Weiss Dodelson: Dodelson's did begin binding arbitration proccess with Rabbi Greenwald

Update: Full document posted
The Dodelson's have been claiming that they were not involved in working out a binding arbitration agreement with Rabbi Greenwald. They assert that Rabbi Greenwald simply offered a proposal and they rejected it. Thus their side is claiming that Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak that according to everyone Avraham Meir could not be considered mesarev - is at best mistaken and worst is false.

The reality is different. There was a lot of negotiation involving the Dodelson and their lawyers as well as the intervention of Rabbi Ahron Koter and it was coordinated by Rabbi Greenwald.

This is a document which was received by Rabbi Greenwald from the Dodelson's lawyer to sign on the binding arbitration that they claim they never were involved in. 

This is clear proof that the Dodelson's did in fact start the binding arbitration process with Rabbi Greenwald. Binding arbitration was later abandoned for legal reasons and they focused on a consent order.

   Weiss-Dodelson Arbitration Agreement

===========From  Set Gital Free website

The Weiss Family has put out several statements.  This page is intended to refute their accusations and misinformation point by point.

 

Rabbi Dovid B. Feinstein put out a statement explaining the Weisses’ current position.  This is the gist of his statement:
1.      The two sides accepted Ronnie Greenwald as binding arbitrator
2.      The arbitrator rendered a decision
3.      The Weisses accepted the decision
4.      The Dodelsons rejected it
5.      Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it

 

First, before getting into the details, one note of importance:  This case was decided by the judge after three years in court and after hearing from both sides and both custody experts.  Weiss is not satisfied with that decision (despite the fact that he was the one who chose the venue of court), and he is withholding a Get until we go to arbitration for a new decision, totally discarding the judge’s decision.  That alone is extortion and totally unacceptable – withholding a Get in an attempt to obfuscate the court's ruling and a second chance to obtain better terms.

Our Response to the Statement:Ronnie Greenwald was never accepted as binding arbitrator.  Ronnie himself sent out an email: “It is unfortunate that due to many legal conditions regarding binding arbitration the proposal that I become the binding arbitrator was not accepted” (see email below).  

Most importantly, however, Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald has issued this letter to clarify any misunderstandings:

If there had been binding arbitration, it would be enforceable in court.  There would be no need to post on the internet asking anyone to “accept the decision.”  Hence, the many statements made by Dovid Feinstein alluding to "arbitration" and a "decision" are beyond meaningless.   

There was no arbitration.  There was no decision.  Rabbi Greenwald, acting as a mediator of his own volition, passed along the demands of the Weiss family.  Gital, however, has no intention of giving in to extortion.

Now you know why we need your continued support.  The court rendered its decision and the case should be over.  Withholding a Get to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars and better terms – be it through new arbitration or new negotiations – is pure extortion.

Expectation grows for repeal of Beit Shemesh elections

Times of Israel   Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein is considering going to court to overturn the results of October’s Beit Shemesh municipal elections over allegations of widespread fraud.

A police investigation into allegations that some supporters of Mayor Moshe Abutbul had voted multiple times has led, according to a Justice Ministry official, to the realization “that there is no alternative to new elections, as things appear now.” 

Officials, speaking anonymously to Israel Radio, cited the growing body of evidence related to instances of fraud, including the discovery of some 200 identity cards in an apartment and car believed to belong to Abutbul supporters and the finding of a cache of clothing that apparently served to disguise individuals who voted multiple times on election day.[...]

In light of the close vote and growing evidence of fraud, and after holding several meetings on the issue in his office in recent weeks, the attorney general is expected to appeal the vote and ask the courts to order a new municipal election.

The decision to appeal is expected soon, likely before the weekend, after which appealing the election will be prohibited by law.

