Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Schlesinger custody battle - Is she mentally ill?

 Help Beth and Her Boys - her blog with documents

update January 8, 2013

Times of Israel  Beth Schlesinger was at a Vienna play center with her 2-year-old twins, Samuel and Benjamin, when the phone rang. Her husband, Michael, had won custody of the children, social services said, and she needed to hand them over immediately.

Because her lawyer was away, Schlesinger phoned the only friendly face she could think of, a local rabbi, and headed home. The scene, she says 18 months later, was “barbaric.” Four policemen turned up with her husband as she fed her sons supper, and the children were taken without any of their belongings. She was crying, she says, and so was the rabbi.

Because she had not been awarded visitation rights, it was eight weeks until she saw the children again.

Since then, the couple — who had a Jewish divorce, but are still civilly married — have conducted a bitter custody battle that is beginning to draw media attention in Austria, and in the Jewish press in the UK, where Beth Schlesinger grew up. Her supporters, some of whom launched a public campaign on her behalf last month, claim that removing the children was highly irregular, and that they should be returned. [...]

Beth, 28, and her Austrian husband separated in February 2010, after three years of marriage. Schlesinger claims she fled to a women’s shelter, and that the marriage dissolved after the police were called to their apartment the following day. The custody dispute originates in Michael’s claims that his wife was mentally ill and suffered from post-partum depression. A court in Vienna commissioned an 80-page psychologist’s assessment, which concluded that Beth was indeed mentally unwell, delusional in her claims about how her husband treated her, and that she was not capable of raising children.

She now sees her sons every second Sunday and once during the week, with no overnight visits.

A gynecologist has told the court that there was no post-partum depression, and two privately commissioned psychological assessments have found that Schlesinger does not suffer from mental illness. A court-commissioned report, issued in mid-November, has said the same, with Dr. Werner Leixnering concluding that she had “neither at the time of examination nor at any time in the past, any form of mental illness.”


  1. no anonymous comments will be posted!

  2. Not Anonymous but NamelessDecember 19, 2012 at 6:01 AM

    This is fairly common. Divorce is almost always pursued when the two parties develop hatred for each other. Just as love can blind someone, so, too, can hate. And if we recall the expression in Chazal about this process, מקלקלת את השורה, we recognize that it corrupts logic, morality, and honesty. I have observed this process hundreds of times.

    There are many intermediaries that be exploited to carry out these acts of viciousness. Sometimes it is the shyster lawyers, sometimes the extended families, and not seldom it can be a Rov who takes a side, and engages in some of the most despicable behavior.

    While none of us readers here are likely to be informed of the exact details of this case, we can make observations of the process, and it looks all to familiar. A question to ask ourselves is how and why we have sunk so low into the abyss of decadence that these unthinkable forms of abuse and degradation are routine and acceptable. I cannot answer this other than to cry to Hashem to rescue us from the golus. We are so broken and distant from Him. ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים. We need that Heavenly light to eradicate the poison from our eyes and hearts.

  3. Why are outsiders, like you or anybody else, getting involved in this???

    1. Because these type of things are not uncommon and it seems that it is not being handled correctly. You might go through my blog and see other cases of divorce proceedings which are very problematic. Without publicity nothing happens.

      BTW it happens to be a Torah obligation - don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow man. I suggest you look up what that means.

    2. Daas torah - you know nothing about this case more than this powder puff article which looks like a paid advertising feature on behalf of the mother.

      It is rare for courts to award custody to the father. Is it not beyond the realms of possibility that the Austrian authorities may have had reasonable grounds for doing so?

      As far as to the Jewish authorities: let's look at the get. (Informtion from the expanded article published on the Times of Israel website) She asked for a get
      in the Autumn and it was finalised by March. Hardly intansigent behaviour by the husband. What Rabbanim in Australia or Manchester are doing commenting in such an outspoken manner heaven only knows. (I have spoken to one of them and he knows very little about it - and certainly has not spoken nor heard the husband's story).

      You are quite correct, of course, in quoting "don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow man" but it is equally true to be "zahir badin - careful in judgement"!

      disclaimer: I have some (but not much) knowledge of the case and believe me - there are definitely two sides to this story.

    3. So the point of your comment is what? You acknowledge you don't have much knowledge of the case and that there are two sides to the story. No argument there.

