many of the years his mother (aha... her again) forced him to grow up fatherless. These two may have him in their grip but the reasons remain obscure (although they may be guessed). Whether the doctor is under his mother's grip as well is not quite clear, but a fatherless boy (who actually has a father but has never been allowed to see him and insists his sons never do either) is much more likely to be under his mother's thumb than a normal, well-balanced young man. You may be onto something here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Beth's 4x3 seder questions need answers.....may she be blessed with the answer of Hakadosh Baruch Hu Matzileinu Miyadam!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michael
    You are educated but where is your honestly and integrity?

    Think about your boys. This is not about you and winning. It is about Sammy and Benji!

    Think about why you are denying them their perfectly good and capable mother!

    You have to answer to yourself, to the Hashem to Kol Yisroel, but, most
    importantly, to Sammy and Benji!

    When all is said and done, they will see how hard Beth has fought and will want answers too!

    What will you have left to tell them?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree Brian Ingram ( comment above)

    This is not about Beth and Michael!

    If Michael remains uncooperative, a new case needs to be opened on nee evidence. It is clear to all that the boys are not thriving in their father's care!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here's Michael's strategy: it's called "grooming". Read this article to find out what he's been up to since the twins were born.

    http://safe-at-last.hubpages.com/hub/The-Fine-Art-of-Grooming

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing this brilliant article.

      Delete
    2. Amazing article, that's it, its just so identical to Beth,s awful experiences.

      If Michael Schlesinger took an exam in The Fine Art of grooming, he would score 100%, so top of the class Michael.

      These children have to be rescued and returned back to their mother without any further delay.

      It is absolutely incredible how a civilized society can allow this to carry on. Just terrible!!

      Delete
  13. Interesting reading Thoughtful

    If the father takes no notice and doesn't want to find an amicable
    solution and the courts reasoning is
    not allowed to be posted, perhaps we
    should petition the Court to justify their
    decision.

    This is now a public case, because we don't believe it, or have to the
    confidence that it is just.




    ReplyDelete
  14. This letter you can tell was written from the heart. How can any man deprive their children of their mothers love.. NO father can act as both parents.
    I really prey that the father allows his children to see their mother more and to come to some kind of arrangement.
    They are suffering. Please make peace for the sake of the boys. Amen

    ReplyDelete
  15. The unfortunate Schlesinger twins were subjected to the stress of absence and domestic violence caused by their father from the beginning of their lives. He failed to be around when they were in agony from the pain of their bris - he, the doctor, with medical knowledge and experience, whose responsibility it was to be there for them in their time of need and after their mother had had a c-section. Contrary to what Judge Göttlicher learned by googling, suppositories are scarcely used by people in any of the English-speaking countries (why didn't she ask someone?) and it was no wonder Beth was unsuccessful trying to get them into the back ends of two squirming, shrieking, suffering little boys while her husband was out on the town, having fun and shirking his duties. What on earth possessed him to disappear on that, of all evenings? An omen of what was to come?

    From what we've read on this blog, even if Dr Schlesinger successfully "groomed" the judge (after all, he was in touch with her privately through the intervention of Judge Konstanze Thau of the Jewish community - a serious illegality in itself) so he was able to be given custody after being evicted from the family apartment for 18/12, the little boys would not have lived through that first period of their lives without a strong sense of tension. I think we can be sure of that from what we've read so far. Babies sense when things are tense, which is how it must have been in Sammy and Benji's home when their father pushed Beth while she was holding them and constantly verbally abused her. Babies also sense fear, which is what Beth must have experienced when she noticed that her husband was short-tempered on returning, sleep-deprived, from night duties, or when she realised the Jewish community was spreading baseless rumours about her, obviously emanating from someone (her husband? His sister? Another community member?) who despised her in this new city where she hadn't lived for very long and where she still felt like she didn't belong.