The Aveirah Song - Halachic Analysis by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times   [YOUTUBE]  As of this writing, it has about 170,000 hits on YouTube. It was uploaded in February of 2013 and it has already spawned a sequel.  Out of 1000 people who watched it and rated it, it has an eleven percent disapproval rating.  None of the comments are pareve – either the listener is bowled over or deeply offended and characterizes it as a grave Chillul Hashem.

What is the Aveirah song?  What is it’s appeal?  What has been the reaction to it?  And what do Torah sources have to say about the matter?

The Aveirah song is either a satire or parody that pokes fun at, well, something.  The disclaimer at the end of the video claims that it pokes fun at those who perform sins.  Its detractors claim that while this is what the producers claim that this is what it does, in reality it just parodies contemporary Orthodox culture, and has no redeeming spiritual benefit whatsoever.

As a background, the parody was produced by a very worthy Yeshiva in Israel that works with American high school graduates and not only gets them into learning, but catapults these young men into some very serious Torah growth.  Many of their graduates go on to the most prestigious Yeshivos in Eretz Yisroel.  The singer pronounces the lyrics with a Chasidic accent, and they are set to a modern rap tune. To get a feel for it, some of the lyrics are below.

I eat a gid hanasheh every bite,

I put on my left shoe before my right,

You think I don’t do aveiros? Don’t even wonder,

I never make a brucheh when I hear the thunder,

My wife wears a sheitel, not a tichel,

I eat the herring without the kichel,

I drink every night ad delo yudeh,

I never sing zemiros at the shabbos sudeh,

I hang around with a goyishe oilem,

I never do bikur cholim,

Yeah I hang out with goyim vus iz nisht gemalet,

I don’t put on my paper, beis samech daled. [...]

A proposal for solving the problem of get me'usa by Rav Dovid Eidensohn

Years ago, somebody told me he was upset with his wife. He had no specific complaint against his wife, but he was very upset. Finally, I asked him who he was talking to that got him in such a mood. He told me so and so. I asked, isn’t that person recently divorced? He said yes. I told him, “Get that person out of your house.” After that it was quiet. 

There was an article in the New York Times about an apartment building in Manhattan peopled by the up and coming. Those people had the good jobs,  great futures, and wonderful marriages. One day, people in the building were shocked to discover that a couple divorced. After a while, a neighbor of that couple divorced. And so it spread like a contagion. Those near a divorced person began to divorce, until the entire building was shaking with divorce. The purpose of the article obviously is to describe the poison that emanates from a bitter person who wants to spread the salvation that divorce brought to them. But this is wrong. If you talk to somebody filled with hate, you are going to learn hate. Never talk to such a person. Your marriage and your life hang in the balance.

Now let’s talk about the average couple in the Torah world who have a problem.  The husband or wife is very angry, but who can they talk to about it? Well, the closest people to them such as parents soon are brought into the secret. Maybe the way the complaint is expressed, filled with bitterness, influences the parent or close friend. Somebody has just lit a match in a very sensitive area. Eventually, the bitterness becomes open and both parents jump in and the marriage is over with.

I spoke with a major rabbi in Israel not long ago and told him that telling parents of your problem with your spouse is very dangerous, because parents have no balance and can really mess up a marriage. He agreed enthusiastically. 

Now let us go to the solution.

Let us assume that every marriage has its problems. The key to survival is to know what to do with these problems. We just described the folly of getting parents to back your hate, until both parents are firing away and the marriage is dead. So what should be done? Our solution is as follows.

First of all, marriage today is too delicate to wait until it falls apart to look for counseling. Then it may be too late. My idea is that before marriage and surely in its early phases the couple sign up with a Shalom Bais Beth Din. Now, this is not the ordinary Beth Din that enters the picture after all of the dishes have been smashed. This Beth Din does not deal with divorce or punishment for destroyed marriages. This Shalom Bais Din is only about Shalom. What is its function and how does it do its work to make Shalom?