      I did not state that I favored her version over his. She claims to have psychologists that dispute the conclusions of the psychologist on which the court based its decision. Assuming this is true - and I haven't heard anyone saying its it not then that is the basis for reevaluation of the custody arrangements. It is really not so complicated.

      Was the courts decision based on a faulty evaluation or not?

      Apparently there are rabbis who also feel the matter should be re examined. Raising question about the court's judgment is legitimate example of "don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow man" Not proclaiming that the custody decision was wrong is an example of "being careful in judgemnt"

      So again - please tell me what is your point?

    4. My having some knowledge of the case is a hell of a lot more than knowing nothing.

      "I did not state that I favored her version over his" yet you post a link to her blog - hardly objective. At least make a nice clear statement at the outset that you are unable to verify the veracity of the facts of this account.

      "it seems that this is not being handled correctly" Yep - you really have read all the transcripts, so I suppose I should defer to you.

      "BTW it happens to be a Torah obligation...." That also happens to be an arrogant remark.

      Nowhere in your article nor previous responses do you use the word "claim". You do say, "seem" I admit but the connotations of these two terms are rather different.

      The Times of Israel printed a poorly researched and irresponsible article. That is, unfortunately what newspapers do but a blog purporting to be "daas torah" and with so many learned books by its author and excellent haskomos should be a bit more circumspect.

      So what if some rabbanim feel the matter should be re-examined? The ones quoted in the artcile are a long long way away. Has there been an actual statement of rabbis who are nogea b'davar?

      In summary, to answer your question: my point is to ask for a bit of balance.

    5. Please don't come over all psychological :-)

      I just want to see some fairness in the reporting and comments.

      I have no axe to grind at all. For all I kn ow she could be as pure as the driven snow but it seems to me that in all the brouhaha the husband is getting an unfair press.

    6. Avi obviously has an agenda that he is not disclosing. If he does know more details about this case that he feels need to be heard, why is he not typing them here?

    7. Because observer, some things are confidential and I have no permission to disclose details.
      That is exactly the point!

      Once again, I have NO agenda and I am neither a friend nor relative of either of the protagonists but I DO know that there is a complicated story here and the case is not as presented as the Times of Israel article nor her blog.

    8. And therefore what?

      We only have the perspective of the wife who is claiming that the court psychologist's report was wrong as attested to by the other psychologists. Why can't these other psychologists be heard by the court?

    9. At last! Now we are getting somewhere.

      All I am asking for is some balance in your presentation and you seem to have got the message, eventually.... "We only have the perspective of the wife who is claiming...."

      (Incidentally, other psychologists ARE to be heard by the court later this month. As is good and proper procedure.)

      Do you have a problem with criticism? Just asking.

    10. I think the shoe is on the other foot. You overreacted and read things into the post that were not there. No I don't have a problem with criticism as can be seen by the many comments. All of which I moderated.

      I do have problems with someone who comes to the blog for the first time and assumes the worst and feels it necessary to lecture me for conducting a lynch mob. There was no need to kick the door in with 6 guns blazing - the door was unlocked and the natives are not hostile. I welcome different viewpoints.

    11. Look. I was given your book as a present. It is an excellent book (not finished it yet!) and rare in its presentation of differing opinions. On Googling "daas torah" I found the blog.

      I was simply disappointed (especially after reading the book) in the rehashing of an incredibly poor article from the ToI about a subject about which I have some direct knowledge and especialy the link to her blog with no disclaimer. My first posting was firm but I don't think it was disrespectful and if you took it that way (and it seems you did from your initial and last reply) then I apologise.

    12. ok apology appreciated - but not necessary. Your comment wasn't disrepectful it was a misreading of what the post was. The only information I had was from two sources. the Time article and her blog. the only commment I made was the title - which was selected to indicate the facts in the case were not clear. If I picked a title such as "Injustice in Austria" then I would agree with your initial comments. But I asked "Is she mentally ill?"
      This is the same style I use in my books. I typically let the material speak for itself - with a heading that indicates in general what the issues are.

    13. From reading what Mr Noffers writes, I'm not sure he has any credibility at all. He says he is "neither a friend nor relative of either of the protagonists" yet seems to know that "other psychologists ARE to be heard by the court later this month". I have not been able to find this information in the public domain despite my googling and reading all the information about this case on the web.

      So, how does Mr Noffers have access to other details which he can't disclose due to "confidentiality"? He is either making it up, or he is actually involved somehow, which is why he has "some (but not much) knowledge of the case".