    Toddlers are also affected by family violence. They can become withdrawn or over-active and/or their verbal skills may not develop normally. Sammy and Benji are not capable of speaking age-appropriately, and with missing front teeth (most unusual in educated, middle-class families), would have difficulty with forming various sounds in any case. Toilet-training may take much longer than usual in children who have experienced fear and tension (the boys were way over the mark there), they may insist on bottles (which can cause caries if filled with sweet liquids and left in their mouths while they try to fall asleep) or return to thumb-sucking if they have already given these things up. Some fearful toddlers have nightmares and tantrums and may attach themselves to adults in unhealthy ways. Children affected by family violence - and don't forget, these two children also had the appalling experience of being snatched from their mother for no reason at all - need their mums more than any other carer for reassurance and love.

    Trauma can take a toll on young children's developing brains and in addition to behavioral, social, emotional and cognitive problems, they can also have difficulty paying attention or even self-harm, as did one of the twins at a horrifically early age at kindergarten. And as if all this were not enough, the experience of having a violent father can leave traces in their genetic make-up. At Penn State and Princeton Universities it's been found out that violence in the home, combined with other factors like low family income (also applicable in the case of Beth and Michael - he was/is earning so little that he needed/needs legal aid), may cause the telomeres (protective caps or repeating DNA sequences) of their chromosomes to be reduced in length in sensitive children.

    Sammy and Benji need help. There is no other conclusion we can come to. They need their mother not just once or twice a week but EVERY DAY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thoughtful, its a shame you were not the judge. The judges that have condemned Beth, Sammy and Benji to the lives they now have, should be investigated NOW!! The British Government need to take action, and to CHOFETZ CHAIM you are sick in the head, you can stop your grooming, you are at the end of the road with all that!!

      Delete
    2. So what is Michael's problem?
      What is the real reason he is playing with the court order visiting and won't give Beth
      lots more ccontact with the children?

      Does the father have the children's best interests at heart? He has the power to do
      what is right for the boys!

      He must know how much better it will be for him and his
      sons for Beth to see them
      more, emotionally, practically and financially.

      Is he not thinking clearly?

      Thirteen years will go very
      fast. The children will be able
      to make their choice of what
      they want and where they
      want to be, if not long before
      when they start nagging!

      He is lucky they are docile at the moment and not like normal children, who would be giving him a hard time asking why they can't see their mother more, as normal five
      year olds would do!

      Time passes quickly
      The boys, although still babes in five year old bodies, will not
      stay babies for ever. When
      they are eighteen and Michael
      is 43? What will he have?

      The boys will know how hard Beth fought for them. How does he think the boys will
      react?

      The father may have fooled the court and the Jewish Community in Vienna, but
      does he really think he can
      fool his sons?

      They may live with him, but they know what is going on! They have feelings and they
      can see. They are just not able, at the moment, to express what they want, but it won't be long before they can!

      There will be evidence all around to show how much Beth fought for them and their
      wellbeing, only to be denied for no good reason!

      What will the father be able to show them. Some court order without proper reasons?













      What is it going to take for Michael to do so?

      Delete
    3. Poor Benji and Sammy will definitely know how their mother fought for her basic human right, Resolution - to be with them and be part of their upbringing.. in a big way. They can't say anything in English! Imagine that! They could have been such lucky kids - growing up bilingually. But their dad and his inhumane family are preventing it. What a gift they could have had!

      What age are children allowed to say who they want to live with in Austria? Does anyone know? Although you can argue that they're used to this strange life they lead with their father by now, as they get older, they'll notice that other kids live differently and often have

      1) 4 available, loving grandparents........not 1 who won't help with them, 1 who loves them but is totally banned by the father and the court from seeing them, and 2 who long to be with them more often but are also only allowed to see them on rare occasions.

      2) Friends who are friends with the mother or parents who invite them regularly to their places to play (and vice-versa)

      3) Nice aunties and grannies - not manipulative, potty women who are prone to lying. Kids need good role models, not nut cases like the ones we've been encountering here (CC et al).

      One day they're going to revolt!!!

      Delete
  16. Indeed sami and benji need help. So dont let this cruel mother get close to them. A so called mother who does not care about their children. She seems to love all this attention but never thought of the feelings of her children. No wonder every lawyer gets rid of her. She just ruins their good reputation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your comments are typical of the Schlesinger supporters. Nasty assertions with absolutely nothing to support them the court testimony and psychological evaulations clearly contradict the slander you are spouting.

      Delete
    2. The same person as usual (CC) is back again. The very sick one, I mean. Just with a new moniker. Does Dr Schlesinger have any sane or likable supporters? Seems not.