The couple signs up with the Beth Din preferably before the marriage. A program of education is begun. Education covers those areas that impact upon Shalom Bayis, such as earnings, being tired or exhausted, unrealistic ambitions and expectations, etc.  We straighten out the road before it is filled with potholes.  We don’t ignore the basic problems that make pressures and confusion and disappointment in marriage, but we educate that they are here and must be faced and dealt with. And we educate the couple how to face and deal with them.

In other words, the Beth Din looks for trouble before it erupts. Most of the trouble is easily identified and can be dealt with, so we are far ahead of our program in the initial educating process. But yet, there can still be problems of personality, sensitivity, family, etc. So we come to phase two, not anticipating trouble, but leaning about it and dealing with it. As soon as husband or wife has a complaint, they are taught how to deal with it, and if they can’t settle it themselves, they must bring it to the Shalom Beth Din. The Shalom Beth Din will try to organize things, although this is easier said than done. Nonetheless, the fact that a Beth Din is involved, not in dividing up the children and money, but in settling things and making shalom, puts us far ahead of the usual process of problems in marriage.

We thus have phase one of pre-marital and early education, phase two of dealing with problems that erupt despite the education, and we come now to phase three, when one of the couple doesn’t listen to the Beth Din and the marriage is in trouble. Phase three is the power to fine, not to force a GET, because this Beth Din is not about divorce, but about Shalom Bayis. The fine is levied for violating Shalom Bayis. The couple signs a paper that is legal in Jewish and secular law that they will obey the Beth Din’s suggestions to make Shalom in the house. And if someone defies the Beth Din, the Beth Din has the power of fining the guilty party.

Now let us jump ahead to a marriage where the husband is tough and continues torturing his wife and refuses to listen to the Beth Din. He is fined, and fined again, and fined again. If it continues, and these legal obligations pile up, threatening his car, his house, his gulf clubs, his seforim, he may decide that he can’t afford this marriage and ask for a divorce. Note, he asks for the divorce to spare himself the fines. At least, this marriage will not make an Agunah. There is no problem of GET MEUSO  a forced GET because the Beth Din is not interested in divorce; it wants Shalom and its fines are directed at creating Shalom not at creating Gittin.

In very rare cases a husband may be a candidate for a forced GET, but this is not the purpose of the Beth Din, whose purpose is Shalom. If the husband is a candidate for a coerced GET, which is extremely rare, the Beth Din can make recommendations how to proceed, but its basic function is to make Shalom, and if it makes a GET it is a failure and a wrong turn in the process. Thus, there is no problem of forced GET because the Beth Din does not want a GET. Preferably, if there is to be a coerced GET another Beth Din should be involved, and should be under the direct guidance of Gedolei HaDor, as a letter from Rav Wosner states.

To summarize, one should not marry with Kiddushin unless they are cognizant of the chance of being an Agunah and the sin of doing something in violation of accepted halacha to coerce a GET or to annul the marriage. My brother told me that this was the opinion of HaGaon Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”o head of the Beth Din of the Ado in Jerusalem.

Each community should establish a Shalom Bais Din and see that various procedures are implemented to improve the marriages and prevent broken marriages and Agunose.

Such a Beth Din should be founded with the guidance of senior Gittin poskim, although the purpose is not to make a GET but to make Shalom Bayis.

If anyone is interested in such a project they can contact me at 845-578-1917.

Dovid Eidensohn

Musmach from Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l  to be Rosh Beth Din of Gittin

Weiss Dodelson: Background on the siruv from Machon Lehora

Just received this comment from a distinguished talmid chachom. He said I can publish it but to delete his name from the comment. Even though he is fully aware that it will be obvious  from the comment - to the Lakewood establishment - who he is.

Rabbi Eidensohn,

I just wish to point out that over two years ago Rabbi Malkiel Kotler asked me how he can convince Machon Lehora to issue a siruv in this case. 

My response was, if a siruv is warranted why do you need my assistance, and if not why should I assist. His response, "ihr veist doch vee es geit" [my translation - "you know very well how things are done"]

Please don't quote in my name.