      I guess it is time for Mr Noffers to reveal who he actually is and his relationship is to those involved.

      "I just want to see some fairness in the reporting and comments." - Who is he trying to kid? His agenda is pretty transparent to all. What about fairness to the twins, does that not concern him?

      Contrary to the comment above this one, I do find Mr Noffers's comments incredibly disrespectful. Such flippant disregard for the lives and welfare of two young children taken from their perfectly capable mother, has no place in any civilised society.

      Maybe he should look into what "emes" means before quoting mussar and divrei torah.

    14. Oh dear, just when I'd made friends with DT.......

      Maybe A Concerned Jew should read her own blog. I find his comments more than disrespectful but offensive as he is basically accusing me of lying.

      Actually I have full regard for the welfare of the children and if the courts decide in the next hearing that she is awarded custody then so be it. A Concerned Jew knows, apparently, that she is "perfectly capable" - I suggest he pops across to Vienna and lets the judges know.

      I don't think that I am under any obligation to "reveal" my knowledge of this case on a public forum (especially a blog).

    15. Daas Torah - can I write to you not for publication?

    16. sure my email is on the blog

    17. Mr Noffers, you are not obliged to reveal your involvement with Schlesinger and his agenda to prevent these innocent children from having any relationship with their mother (regardless of whether she is capable or not). However, it does somewhat undermine your neutrality on this issue. It would be unfair for anyone reading your comments to think you were an impartial bystander!

      Your repeated message is that you are looking for balance in the reporting of the case. It would appear that every effort has been made to present both sides but we see each time that Schlesinger and his lawyer refuse to comment despite being given the opportunity on multiple occasions. What are they hiding? If everything is legitimate then they have nothing to be concerned about.

      I am unable to think of any justification for someone to repeatedly lie in court, corrupt a psychologist and then uproot these children from the only home and family they have ever known? I find this behaviour totally indefensible as does everyone else reading the articles online. Your cloak of confidentiality only goes to convince people further how appalling Schlesinger is. By all means, email the owner of this blog with lies that cannot be debated here, that doesn't sound balanced to me either!

      Oh dear indeed that you place your trust in the hands of the Austrian authorities. A country with a chilling history and one that regularly brings us the worst abuse cases in the Western world (look no further than Natasha Kampushch and Joseph Fritzl), a country currently hailed as one of the most corrupt in Europe.

      I truly feel sorry for you, Mr Noff, that you are unable to see the real issues at hand and that you demonstrate such little compassion for these children who are suffering daily at the hands of such a violent individual.

    18. Unfortunately "A concerned Jew" is right, I saw it on an Austrian News item which someone uploaded onto YouTube. Search for "Schlesinger Twins campaign on Austrian News".

    19. To A Concerned Jew: I will reply to you (in a polite and civilised manner) to your rant, paragraph by paragraph.

      1 - I repeat that I have no partiality in this case. If you chose to disbelieve me then that is your prerogative.

      2 - tell me why should Mr.(Dr.?) Schlesinger make any comments to the media. He makes his statements to the only forum that matters - the courts.

      3 - "lie to the court" "corrupt a psychologist" These are extraordinary allegations. Do you have any evidence to back these statements?
      As to my 'cloak of confidentiality' - is "A Concerned Jew" your real name? You are suggesting that I have a connection to Schlesinger which shows how appalling he is. This is not the case. You also state that I am sending lies to the author of the blog - I'm afraid you are a simply a scoundrel for suggesting such a thing.

      4 - if I recall correctly once the horrific abuse cases you mention were discovered they were indeed dealt with by the Austrian authorities so I fail to see your point here. If you are writing from America then I think that country has many skeletons in its closet. Does the massacre at Sandy Hook to mention the most recent example mean that all American males are homicidal maniacs? If you're in the UK - does the Hillsborough fiasco mean that ALL policeman are corrupt? If South Africa - then you grew up in the apartheid years - enough said. Where is Austria hailed as being the most corrupt in Europe? (I'm not Austrian and have no idea - and to be quite honest I couldn't care less about that country.)

      5 - NO, the real issue at hand is - who is the most correct, the mother or father? I, unlike the courts already and in a couple of weeks when the final decision - with new reports are presented - is made (go on - look it up a bit more carefully), do not know.
      Oh, and by the way, if you are going to write to me then please do not shorten my name - it's rude.

