[update: 4/3/12 Just had a long talk with R' Jeremy Stern of Ora regarding this post which he strongly questions the accuracy of the assertions.
To clarify issues that might be misunderstood.
First of all this is a guest post - it was not written by me.
Second Ora has an alternative scenario which can be accessed by this link
Thirdly - Rabbi Stern and I have strong disagreements on the halachic level as to the acceptability of ORA's tactics but as he says he is not a posek and just accepts that of Rav Schachter and others.]
===============================================
Epstein filed for divorce in civil court, not Friedman. Friedman never agreed to a civil divorce; it was imposed by the court at Epstein's demand.
To clarify issues that might be misunderstood.
First of all this is a guest post - it was not written by me.
Second Ora has an alternative scenario which can be accessed by this link
Thirdly - Rabbi Stern and I have strong disagreements on the halachic level as to the acceptability of ORA's tactics but as he says he is not a posek and just accepts that of Rav Schachter and others.]
===============================================
Epstein filed for divorce in civil court, not Friedman. Friedman never agreed to a civil divorce; it was imposed by the court at Epstein's demand.
It is true that Friedman brought an emergency child custody motion, but that was only after Epstein had abducted the child, violated an agreement with Friedman regarding custody, severely limited the child's time with Friedman, (for example, Epstein had refused to let the child spend time with Friedman on Shabbos or Yom Tov for more than two months) and refused to negotiate or go with him to a rav to find a way to adjudicate their dispute. Epstein's continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to the Pennsylvania court, unless Friedman filed in Maryland. In addition, Epstein’s continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum.
What else was Friedman supposed to do if he wanted the child to spend time with him? Get into a physical tug-of-war by grabbing the child back? Spend months trying to get Epstein to come to a neutral Beis Din, during which time Epstein would continue to severely limit or entirely eliminate the child's time with him, and then Epstein would file in the Pennsylvania courts at which time Epstein's abduction of the child would be a fait accompli? So Friedman asked a shai'la, and received a psak to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that he would bring the matter to Beis Din after the emergency hearing, before any further proceedings, such as a trial, in Court.
And the key point regarding whether Friedman tried to have custody decided in civil court or Beis Din is that Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 civil trial to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din only because that was required by the psak and he wanted to follow halacha. Friedman followed the psak to cancel the trial even though it was to his own severe disadvantage as: (1) Friedman had every reason to believe that the Court would have ruled in his favor at the October 2008 trial (based on the comments of the judge at the emergency motion and the severity with which the Comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act regards the abduction of children; even Epstein's lawyer, after lying as to whether Epstein had abducted the child, acknowledged that if she had abducted the child, it would look very bad at trial); and (2) even if Friedman prevailed in Beis Din (or the Beis Din would not ultimately decide custody), he would be at risk that the Court would ultimately decide the issue at a later date (the Court may not show deference to a Beis Din decision in custody cases, even if the parties have agreed to binding arbitration), and Friedman would be severely prejudiced in such a later proceeding by the fact that the child would have been in Pennsylvania for a much longer period.
And that is what happened. The Baltimore Beis Din held several hearings into the case. Epstein refused to follow the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. Thus, the civil trial was held in June 2009. Epstein asked the court to rule that the child should stay in Pennsylvania because the child had been there for so long, which was the basis for the Court's decision that the child stay in Pennsylvania. In fact, Epstein specifically argued that the child's time in Pennsylvania should be prejudicial because Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial (in order to bring the case to beis din). The Baltimore Beis Din has never ruled that a get be given.
Epstein and the rabbis supporting her are making a total mockery of the beis din system.
Rabbi Schachter told Ami Magazine: "That we can’t have a bais din system that works is an embarrassment, a shanda and a cherpa." Rabbi Schachter's actions in this case support and encourage the very manipulation and abuse of the beis din system he purports to oppose.
For those who are interested, a detailed summary of the case is at www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com