Custody Battle Raises Questions About the Rights of Women - or divorce is unfair to someone

NYTimes    The relationship did not last long — but she did become pregnant. And now the skier, 36, and Ms. McKenna, 27, a former Marine and firefighter who is attending Columbia University with G.I. Bill support, are locked in a cross-country custody fight that has become not only tabloid fodder but also a closely watched legal battle over the rights of pregnant women to travel and make life choices. 

In December, when she was seven months pregnant and already sparring with Mr. Miller about their future relations, Ms. McKenna moved to New York to start school. Mr. Miller accused her of fleeing to find a sympathetic court, and a New York judge agreed, castigating Ms. McKenna for virtually absconding with her fetus. This allowed a California court to subsequently grant custody of the baby, a boy, to Mr. Miller and also set off alarm bells among advocates for women’s rights. 

But on Nov. 14, a five-judge appeals court in New York said Ms. McKenna’s basic rights had been violated, adding, “Putative fathers have neither the right nor the ability to restrict a pregnant woman from her constitutionally protected liberty.” 

The appeals court also ruled that jurisdiction belonged in New York. 

On Monday, a New York City Family Court will start proceedings that could switch custody of the boy, now nine months old, back to Ms. McKenna.[...]

Once the boy was born, Ms. McKenna filed in New York for temporary custody. But on May 30, a Family Court referee refused, rebuking Ms. McKenna for “unjustifiable conduct” and “forum shopping” and making the unusual decision to leave the case in California even though the baby was born and lived in New York. 

While Ms. McKenna “did not ‘abduct’ the child,” the court said, “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.” 

The Family Court in San Diego proceeded to grant primary custody to Mr. Miller. On Sept. 4, as Ms. McKenna described it, choking up, Mr. Miller and his wife came to her apartment, “took the baby out of my arms, dropped it in a car seat and drove away.”

Rabbi Zweibel: Aguna supporters are creating halachic problems

Rabbi Dovid Zweibel  said at the Aguda convention:

"There are so many issues, the Agunah issue, which has been in the news for all kinds of terrible reasons... 'We have to do something about it!' Unfortunately we discover that sometimes 'doing something about it' without the proper hadracha of Gedolei yisroel, can be so terribly counterproductive and can create shaalos about the validity of Gittin." See minute 19:52



Motzoei Shabbos Address from R' Chaim Dovid Zwiebel from Agudath Israel on Vimeo.

Weiss-Dodelson: Did the Weiss family lie about Rabbi Greenwald's involvement?

Update November 23, 2013: Rabbi Greenwald's letter to me below
Besides the hostility of the Dodelson's towards the Weiss family because Avraham Meir has not given their daughter a get - there are strong accusation by Dodelson supporters that the Weiss's are lying about Rabbi Greenwald's involvement to try and find a resolution of the crisis. A more polite version of this accusation is found on the Dodelson's website in the section refuting Weiss statements. The critical issues is whether the families were in negotiation with Rabbi Greenwald prior to Gital going to the New York Post and publicly shaming the Weiss family and Orthodox Judaism. She claimed she had no alternative to get her freedom. In response Rav Reuven Feinstein's son Rav David claims they were in the midst of negotiation with Rabbi Greenwald and thus Gital had no need for the interview.

Inititally I thought that Rabbi Greenwald would simply explain whether he thought the Weiss's were liars. In response to my questions in this matter I did receive a letter from him - but it just repeated what his third letter said without explaining the contradition with the first two letters He did not respond for my request for further clarification. Because the Weiss family decided not to get involved in a public debate,  contrary to my expectation they did not issue a public rebuttal.  Because of the continued sneering comments I am getting from Dodelson supporters - that not only accuse the Weiss's of dishonesty but also Rav Dovid Feinstein -  I have decided to make the efforts to explain the matter. This explanation has not be reviewed or authorized by anyone - I take full responsibility for it.  Rabbi Greenwald's 3 letters - full text
Rav Dovid Feinstein (Rav Reuven's son) letter

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

The first two letters written by Rabbi Greenwald were on October 2013 and November 7^th.