      Delete
    3. Why is Beth cruel? What has she done wrong?

      Delete
  17. Schlesinger supporters perhaps you can now counterclaim and give reasons why Beth is responsible for the boys losing all their front teeth,
    were not toilet trained until they were
    four and a half and at five still cannottalk in complete sentences in any language.

    Surely Beth can't be blamed. The boys
    Were ripped from her loving, excellent
    care when they were two.

    What has the wonderful father Dr.
    Michael Schlesinger done with them in
    the last three years, since then?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think you all forgot its beth who was not able to cope with her children. Why did she go to the childrens psychiatric hospital with them ifeverythink was ok with them as you all claim? Think of that. And i would like to read the complete willinger report. I cant believe just the mother was tested. So show it to me please. If the father realy was not tested by her than even i would say it was wrong. So please publish not just a few sentences. I heard it had about 90 pages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said Beth could not cope? You do not take your children to a psychiatric hospital if you can't cope!

      This doesn't answer my question.

      Why is Beth so cruel?

      Surely it is the father who is being cruel?

      If Beth saw there was a problem with her children, quite rightly, she sort help.

      Now there is definitely evidence that the children are
      under achieving.

      What is the father doing to help them besides fighting Beth and denying her proper
      contact with them??



      Delete
    2. @chofetz chaim (= Guard your tongue!)

      Are you unable to read what's posted on this topic on this blog? Illiterate? Dyslexic? There's already been quite a bit about the pediatric psychiatry dept at the Rosenhügel hospital but you don't appear to have comprehended it. All I know is that the father removed the children from the hospital on his own responsibility after the psychologist there had said they needed to be admitted and tested. Don't forget that these children - according to what we read - had been exposed to domestic violence for quite some time prior to the father's eviction. Children who have been forced to experience stress like that, undoubtedly caused by the father's unfriendly behavior to the mother and to them (eg pushing her with one of them in her arms, it said here somewhere), MUST show some symptoms from the angst and tension they've had to go through.

      Delete
  19. Where is the public's confidence in a legal system that cannot produce good reasoning for their decisions!

    As with any system, Judicial or Government, , the public must have
    confidence!


    As we see with other unrelated blogs on Daas Torah, people including
    Rabbis are running and hiding because
    they don't feel they will get a fair trial,
    even in Israel!

    Where is the fairness in the Schlesinger case?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I love the question why did you marry me?
    Was he alone under the chupa or did someone forced beth to marry him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @,
      Chofetz chaim

      Stop twisting things, you are only making yourself to people reading your comments more evil.

      Beth was charmed unfortunately, when you are young, you are so easily taken in.

      Abusers work in secretive ways

      Delete
  21. I totally understand why she put that comment... She feels why did he want to marry her when deep down he probably didnt want to..
    Chofetz chaim do you not want to see a resolution to this for the sake of everyone? Or are you so anti Beth and cursing her to the ground that you think to carry on this whole mess she will just up and leave?? Is this what you are hoping.
    Please no nasty remarks just sensible behaviour replies

    ReplyDelete
  22. All this mother wants is to be involved more in her childrens lives and all she ever gets is people bringing her down all the time. Those poor kids being deprived their mother. Just an awful case. I cant understand any man that would want to do this. Unfortunately in the end the boys will suffer the most. How fair is that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the father will be the one to suffer if so more. What reason can he be giving them for denying them more contact with her?

    There is now so much evidence in Beth's favour, but so little in the fathers!

    We have seen nothing sensible from the father's side!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have a feeling that it may very well be that contrary to what it looks like, Michael is "just" a secondary abuser and it all comes from the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, Michael merely dances the way they want him to. A lot of the abuse he is doing is more typical to what abusive mother-in-laws would do to a daughter-in-law, not husband to wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sister-in-law Tina, I believe, was married for a short time to someone in the Vienna Misrachi shul, had a daughter (heaven help her), got divorced (apparently the family hobby), and, I'd guess, is lonely and desperately wants her brother's company. But naughty brother married a lovely, well-educated English girl who stupidly fell head over heels in love with him and never got to know him properly until she found herself married to him. Sister-in-law didn't attend wedding. Neither did Rabbi Pardess, the guy's mentor, it seems (see below). Hmmm. Interesting.