      Anonymous - I really don't think you can make any informed decisions from either of the youtube videos of the "save the twins" campaign. It is after all, exactly what it says - a campaign.

    20. Mr Noffers (apologies for the typo in your name earlier), I am flabbergasted that you still claim to be impartial!!! Nonetheless, I shall humor you and address the points you set out.

      1) I don't think I can add anything here. The readers will decide based on your writings thus far, just how biased you are.

      2) Schlesinger is under no obligation to talk to the media, but if he doesn't, how then does he expect to be represented? The mother obviously feels enough of an injustice to raise awareness of this scandalous, shameful episode in Vienna's Jewish community, in which case she is more than justified going to the press provided what she says is truthful. As far as I can tell, no one is disputing what she is saying. The media have reported in an unbiased manner with all the facts that were presented from both sides. I'm sorry if your "impartial" viewpoint doesn't like that.

      3) If you read the information out there, you will see it for yourself, or are you simply going to believe Schlesinger's word without regard for the sort of monster he is.

      4) In the aftermath of the child abuse cases I refer to (which shocked the world), the Austrian bodies set up to protect children were heavily criticized at not investigating many warnings while the abuse was happening. Once again, I'm afraid more research is required on your part! If you want to compare Austria to apartheid South Africa then you have very low expectations! The corruption statistics of Austria in Europe are available online for all to see.

      5) "who is the most correct" - what an unusual phrase! Surely no one should be incorrect/lying. Once again, you proved yourself totally discredited at your simple inability to know the distinction between truths and lies. This appears to be a recurring theme in our dialogue! The courts should be acting in the best interests of the children, not on whether Schlesinger's lies are believed. Which reports are you referring to? What/who are they supposed to be an assessment of?

      6) You can't really suggest Austrian News is a "save the twins" campaign TV channel. This was a report broadcast on an independent news programme and should be treated as such.

    21. 1 - I was not going to bother to reply but since you persist on accusing me of being untruthful I will.

      2 (&6) - well obviously the mother is going to raise awareness of her case - this proves nothing at all but she is indeed justified in doing so. [ I don't think demonstrating in London outside shuls is a particularly clever tactic, BTW.] I think you'll find that the husband and the original court decision DO dispute her version. Have the Viennese social service / medical system instigated child protection procedures? We don't know - we only have the mother and her supporters statements that the children are not developing and have poor care. Did the dentist raise concerns about oral hygiene care? If the answer to these questions is yes then the whole affair is different and whether the mother is mentally ill or not is not the most pressing matter at hand. The issue is whether the children need to be taken into foster care pending a final decision about custody with either parent (if either is deemed to be competent and fit).
      The media like nothing more than a nice juicy scandal whether correct or not. A careful viewing of the TV report reveals that it doesn't really say anything conclusive but raises the question about whether an injustice has been done. I have no problems whatsoever with this and it may well transpire that it has and the children are returned to the mother.

      3 - "without regard for the sort of monster that he is" this is very emotive language and leads me to believe that you are somehow involved with the case

      4 -

      "Continued strong protection of the rule of law and fundamental foundations of economic freedom is reflected in Austria’s high scores in property rights and freedom from corruption"

      The system doesn't sound too bad. Like all countries -domestic and child abuse is a plague which affects Austria too. I simply do not believe that the authorities, especially in a high-profile case such as this, would let a "monster" or "violent" man free to continue to abuse.

      Do you really not think that the social services in Austria would not have had rockets shoved up the proverbial following the Fritzl case?! This case has received high publicity and is not unknown to them like Fritzl / Kampusch.

      (I can't believe that I am becoming a spokesman for Austria here!)

      5 - "who is the most correct" is the most apposite phrase. As I'm sure DT will agree, it is rare in psychology or counselling for "truth" to be on one side or the other in a dispute, especially one like this when emotions are running very high. There are nearly always positive and negative attributes to both protagonists and their claims.

      Once again, I'm not on the side of the father. One thing I am sure of is that he has a case - it may not turn out to be a good one - which, together with hers, should be made in the place where it counts. Once again, from the TV report, it seems that the most recent psychological reports are indeed to be heard.

    22. Mr Noffers, you are an impossible person to debate with. You constantly change your story, selectively quote the facts, cite confidentiality when you don't have the answers, bring in new points as asides and don't fully address the points I raise.