In the October letter he wrote the [3^rd parties],

It's 4 months ago that both of you [3^rd parties] asked that I serve as binding arbitrator ... and bring about a get. ... It is unfortunate that due to many legal conditions regarding binding arbitration the proposal that I become the binding arbitrator was not accepted....

In the November 7^th letter he wrote to Rabbi Weiss:

I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you and Avrohom Meir agreed to the proposal I had suggested on Oct 15 so that the get could be given without delay. The Weiss and Dodelson familes came to me in June 2013 asking me to undertake this process. Since then I have consulted with the families, their advisors and outside experts, which led to my carefully considered proposal. You accepted my proposal provided it included 2 provisions....Once the proposal was accepted by the Weiss family, I advised the Dodelsons of your acceptance. I was informed that they didn't accept my proposal and I'm still waiting to hear from them of a counter proposal. I believe that once I have both proposals in hand, some compromise can be worked out so that this tragic situation can be resolved.

We learn from these letters

1) 3^rd parties asked Rabbi Greenwald to serve as binding arbitrator

2) Legal conditions made the proposal of binding arbitration unacceptable [and not because the parties refused]

3) Both the Weiss and Dodelson familes came to Rabbi Greenwald and asked him to undertake this process.

4) Rabbi Greenwald put in a lot of effort consulting with the families, their adisors and outside experts.[which the Dodelson's fully participated including having their lawyer evaluate the proposals]

5) Rabbi Greenwald drew up a proposed solution which was accepted by the Weiss family [end of October 2013]

6) The Dodelson's didn't accept the proposal

7) Rabbi Greenwald was expecting a counterproposal.

8) The Dodelson's did not offer a counterproposal but Gital went to the NY Post and gave her interview in the beginning of November – in which she claimed she had no other option for obtaining the Get.

It is obvious that what these letters say is in total agreement with the assertions of Rav Dovid Feinstein and Rav Reuven's son Rav Dovid.  Thus those who have claimed that the Weiss's are liars and that Rav Dovid was less than honest regarding Rabbi Greenwald's involvedment are clearly wrong

1) Rav Dovid Feinstein wrote:

 "As Rabbi Greenwald's letter attests, both families agreed to come before him for a decision to resolve this matter Therefore, Avrahom Meir cannot be considered a mesarev or a me'agen." [This was not a claim of binding arbitration but as a mediator]

 2) Rav Dovid Feinstein (son of Rav Reuven) wrote:

Mrs. Dodelson, Saki, was actually the one around yomim noraim time this year, that reached out to my wife, to ask what we can do to get the process back on track.

Around Chol Hamoed Succos, I saw a chance. Avrom Meir Weiss reiterated clearly to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, (and signed the document), that he would accept unconditionally the ruling of Ronny Greenwald, who was accepted to be the binding arbitrator. (Even if he does not like, or agree with the decision, he will accept it.} He made it clear (in writing), that he would accept the arbitration, and a get would be given forty five days after the decision is entered into court, so as the other side, the Dodelsons, cannot appeal. At that time, a get will be given.

The arbitration started in May. It stalled for five months, but Boruch Hashem it was restarted on Oct. 15 2013. According to Ronny Greenwald, even though the Weiss's responded in time, before the deadline Sunday the 20th of Oct. and it's not clear to me if and when the Dodelsons responded, the Weiss's, even today, are still accepting Ronny's decision, and will abide by his words as a non partial binding decision, and Avrom Meir is still willing to give the get, as stated above. [...]

