Schlesinger Twins: TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

Help Beth    The judge has made a final custody order.

Samuel and Benjamin’s father has been awarded FULL & IMMEDIATE CUSTODY. My visiting rights remain the same- every Tuesday 11- 5pm and every second Sunday 9-5pm. Visits are to continue at the centre and I will still have to pay 44 Euros each visit to see my children. My applications for weekend access and overnight visits have all been denied by Judge Susanne Göttlicher.

Once again, her decision came as a total shock. She has held NO CUSTODY HEARINGS, has heard all my witnesses IN SECRET COURT, behind closed doors so I did not have the opportunity to cross-examine them or present any of my evidence.

She has not commissioned a psychological assessment on the father or the children, despite my repeated applications and despite her instructions to do so by both the Appeal Court and Supreme Court.

I have a 14 day window to appeal. It is holiday time in Vienna and the city has practically shut down. My lawyer and virtually every good lawyer in town is away on holiday. She timed her last custody decision at exactly the same time. 2 years ago exactly knowing the holiday situation.

Read More

More of Rav Elyashiv’s Rulings By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times

The former Gadol HaDor, Rav Elyashiv may have passed on to the Olam HaEmes, but his Torah lives on.  Indeed, thanks to the efforts of his son-in-law Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein Shlita, we are privy to new and remakrbale rulings of Rav Elyashiv – in a just-off-the-press sefer entitled Kav V’Naki, Vol. II, by Rav Zilberstein. Some of the rulings contained below deal with fundamental issues that all members of Klal Yisroel should be aware of.  Below are some of the questions divided into the categories of three of the four sections of Shulchan Aruch.

Orech Chaim

Regarding the Minhag of fasting for all who witness a Sefer Torah falling, may the Merciful One protect us, are women included in this custom?  Rav Elyashiv zt”l responded that this is the custom now in Klal Yisroel that all men who observed it fall fast, but the technical absolute halachic requirement was only for the person who actually dropped it to fast.  He also ruled that only men are included in this custom and women who see a Sefer Torah fall do not fast. (OC 13)  [Editor’s note:  Perhaps Rav Elyashiv is expressing a similar notion to that of the author of the Alei Shor that the custom of 100 blessings a day was never instituted for women because they have more natural Yiras Shamayim than do men and were not in need of the takanah of 100 blessings per day to increase the Yiras Shamayim].

Can a Down’s Syndrome child be included in a Minyan of ten? Rav Elyashiv answered that if the following two criterion are met, not only may he be counted but he may even be Motzi the masses with Krias HaTorah: 1] If he can shop without losing money and can accept and hold on to change or if he can travel alone on a bus and 2] if he understands a little bit of what he studies (OC 15).

A baal Teshuvah went back to his home community where the only Minyan that existed was one made up of people that drive back home on Shabbos (Heaven help us), is it preferable to daven with them or to daven without a Minyan?  Rav Elyashiv responded that it is preferable to daven alone, although he noted that Rav Moshe Feinstein argued.  In Rav Elyashiv’s published shiurim on Brachos, however, he did state that under very very pressing circumstances one may include such people in a minyan  (OC 16). [...]

Read More

An Editorial on Discourse: A response to Ami Magazine By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

This article is written in response to Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter’s editorial in the latest issue of Ami Magazine entitled, “Dov Lipman and Force-Fed Geese.”   I consider Rabbi Frankfurter a friend, and someone who earnestly seeks out the good of the Torah community.  However, in all honesty, I was rather horrified at the extreme tone of Rabbi Frankfurter’s attack on Rabbi Lipman.

Rabbi Frankfurter states that (Rabbi) Lipman is infuriating because of “his peculiar conviction that he wears two hats, one of a politician and the other of a rabbi.”  He further writes, “It is in his self-delusional latter role, in which he preaches as a ‘rabbinic authority’ about those things he says are good for the Torah-true community, that he is so irksome.”