      Let us get back to the issue at hand. To take children away from their mother is a very big and drastic move. For the courts to do such a thing, there must have been some very serious reasons. However, from reading the information online (I do not have access to the full custody decision text like you do) I cannot find any justification for the courts to make such a move. The only accusation appears to be that the mother is somehow mentally ill or incapable of looking after her children, yet this has now been totally refuted by an INDEPENDENT and COURT COMMISSIONED psychological report (which even you acknowledge!). If this is the case, why has the judge not immediately reverted custody back to the mother? This report has been out for over two months yet the judge has done nothing.

      It is not sufficient for the courts to say that the father is simply the better parent. Nearly every psychological study in the world says children need their mother rather than the father if there had to be a choice (provided the mother was capable). Furthermore, the father has demonstrated his incapability of looking after the children as we have seen from the youtube videos and mountains of evidence online. The father is doing everything he can to prevent the children from seeing their mother. He regularly cancels her visits and he has used the courts to reduce her minimal visiting time as much as he can. Is this the loving and caring father you support so vehemently?

      Which reports are you referring to when you say there will be more reports coming out in January? Who is writing these reports? Are they independently commissioned by the judge or are they simply more corrupt reports coming from the father and his cronies? (I think the readers can already guess the answer to this one!)

      The courts have either not been fair or have not been transparent in their decisions, which leads me to only one conclusion! If the father does have a case (whether good or not), why is this being kept secret? For any justice system to be credible, it needs to be transparent and sadly that is lacking here, bringing yet more questions about fairness in the court.

    23. Read a little bit more and you will easily find that the reports commissioned by the mother are to be heard. As far as the reports to be heard go, I will help since you can't be bothered to do the most basic critical reading. Look at the Austrian TV report at minute 3:04

      I haven't fully address the points you made because, to be frank, you haven't raised any. You brought into question Austria's credibility, not I.

      You are basing your entire argument on the onliine information (nearly all of which is presented by the mother's campaign) and the YouTube videos (!!!) and not the court transcripts. I don't believe the court's decision was entirely based on an accusation and a single report by the first psychologist. Wasn't it an EIGHTY page legal conclusion?

      Once again (yawn) I do not support the father. I am simply asknig that a modicum of critical judgement be employed before accepting the side of the mother and her campaign hook, line and sinker and that there is the teeny weeniest possibility that the situation is not as 100% as A Concerned Jew seems to think is the case.

      Still we are making progress. You have stopped calling me a liar and I am now merely impossible. L'at l'at.

    24. Mr Noffers, maybe you could answer this one simple question in order to provide some information to those people who may be concerned they are receiving only one side of the story.

      What were the reasons for the courts to have custody taken away from the mother?

    25. Please stop publishing anonymous comments - pick a name - any name except anonymous. It is impossible to keep track of who said what when comments are anonymous!

    26. Apologies to Daas Torah for my publishing comments without choosing a name. I have decided to rename “A Concerned Jew” to Wolfgang Schüssel.

      We are still waiting for a response from Avi Noffers as to why custody was taken from the mother. He has access to the “EIGHTY page legal conclusion” so it should be a chance for him to clear up some of the facts we are clearly missing from the publicly available information out there.

      While we wait for him to think of something to write, the readers may be interested in an article in the Austrian press this morning:,841007

      This article implicates a high court judge (known to the newspaper but not the name is not revealed) who is a good friend of the father and has intervened on his behalf despite her having no jurisdiction in this case. I must stress (before Mr Noffers rants on about information from the mother’s campaign) that this article has come from an independent newspaper and is accountable for what it prints.

    27. Herr Schuessel: at no time have I "ranted" to you although I was a bit OTT in my initial comments to DT at the beginning. :-(

      Before reading the article in TOI and on this blog I had not really paid much attention to this case. Since then I have read more than is probably good for me on various websites and blogs and my head is kind of exploding. I read somewhere (and I admit this weakens my argument a bit as I cannot quote the source) about the 80 page document. I do not, of course, have access to this. Anyway my German would not cope with a legal document and I have neither the time nor inclination to try to find it and get it translated.

      IF the allegations in today's newspaper are correct (and newspapers have been known to embellish facts in all countries) then this is a very serious matter and indeed makes the initial judgement less trustworthy. There will, no doubt, be an investigation of these very serious claims and it may result in a full retrial.

      I have said repeatedly, Herr Schuessel, that I am not campaigning on behalf of the father but just that the story as purported in the campaign of the mother isn't quite as she presents it. There are some rather large lacunae in her presentation of the case which I have attempted to show. However, my main point is that comments on the situation should take cognisance of recognising from whence most of their information is being garnered.