I do not know who is behind the newspaper articles, and demonstrations that are going on while arbitration are still in progress,( to me it seems counterproductive). Also, I have no idea what can be said about the Chilul Hashem. Whoever's fault you want to say it is, how can we let the Kovod Shamayim be lowered like this? Does it make a Difference who's fault this is?

[This letter says that only Avrohom Meir accepted in writing that Rabbi Greenwald proposal was binding. It is important to note that while Rabbi Feinstein uses the term arbitration he apparently means mediation. Rabbi Feinstein objected to the Dodelson's going to the newspapers and having demonstrations when mediation is going on. Mediation had in fact been going on and Rabbi Feinstein assumed - as did Rabbi Greenwald - that even though they didn't like the proposal of Oct 15  they would come back with a counteroffer.

Thus apparently there is no problem or inconsistently between these two letters and the view of the Weiss/Feinstein family and the comment of Rav Dovid Feinstein.

Third letter from Rabbi Greenwald:
 However Rabbi Greenwald wrote a 3^rd letter on November 11, 2013 which seems to  contradict his first two letters. This letter was apparently written to the Dodelsons or their lawyer. It was posted on the Dodelson's website click here-  refuting Weiss statements   which also incorrectly summarizes Rav Dovid Feinstein's (Rav Reuven's son) view as:

    Rabbi Dovid B. Feinstein put out a statement explaining the Weisses’ current position.  This is the gist of his statement:
1.      The two sides accepted Ronnie Greenwald as binding arbitrator
2.      The arbitrator rendered a decision
3.      The Weisses accepted the decision
4.      The Dodelsons rejected it
5.      Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it

Rabbi Greenwald wrote this letter immediately after the NY Post interview with Gital was released. He also fell and broken a number of bones and was suffering from strong pain and was on heavy medication. He also reported that he was inundated by calls and emails demanding an explanation of his position and he said he could not take it any more.

What was the purpose of this letter? The 3rd letter says in part:

[...] 3^rd parties asked me to offer my services to the Weiss Dodelson Families to serve as Binding Arbitrator for their disputes...I was unable to set up such an arbitration format and the parties never agreed to my serving as Binding Arbitrator.

I have since then tried to step forward as a mediator. In this effort too I never received any agreement from the parties to serve as a mediator.    This leaves their disputes as they were prior to my efforts.  While I may cointinue to try to mediate, I am doing so strictly on my own initiative and not at the request or with the consent of the parties.  I regret if my previous letter of Nov. 7^th created the mistaken impression that the parties had ageeed to my role as either Binding Arbitrator or mediator.

Rabbi Greenwald's letter clarification letter to me

 I wrote to Rabbi Greenwald regarding this third letter  On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:34 AM,

I am writing a response to this letter and would like your input

Will you please confirm that his letter is genuine and accurately reports the facts.

If it is genuine do you have any comments that you would be willing to make public that might repair the severe damage this letter caused to the credibility not only of the Weiss-Feinstein families but to Rav Dovid Feinstein, shlita himself?

I received the following response:

From: Ronnie Greenwald
Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Retraction letter
To: Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbi Eidensohn,

Below are my comments:

I am sending you a letter which I sent to R Zlotowitz of Artscroll and R Aron Kotler in Lakewood. You and your readers should know that both of them have unceasingly dedicated themselves to assisting me to resolve the situation so that a get could be given. They were always available to help. I ask you Rabbi Eidensohn to only publish my letter to them if you feel that it de-escalates the hostility to these revered families and their friends.

It is also critical to note that my respect and reverence for the gadol, Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita, has not been diminished one iota. I regret that my letter about my efforts as mediator may have allowed the impression that my role was sanctioned by both families thus leading to confusion.

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

Dear Meir and Aron,

You, Meir, and you, Aron, know that I consider you both among my closest and smartest friends, who have achieved amazing things in your lifetimes. When the two of you agreed that I would be a good mediator, shaliach, askan, arbitrator or whatever word you want to use, I accepted that awesome responsibility because after meeting both families I believed that a resolution was achievable. The last thing that I wanted to happen was that any comments I made would lead to newspaper articles, blogs, batei din and machlokes, and bigger machlokes.