      Let's now go back to the previous generation - Tamar Schlesinger, the grandmother. She booted her husband, Michael's father, out when he was 3 and Tina ? and the children were never allowed to see him again. Apparently they didn't - until Beth came along and actually found and met him! He was thrilled to bits to meet her and his grandsons. But.... Michael put an end to that ASAP.

      So what do we have here? I think you may have hit the nail on the head, Miri. The women of 2 generations have changed their married names back to Schlesinger and must have been violently jealous of Beth walking off with the only man they had left in the family. One son-in-law had been got rid of, now it was the new daughter-in-law's turn. And finally they've got Michael to themselves and can appear here under all sorts of names because the sister is a clever young woman who can write abuse in poor English and show us all she has quite a few screws loose, as well as an overdose of malice.

      Delete
  25. I mean, he accused Beth of not looking after the children properly. But he isn't either; he doesn't care about them at all. I think the original accusation that Beth is a bad mother may not even come from him; it's just an idea his mother planted in his head.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Miri

    If what you are saying is correct. The father should not remain like a puppet
    to his mother and sister and stand up
    like a man to them!

    He should tell them like any decent man would that he will work with the children's mother to find an amicable
    solution for the good of their children!

    After all his mother and sister obviously so nothing to help him or he
    wouldn't have to pay exorbitant
    amounts for the help of Philapinos.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Was it his mother, or his sister who didn't attend his wedding? I suspect some serious jealousy issues there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I reckon Freud would have a life long project writing about the Schlesinger family! They are disfunctional in so many areas.

      Delete
  28. What about Michael's mentor, Rabbi Pardes. I understand that someone as close to Michael as him didn't attend either.

    I wonder why these close people didn't attend the wedding?

    We know why Beth married Michael, but Beth's question has still not been
    answered Why did Michael marry her?


    He was not forced either!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We know why Beth married Michael..."

      Do we? I think that's actually a much more interesting question than why he married her. They barely knew each other. Her parents were BEGGING her not to go ahead with the wedding. You don't even know him, they said; why don't you move to Vienna after you graduate, get a job, learn the language a bit, date him for some time and then decide if you still want to marry him? But she didn't listen to them. In fact, when she presented the idea to him, he didn't want to hear about it. He said they either get married now, or it's off, and he reserves the right to start dating other people. That was enough to scare her.

      Why was she scared of losing a man who apparently viewed her as completely interchangeable with another woman? Perhaps because he was a doctor, had money and status and she thought he would finance the parasitic lifestyle she felt entitled to? And what on earth did she think when she moved to Austria? Had she ever been there before for any length of time? Did she think it's like a Commonwealth country where the only difference to Britain is that people speak English with a cute accent and the sun is always shining?

      Having said all that, of course I still think that the children should be with her - unlike the father, at least she is not abusive and would care for them personally, rather than hire some dodgy Asian nannies. I think Michael is a real pauper when it comes to paying for childcare; I remember hearing gossips in Vienna around November 2009 about how outrageously they were underpaying them, it sounded like way below minimum wage to me. This time too, he probably hired the cheapest ones he could find who could produce no references etc. He doesn't seem to be very invested in his children emotionally or financially, and neither do the odious bunch that are his close family.

      Delete
  29. Michael Schlesinger - a pauper, perhaps, Miri (but I don't think so) but very definitely a miser.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And, Fred, when you're talking about Michael Schlesinger, an abuser, too. There was an Irishwoman in Melbourne, Australia, who was murdered a couple of years ago and whose husband has just written a very meaningful, thought-provoking text about the fact that abusers, rapists and murderers do not need to look like the monsters that they in fact are. Dr Schlesinger may have appeared to Beth as a slick, charming operator - in other words, pretty normal. But she failed to see what was underneath the surface because he was deliberately concealing it. Michael Meagher's piece is more about extremely violent men but still relevant in Beth and Michael's situation because of the abuse she's been subjected to.

    http://www.mamamia.com.au/domestic-violence-2/tom-meagher-violence-against-women/

    ReplyDelete
  31. I meant Tom Meagher, not Michael.

    ReplyDelete

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