I would like to take issue with Rabbi Frankfurter on two matters:  Firstly, Rabbi Frankfurter is certainly entitled to disagree with both Rabbi Lipman’s views and what he perceives as an “only I know what is good for you” tone.  Yet stating that Rabbi Lipman is self-delusional in the latter role of being a Rabbi is somewhat perplexing.  Rabbi Lipman was a teacher of Torah for many years and was involved in the field of Kiruv Rechokim as well.  To strip Rabbi Lipman of a title that he earned is an act of delegitimization that even the Roshei Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel where he earned his S’micha have not done.  There are many Orthodox Jews that refuse to confer upon the reform or conservative clergy the title of Rabbi because of non-adherence to matters of theology regarding Torah miSinai.  But in this case?

Let us argue from here to tomorrow about issues, but let us not engage in unbecoming ad hominem attacks on others where we engage in the delegitimizing of others.  It could very well be that Rabbi Frankfurter has not delegitimized his S’micha and only takes issue with his preaching as a Rabbinic authority – but the fact that he never refers to Rabbi Lipman with the title of Rabbi, however is indicative that this is not the case.

The second issue, however, is even more disturbing than the first.  Is Rabbi Frankfurter really comparing Dov Lipman and or the government of Israel to the Nazis?  He writes, “What is so tragic about Lipman’s latest pomposity is that Israel would hardly be a light unto the nations by taking measures to ensure animal and poultry welfare.  It was Nazi Germany with its limitless compassion for animal welfare that was deserving of that distinction.”     Have we lost our minds?  Nazis?  Invoking the murderers of our people when speaking about Dov Lipman and the State of Israel?  Why is it that when we voice disagreement with someone that we rush to the ultimate label of offense?  

The main objection of the Chareidi community to what Rabbi Lipman is doing is that he seems to be embarking upon the implementation of an agenda without consulting with the Gedolei Yisroel the leaders of our Torah nation.  But isn’t Rabbi Frankfurter doing the same thing by not having consulted with Gedolei Yisroel as to whether we can compare Dov Lipman to the Nazis?  One cannot imagine Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l or yblc”t Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky Shlita comparing or drawing any analogy between Rabbi Lipman and his actions to the Nazis y’mach shmam.

As of this writing, this author has just returned from the Knesset where the Knesset committee members are ironing out the details of the plan for conscientious objectors to serving in the IDF  to instead serve in Chareidi-only communities in a medical capacity.  While the determination of who will be considered a conscientious objector will still be overseen by the IDF – the plan overall does allow for Chareidi Jews to enter the work force in attempt to address the issues of rampant poverty.  We in the Chareidi world may think that the way Rabbi Lipman is going about things is misguided – but the comparison to Nazis is wholly unwarranted, divisive and inflammatory.  As far as tzaar baalei chaim and geese go, this author does take issue with Rabbi Lipman on this matter – and Rabbi Lipman agreed to revisit the matter – even agreeing to visit a foie gras processing plant to see things for himself as to whether the force fed geese display any gag reflex or appear to be unduly suffering.  

No one is calling into question the notion of arguing or taking issue with the views of others.  Jews have been arguing since the formation of who we are as a people and even before.  What must change, however, is the inflammatory discourse, and the realization that when we have crossed the line – we must apologize.  

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Read More

Understanding the Psychology of Child Molesters: A Key to Getting Confessions

Police Chief Magazine  [...] Offender Interview Is Essential

When investigating a case involving a suspected child molester, the stakes are high and a full confession is critical. But the ability to interview and relate to this type of offender is something that doesn't come naturally for most police officers. Many officers find the subject matter, as well as the offender, repulsive. They cannot have an amiable conversation with a person who they believe has molested a child. They are not able to mask their feelings, and they allow contempt, disgust, and hatred to surface during the interview, greatly reducing the likelihood that the offender will open up and share his deepest secrets.

Deep down, most child molesters want to talk. Some are sexually attracted to children and have known it for many years. They may be married, have a family, have a successful business or career, and be active in their religious institution, yet they have a secret that they have never shared with anyone. Most of them have struggled with their desires. They wish that they could change, but they are not able to do it by themselves. They all know that child molesters are hated and despised by society and they believe that no one could really understand their situation. Many know they need help but don't have the courage to seek it.