My role was to make peace. The last thing I wanted was to increase hostility and animosity among two of the most highly revered families in klall Yisroel and in klall Yisroel, as well. I have therefore decided that from now on I will not take phone calls on this subject, even from my dear friends Meir and Aron since it has caused me terrible pain. I love you guys and respect you guys but you must give me some peace for a little while. I am sharing this note with the Weiss and Dodelson family and my family as well.

Sorry but we must all move on.

Best,

Ronnie

PS If you do post this, please include my preliminary remarks.

=================[to be continued] 

Deb Tambor: Reason for alienation from kids - her mental instability or influence of Chassidim?

NY Times    Ms. Tambor, 33, had forsaken the Hasidic Jewish world in which she was raised and married, a decision that undermined her relationship with her children. Her Skver Hasidic sect in Rockland County, N.Y., was concerned that Ms. Tambor’s freer lifestyle might be a subversive influence on the children, and whether it swayed the children to keep their distance and limited her opportunities to visit has become an emotionally charged question in wider Jewish circles. 

Articles in The Forward, The Jewish Week and the online magazine Tablet and on blogs run by Hasidic defectors, like Failed Messiah, have detailed the agonizing challenges facing those who leave the insular world of Hasidim, where dress is austere, the language is Yiddish and religious obligations structure each day. 

Former Hasidim seeking child custody arrangements find that rabbis, community leaders and Orthodox Jewish family therapists line up with money and witnesses behind the Hasidic spouse. Such influence is especially powerful in a place like Rockland, a county near New York City where one-third of the residents are Jewish.  [...]

Even before she divorced and had to work out custody arrangements to see her children, she had a troubled history that included depression and, according to friends, sexual abuse by a relative. But Ms. Tambor’s friends and supporters say her alienation from her children weighed most heavily, and for that they blame her family and the rest of the Hasidic community she left behind.[...]

Yeedle Melber, a cousin of Mr. Dirnfeld, said close family members had told him that Ms. Tambor began to have mental problems several years ago after she was struck by a car. There followed an attempt to take her own life during the marriage and hospitalization for five months at Rockland Psychiatric Center.  [...]

Family Court records are sealed. But an official in the state courts familiar with the Tambor case, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said decisions in the children’s custody were based entirely on Ms. Tambor’s mercurial behavior and the previous suicide attempt. 

“There was a unanimous feeling that the mother was in no shape to get custody or even unsupervised visits,” the official said. “The fact that she tragically took her own life is the clearest indication that what the experts said about her psychiatric problems was right.”[...]

Schlesinger Twins: New revelations from her husband's father

Jewish Telegraph     Only when Beth separated from her husband after three years did she decide to make contact with the father-in-law she had never met and from whom his son had been estranged for 30 years.

From him she heard a chilling, all-too-familiar tale.

She introduced him to the grandchildren he never knew he had and he spent happy hours with them until his furious son was granted a court order forbidding any further contact.

Beth said: “He wept when we met. He said that a miracle had come true beyond his wildest dreams.

“This father was a simple man with simple wishes. He did not desire riches or pursue unrealistic aspirations.

“He did not fight for custody nor did he wrangle for assets.

“His only wish was to attain the inalienable right of every parent to see his children and play a role in their lives.

“He was denied that as the court battle dragged on for 10 years.

“He lost everything, including, at times, his will to live.

“Without emotional or financial support and with nowhere to turn, this father was left a broken man.”

He never remarried nor enjoyed the pleasure of parenthood.

Beth told me: “It was almost word for word identical to my own experience.

“Suspicious psychological reports, dubious professional statements, irregular court decisions and questionable tactics which caused immeasurable psychological damage.”

She added: “My father-in-law said that as far as he’s concerned, his son is dead.” [...]

