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?
==============================
when you show me said letters, I will personally call him and ask him!
hows that?
hows that?
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.