Although many molesters would really like to talk to someone, they also know there are many reasons to not talk about their feelings and actions. They believe they have everything to lose if they confess. They risk losing their marriage, their children, their home, their friends, their job, and their freedom. They fear embarrassment and humiliation. They are afraid of how the interviewer is going to react to them if and when they make that first admission of guilt. And child molesters fear going to prison. They have heard and read stories about what happens to child molesters in prison. 

When interviewing a child molester, an investigator faces two competing forces: the molesters' deep desire to talk and his fear of consequences. The investigator must exploit the first force while helping the molester to overcome the second. [...]

Understand the Thinking Process: One of the critical keys to interviewing child molesters is understanding how they think. There are several different types of child molester; and each child molester has a particular way to meet his or her needs and justify his or her behavior. Molesters use distorted thinking to rationalize and justify their crimes, to make their own needs most important and to minimize their behavior. Many offenders convince themselves that the relationship they had with their victim was different; that it was a mutual, loving, caring relationship; that the sexual acts were consensual; or that the child somehow benefited from the relationship. The more an investigator understands the way a sexual offender thinks, the more prepared he will be to elicit a confession.

There is no magic interviewing formula that works for all child molesters. An investigator must understand the psychology of this type of offender and then be able to apply that understanding to the interview process. An investigator should understand the differences between a situational and a preferential child molester, because there are different interviewing approaches and themes for each type of offender. If an investigator is going to interview a suspected pedophile, he really should understand the term pedophilia-a sexual attraction to prepubescent children-and should know exactly what that entails. He should understand sex offender terminology that includes distorted thinking, thinking errors, sexual addiction, and the addiction cycle. 

By having a better understanding of sexual deviance, an investigator will be better able to recognize the importance of certain disclosures. For example, many pedophiles were themselves victims of childhood sexual abuse. In this research study, 78 percent of the pedophile offenders stated that they were themselves victims. During the investigative interview, a suspect might disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse, trying to use it as a defense for his behavior. For example, the suspect might say, "It happened to me; therefore, I would never do that to someone else." In fact, rather than signaling a flat denial, a revelation like that should open the door for an investigator to explore how that sexual abuse might have affected the suspect's own sexual development. Many offenders will admit that their own victimization resulted in confusion and sexual experimentation during their teenage years. This line of questioning will sometimes help the offender to open up and admit to the offense he has committed. [...]

Read More

David Kramer convicted of child abuse in Australia

Tzedek  Victim's Impact Statement

I was abused and molested by David Kramer over the course of two years, between the ages of 9 and 11 years old. This abuse happened in the classroom (in front of the class, although hidden from them) in places of worship, in the school library, in his house etc.

I was the epitome of an innocent child. Growing up, we didn’t have a television, magazines, or any secular form of media. I grew up loving religion, excelled in its study and was generally a sincere innocent boy who knew nothing from any sexual conduct. At the age of nine this all changed. I became this horror student who respected nothing. I refused to take tests in school and generally misbehaved. I had no respect for any authority, as the most well-liked respected teacher who was in a position of authority was a total fraud and liar!!

Without getting into the details of my traumatic experience, I will lay out the facts and repercussion that followed & let them speak for themselves:

As soon after the abuse I was the whistleblower and, as a result of my talking he was exposed, the entire school knew that I was a victim. Immediately following Kramer’s expulsion from school I was bullied by other students. Some of these students were around five years older than me. In one incident I remember a boy who must have been around four years older than me, shin me in my thigh and went on to say “this is for making up lies about Kramer”. I was around 11 or 12 years old at the time. I remember running home crying to tell my parents that I was assaulted. I skipped school that day. [...]