Weiss-Dodelson: Role of Mechon L'Horaah Beis Din

Guest post by Joseph

I think it is important to discuss the role that the Mechon L'Horaah Beis Din played in the Weiss/Dodleson Get saga. Gital Dodelson's entire complaint against Avrohom Meir Weiss hinges entirely on the siruv that Machon L'Hora'ah issued. Without that siruv, Dodelson has no case against Weiss. Therefore, I believe, it is vital to take a deep look at this issue regarding this beis din and its siruv.

Now, who is this Mechon L'Horaah Beis Din? Who formed this beis din, which community do they represent and who are their dayanim and what are their affiliations? Specifically in Gittin cases does Mechon L'Horaah have a reputation of being pro-Get/pro-women? Are they know for being exclusively for emes, upholding halacha rigorously without bending it towards modern/Western sensibilities and for not giving preference to a favored crowd or toenim or pay-for-play?

With the siruv in hand, Dodelson is running around calling Weiss a mesarev. Nevertheless, they still cannot call him a me'agen since no beis din even purports to have ordered Weiss to give a Get. If Weiss is a mesarev they claim that they can pressure for a Get. But this claim is baseless since no beis din called him a me'agen. And being a mesarev is not sufficient to pressure someone to give a Get according to any shitta.

But the most important question here is on what basis did Mechon L'Horaah even issue this siruv. As we all know, and as paskened by Rav Moshe and held as binding halacha by virtually all quarters, no one today is subject to the jurisdiction of any standing Beis Din. Anyone summoned to any particular Beis Din can demand the case be heard in Zabla rather than the Beis Din selected by the plaintiff. (Halacha also says that the beis din trial is to be held in the defendant's town, not the plaintiff's town.) And the original Beis Din must accept a demand for Zabla. Even Mechon L'Horaah accepts as binding halacha the right for any party to insist on Zabla.

When Dodelson summoned Weiss to the Mechon L'Horaah's beis din, Weiss responded demanding Zabla - as is his halachic right. Nevertheless, Mechon L'Horaah blatantly ignored his request to change the proceedings to Zabla and Mechon L'Horaah continued pretending that it had jurisdiction over the case. It did so even though Weiss never accepted its jurisdiction over the case and, thus, halachicly Mechon L'Horaah has no jurisdiction over this case.

So how, pray tell, does Mechon L'Horaah justify its action here? And once we recognize that Mechon L'Horaah had no jurisdiction over this case and thus had no right or basis to issue a siruv against Weiss, Dodelson's entire case collapses from a halachic perspective. Weiss is under no Beis Din order to give a Get (no one even claims any Beis Din ordered Weiss give a Get [which also means no pressure is permissible to be applied against Weiss according to any shitta]). And once we established Mechon L'Horaah had no jurisdiction, it is established that its siruv was invalid and Weiss is not even a mesarev and there is nothing left to any purported case against him from a halachic perspective.

Addendum: Another interesting aspect on this topic is that the Mechon L'Horaah siruv is over the fact that Weiss used arkaos. Now, there is a dispute between Weiss and Dodelson whether the Heter Arkaos that Weiss received was valid. Weiss says that since his wife unilaterally ran away from their marriage without halachicly just cause, and even worse grabbed their child and took him with her without Avrohom Meir's consent that she take the child away from their marital home, he was in an emergency situation over the loss of his child and thus was justified in receiving his Heter Arkaos. Dodelson disputes his right to arkaos. But that dispute is really all beside the point at this time and mostly irrelevant. The reason for that is that the siruv was issued against Weiss for using arkaos. But the arkaos case is completely done with. It is inactive and no longer in court. The case is closed. So there is no more arkaos for Weiss to withdraw from. Therefore Mechon L'Horaah's siruv, according to anyone, no longer has any standing as the issue is now moot. But all this is even assuming the siruv was ever valid in the first place, which as explained above is not the case.