    28. Dear Mr Noffers, I welcome your new style of writing. I too will try to be much calmer in my postings from now on. This is a highly emotive topic and it is understandable for people (myself included) to get carried away when airing their views.

      I do feel there are some points which need to be pinned down, and I will do my best to put these over as concise as I can.

      1) At the heart of the matter is the reason the judge handed 100% custody to the father which is a highly irregular move in Austrian courts. You now say you have not read the courts decision despite one of your earlier comments : "I think you'll find that the husband and the original court decision DO dispute her version.". I am curious as to where you are getting your information from. If it is from Schlesinger himself, it is likely not to be impartial due to his obvious involvement. The cynics among us might even say he is not truthful (heaven forbid!) when he tells people about the case.

      So far, numerous reputable media outlets, have stated the reasons for the judge to award custody to the father was because there was a single report questioning the mothers mental health and capability as a mother. You are simply unable to call this into question until you either look at the original court document and/or provide what YOU believe to be the reasons for this decision. These are easily verifiable claims and it would be absurd to suggest a TV news station would not do such basic checks before broadcasting.

      2) IF, and lets go with the assumption that it is an 'IF', the Austrian courts have been found to be unethical/untruthful/corrupt in their process so far, it would be highly unfair to accuse the mother of being biased in her "campaign" when her only objective is to have a fair hearing in the courts. Furthermore, you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to suggest ANYTHING coming out of either her campaign or reputable media is untrue.
      Alternatively, if it turns out that the courts have behaved entirely correctly, then the mother is still entitled to put out information that is factual and alerts the public to events that have taken place. I must reiterate that no one has yet called into question any information in her campaign as being false. If you, Mr Noffers, wish to mount such a claim, you will need to be more specific and have access to the source documents.
      The worst case scenario would be for the courts to be unethical/untruthful/corrupt but have no one raise the alarm. Everything must be done to prevent such a circumstance from arising even at the cost of high-profile publicity in the world’s media. If it did turn out that Schlesinger and his cronies managed to illegally manipulate the courts, don't you think his preferred scenario would be for the mother to suffer silently without any hope of fairness? Would you be happy to live in such a world and potentially be exposed to such wickedness? I am not necessarily saying this has taken place, but we should be open to that possibility and put in as much protection as we can to prevent it from happening.

      I look forward to continuing our debate in an orderly and level-headed manner.

    29. OK
      1 - the fact that custody was awarded to the father in the first place AND the very fact that this is highly unusual raises alarm bells about the mother's version. (Assuming no corruption has taken place)

      I'm glad that you wish to continue in an orderly manner but you cannot resist suggesting again that I am involved with the father when I have repeatedly told you that I have no connection with him. I have never even met him nor spoken to him ever.

      2 - the court obviously disagreed with the mother - this is surely obvious and does not require me to have any inside knowledge.
      The onus is upon the mother to provide evidence and not merely hearsay that the children are being mistreated. A few pictures on her blog or a video are simply not enough. The social service report is the only way, I'm afraid, that this is going to be possible.

      Using words such as 'cronies' is prejudicial and continues to be emotive and not in the spirit of your new tone of debate.

      Obviously, if the courts have acted dishonestly then the whole process and decision need to be reviewed. I have not criticised the mother for mounting a campaign (although certain tactics have been ill-advised) but just that the story she presents needs to be viewed with as much critical reading as the father's.
      She is the one making allegations. She must put up the objective evidence to support it and until she does so in a professional way backed up with independent verification then the father does not have to respond. (In the opposite scenario when the tables are reversed [i.e. the original report saying that she was mentally ill] she has indeed done so by presenting alternative psychologist reports.)

      p.s. I suggest we continue on the update page.

    30. I will respond to these comments on the update page as you suggest:

  4. whatever other limudim one might want to draw from this, you for sure see that psychiatrists can be wrong.


    1. it is not necessarily being wrong but rather maximizing what is best. Especially when there is a disagreement as to whether the mother is mentally ill. Even if she has mental health issues - there are ways of dealing with it other than simply taking her kids away

      It is problematic since the husband refuses to present his side of the story. But there is no reason I can think of why the court isn't willing to reconsider the matter.

  5. Without publicity nothing happens.

    Tell us of one divorce dispute solved by publicity alone!

  6. there is an update here


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.