Child Abuse: Most people would not report abuse

The Age

MOST Australians would turn a blind eye if confronted with clear signs that a child was being physically or sexually abused or neglected, a survey has revealed.

The National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN) surveyed 22,000 Australians and discovered that less than half the respondents would contact child protection authorities or the police if they knew a child was being abused. Only one-third of respondents would call police if a child disclosed sexual abuse.

In cases of neglect, all but 13 per cent said they would mind their own business. [...]

Tenacity - Failing driving test 959 times before succeeding!

New York Times

A PERSON could know South Korea for a long time without knowing Wanju, an obscure county 112 miles south of Seoul. And, at least until recently, a person could know a lot about Wanju without ever hearing of Cha Sa-soon, a 69-year-old woman who lives alone in the mountain-ringed village of Sinchon.

Now, however, Ms. Cha is an unlikely national celebrity.

This diminutive woman, now known nationwide as “Grandma Cha Sa-soon,” has achieved a record that causes people here to first shake their heads with astonishment and then smile: She failed her driver’s test hundreds of times but never gave up. Finally, she got her license — on her 960th try.[...]

Rav Moshe Sternbuch - Expressing Gratitude

means skin contract קירוב בשר

the claim that I am mistranslating קירוב בשר is very interesting but
is obviously mistaken. the language of Rambam and Shulchan Aruch is that
the father and daughter can sleep together בקירוב בשר however if she is
embarrassed standing nude then they must sleep in their clothing. It is
also the required state to be in for marital relations. It clearly does
not mean that they are wearing night clothes as opposed to regular
clothing. Similarly the discussion in Berachos regarding Shma - it is
clearing referring to a state of no clothing.

Kiddushin (81b): WHEN THEY GROW UP, SHE MUST SLEEP IN HER GARMENT, etc.
What is the age?26 Said R. Ada son of R. 'Azza in R. Assi's name: For a
girl, nine years and a day; for a boy, twelve years and a day. Others
state: for a girl, twelve years and a day; for a boy, thirteen years and
a day.27 And in both cases they must be, 'breasts fashioned and thine
hair was grown.'28 Rafram b. Papa said in R. Hisda's name: This was
taught only of one [a girl] who is not shy of standing nude before him
[her father]; but if she is shy of standing nude before him, it is
forbidden [for them to sleep in bodily contact]. What is the reason?
Temptation stirs29 her.3

Jastrow for קירוב בשר

nearness, contact. Keth. 48a טאר ח זו ק׳ בטר וכי her sh'er (Ex. XXI ,
10), this means the immediate contact of bodies, that he must not treat
her in the manner of the Persians &c Sabb. 13b he slept by my side
(under one cover) undressed; Y. Kidd. IV, 66c ויטן עמהן בקי בטר and he
may sleep with them &c.—
השגות הרמב"ן לספר המצוות מצות לא תעשה שנג

והנה לדעתי הברייתא השנויה בספרא אינה אלא לאיסור השכיבה בקירוב בשר כשיהיו
שניהם ערומים וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא משום חשש ביאה שהכל מודים בזה כדתנן
(קדושין פ ב) הגדילו זה ישן בכסותו וזה ישן בכסותו.

כתובות מח.

שארה - זו קרוב בשר, שלא ינהג בה מנהג פרסיים, שמשמשין מטותיהן בלבושיהן.
מסייע ליה לרב הונא, דאמר רב הונא: האומר אי אפשי אלא אני בבגדי והיא בבגדה
- יוציא ונותן כתובה.

R. Joseph learnt: Her flesh8 implies close bodily contact,9 viz, that he
must not treat her in the manner of the Persians who perform their
conjugal duties in their clothes. This provides support for [a ruling
of] R. Huna who laid down that a husband who said, 'I will not [perform
conjugal duties] unless she wears her clothes and I mine', must divorce
her and give her also her kethubah.

רמב"ם קריאת שמע ג

הלכה יט
עד אימתי הם קטנים לענין זה עד שיהא הזכר בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד והנקבה
בת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד והוא שיהא תבניתם כתבנית גדולים שדים נכונו ושערך
צמח ואחר כך לא יקרא עד שתפסיק טלית ביניהן, אבל אם עדיין לא היו שדים
נכונו ושערך צמח קורא עמהן בקירוב בשר ואינו צריך הפסק עד שיהיה הזכר בן
י"ג שנה ויום אחד והנקבה בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד.

Child abuse:Amish try to deal with it internally

New York Times hat tip Ben Torah

A troubled young man from this remote stretch of eastern Missouri, Chester Mast had traveled north in the summer of 2004 to stay with his extended family in Wisconsin. Mr. Mast, a member of a conservative Amish community here that eschews conveniences like electricity and telephones, was meant to apprentice with his uncle, a carpenter. [...]

Beis Din: Is it irrelevant?

One of the major issues raised in child abuse cases is the claim that the halacha requires that a Jew must use a beis din and not go to secular courts. This in fact is clearly codified in Shulchan Aruch.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 26:1): It is prohibited to have a case judged by non‑Jewish judges in their courts (i.e., fixed chambers where they judge cases). This prohibition applies even when the non‑Jewish judges make judgments according to Jewish law and even where both litigants agree to go. Whoever goes to them for judgment is a wicked person (rasha). It is as if he blasphemed and raised his hand against the Torah of Moshe. Rema:  Beis din can place him in cherem (ostracize them) until he removes the authority of non‑Jews from his disputant and similarly he can be ostracized for going. Even if someone doesn’t have a non‑Jewish court judge the case but uses non‑Jews to force another to go to a Jewish court, deserves to be punished by being placed in stocks… Someone who goes to a non‑Jewish court and is found guilty according to their laws and then he goes to a Jewish court – some say that the Jewish court is not to judge the case and others say that it is…and the first view appears to me to be correct.

However, the halacha also states if beis din is powerless to resolve the case than it is supposed to give permission to go to secular courts.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 26:2): If the non‑Jews are the controlling power and the litigant is powerful in his own right and therefore the person can not recover what is his by the authority of the Jewish court – he should first summon his opponent to the Jewish court. If his opponent refuses to go – he should obtain permission from the Jewish court and then use the non‑Jewish court to recover what is his from his opponent. Rema: The Jewish court has the right to go to the non‑Jewish court and to testify that one person owes the other money. All this is only if one of the litigants refuses to obey the Jewish court. Otherwise it is prohibited for a Jewish court to give authorization for Jews to have their dispute presented to a non‑Jewish court.

In reality, it seems that when gedolim get involved in cases that they know beis din is helpless they go directly to secular courts e.g., the dispute of inheritance in Satmer or the Lubavitcher Rebbe's attempt to retrieve a libary - or Michael Hersh's absurd lawsuit for $411 million dollars.

One such case is the current dispute between Ponovitch of Bnei Brak and Grodno of Ashdod. Ashdod News

It is important to point out that the requirement to go to beis din is true only when we need a trial and want to establish if someone is guilty or owes money. However, if we are dealing with issues of pikuach nefesh and are concerned only with protecting the innocent victim then there is no need of a beis din at all - except as Rav Sternbuch  said, to me, "so that the world won't be hefker." And even that aspect is only true if it doesn't endanger the welfare of anyone.