Read More

Tamar Epstein: The Torah shows sensitivity to the mentally ill

I just came across an interesting article that Tamar Epstein wrote when she was a senior at Stern College. It deals with how the Torah shows sensitivity towards the mentally ill and enables them to integrate as much as possible in the world of business and marriage. The full article is found here. YU Torah Lectures

--------------------------

[...] In all instances Beis Din has the authority to determine who is a shoteh and what restrictions apply to him [4]. 

A shoteh is not only freed from mitzvos, but he is also not held accountable for damaging property to the same degree as normal people. For example, if an ox of a shoteh gores an ox from a normal person, the shoteh is not required to pay the fee that would be demanded of a normal person (Baba Kama 4:4). Similarly, if a shoteh's ox injures a person, or if a shoteh directly harms a fellow Jew, he is not required to compensate the victim (Baba Kama 87a). The Mechilta, under certain conditions, even extends this exemption from responsibility to murder (Mechilta, Mishpatim 4) [4].

The Torah provides a comprehensive model for integrating the mentally ill into society that is both compassionate and realistic. Halacha is sensitive to the limitations of a shoteh and requires the community, and specifically Beis Din, to provide him with care and support. In an effort to maximize a shoteh's quality of life, the Torah exempts him from the mitzvos, but at the same time allows him to integrate into society through commerce and marriage and other activities according to his abilities. Halacha appreciates the varying degrees of handicap and, therefore, offers a flexible system for Beis Din to apply case by case. The halacha is also sensitive to society's need for order and control. Beis Din, therefore, has the authority to prohibit the mentally ill from participating in business and marriage and other sorts of communal activities if the individual can not assume those responsibilities. We must emulate the Torah's example and treat the mentally ill with the same degree of sensitivity and respect.

References

[l]Margaret Talbot. "The Executioner's IQ Test." New York Times Magazine, 29 June 2003: 4.

[2]Zivotofsky, S. (1992). The Shoteh: A Discussion of the Jewish Rabbinic View of Insanity. Pharos. 55:13-16.

[3]Nitzavim - Mental Incompetence. Videocassette. Frand, Y. Yad Yechial Foundation, (1990).

[4]Ibin Ezra, Volume I, Responsa 120, Section 2.

[5]Strous, R. (2001). Halakhic Sensitivity to the Psychotic Individual: the Shoteh. Jewish Medical Ethics. 4:30-34.

Read More

Failure of religious leaders in abuse cases

NY Times   The men were spiritual leaders, held up before the children around them as wise and righteous and right. So they had special access to those kids. Special sway.  

And when they exploited it by sexually abusing the children, according to civil and criminal cases from different places and periods, they were protected by their lofty stations and by the caretakers of their faith. The children’s accusations were met with skepticism. The community of the faithful either couldn’t believe what had happened or didn’t want it exposed to public view: why give outsiders a fresh cause to be critical? So the unpleasantness was hushed up. 

This is not a column about the Catholic Church. 

This is a column about Orthodox Jews, who have recently had similar misdeeds exposed, similar cover-ups revealed. 

And I’m writing it, yes, because the Catholic Church over the last two decades has absorbed the bulk of journalistic attention, my own included, in terms of child sexual abuse. There are compelling reasons that’s been so: Catholicism has more than one billion nominal adherents worldwide; endows its clerics with a degree of mysticism that many other denominations don’t; and is just centralized enough for scattered cover-ups to coalesce into something more like a conspiracy. The pattern of criminality and evasion has been staggering. 

But some of the same dynamics that fed the crisis in Catholicism — an aloof patriarchy, an insularity verging on superiority, a disinclination to get secular officials involved — exist elsewhere. And the way they’ve played out in Orthodox Judaism illustrates anew that religion isn’t always the higher ground and safer harbor it purports to be. It can also be a self-preserving haven for wrongdoing.

Early this month, 19 former students of the Yeshiva University High School for Boys in Manhattan filed a lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by two rabbis in the 1970s and 1980s who continued to work there even after molestation complaints. The rabbis were also allowed to move on to new employment without ever being held accountable. School administrators, the lawsuit alleges, elected not to report anything to the police.[...]

Read More