Rally in Silver Spring this Sunday to help free an agunah

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Announcements & Mazel Tovs

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Leahh

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 9:43 am

file too big for one attachment

Chayalle

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 9:53 am

Mirabelle wrote:

GreenEyes26 wrote:

I don't understand what one has to do with the other - what Rabbi Belsky said. Why does the visitation/custody have to be worked out before the get? So that the get is a prize for the woman doing what she's supposed to do? And it WAS worked out, just not to the fathers satisfaction. Too bad, Dad. Give your wife a get and take your lawyer back to court.

The get should be out of the picture. Completely. No negotiations. If the father wants, he can bring it back to court and contest the visitation rights. Dangling a get over a woman's head is manipulation and blackmail - no matter what.

I agree. Not giving a get is a VERY serious issue. Obviously divorces are not happy occasions and not everyone is going to come out happy and it is VERY wrong for a man to withhold a get because of this.

I disagree. Withholding a child from the father is a very serious issue. It should be self understood that custody arrangements must precede the divorce, otherwise what incentive is there for the parent to work out a custody arrangement?

I don't know the couple here or the details. I do know another couple where the wife took the child and refused her soon-to-be-ex all access to the child. She said she simply wanted to cut off all ties with him, wanted the child to herself. Sorry but he also has a father. Then she called Aguna International and they demonstrated at his work place that he was withholding a get from his wife. He said he's happy to give her a get as soon as they work out an arrangement. He was not going to divorce his child.

In these situations, there's always his side, her side, and the truth. I wouldn't be so quick to go demonstrate.

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 10:15 am

sky wrote:

Mirabelle wrote:

GreenEyes26 wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. so I'm just posing a question: isn't it really wrong for a mother to withhold visitation from a father?

Yes. (unless there are extenuating circumstances)

I have NO knowledge of the case, but lets assume both parents are good parents and good people.
If it were up to me I would push for the model that the children get the house and the parents have to share time at the house. They can live in small apartments nearby when its not their time with the kids.
The problem here is that one parent moved away from the other and I dont think that is fair.

Once you decide to bring a child into this world together you must stay together enough to jointly raise the child. You dont have to stay married but you should not move away from the other parent.

Peanut2

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 11:31 am

Chayalle wrote:

Mirabelle wrote:

GreenEyes26 wrote:

Withholding a child is very serious. I agree. Let the court decide.

You say that deciding custody before a get is given is necessary so that the woman has an incentive (the get) to compromise (do what the man wants). That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Withholding a get is a form of emotional abuse.

A get is not a prize or an incentive. Period. End of story. Custody arrangements should arise from negotiations between two parties unhindered by insanely inequitable power plays. In other words, where is his incentive to compromise? Or should the woman say that the man may only see the child once he gives a get? By your logic, this is completely fair and honest. After all, you should use whatever power you have to get whatever you want. By your logic, she should make sure he never sees his daughter until she gets her get. And maybe a few more things while she's at it. It's a power game of who wants what more, right?

Or everyone should be an adult and should behave in a manner that is in accordance with goodness and justice. The get should be given as soon as possible, and should not be contingent on anything.

Child custody should be arranged with the child's best interest in mind. We don't know what that is.

The two are not and should not be related. At all. Ever. Otherwise, women are pressured into compromising their children's safety in order to get a Jewish divorce. No, not necessarily in this case. But the two should never ever be related.

Chocoholic

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 11:46 am

AFAIK they went to court (where Aharon was the plaintiff) and everything was done and settled in court, probably leaving the father unhappy and he refuses to give Tamar a get until he gets what he wants.

Quote:

Tamar and Aharon separated in March 2008 after a two-year marriage. They have now been separated
longer than they were married. Despite the fact that a custody/visitation order was issued in July 2009, a
financial settlement agreement was executed in January of 2010 and a civil divorce was granted in April
2010, Aharon continues to dangle the get over Tamar's head as he is unhappy with how things turned out.
Regardless of a party's feeling of what he feels is "fair", it is unacceptable to use the get as leverage to
achieve concessions in terms of child support, custody, visitation or monetary settlements. In addition,
once all issues have been settled, there is no excuse for the further withholding of the get.

self-actualization

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 11:46 am

I agree with Peanut2, above. Withholding a get is not justified!!!!!!!!!!!! You have your day in court to negotiate visitation, etc. The men who resort to get refusal in order to achieve their aims are cruel and psychopathic. It also shows complete cruelty toward the ex-spouse and children by not allowing anyone to move on with their lives. That's why I posted the announcement to please attend the rally. In the olden days, it was "makin oso ad she'omar rotzeh ani" - the Jewish community was able to use corporal punishment in order to get the abusive get refusers to tow the line. If only we were back in an autonomous Jewish state and this vile get refuser could get receive his just desserts.

Chocoholic

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 11:47 am

Peanut2 wrote:

Chayalle wrote:

Mirabelle wrote:

GreenEyes26 wrote:

He took Tamar to court. Things were settled in court. He is just not satisfied with the results.

robynm

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 12:34 pm

YOU DONT KNOW THE WHOLE STORY!!! no matter how much you think you know, read, know a sister or cousin, or even talked to one of them personally. you don't know everything!!!

Chayalle

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 12:41 pm

Except it seems (from the details posted) that the courts did not take the man's religious needs into account.

MommyZ

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 12:43 pm

Chayalle wrote:

Except it seems (from the details posted) that the courts did not take the man's religious needs into account.

Then that's between him, his lawyer, her lawyer and the judge. Holding the get over her head is wrong on many levels.

saw50st8

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 12:49 pm

MommyZ wrote:

Chayalle wrote:

Except it seems (from the details posted) that the courts did not take the man's religious needs into account.

Then that's between him, his lawyer, her lawyer and the judge. Holding the get over her head is wrong on many levels.

I don't know the details (I can't read the attachments for some reason), but if I were a man, I would probably use it as leverage. I'm not saying its right, but it is within his power.

robynm

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:00 pm

well thats great! imagine being enslaved in a situation where u can never get out because he has this "power"!!! take her to court do whatever you need to do! but DO NOT with hold a GET from her!!! he deserves to be taken down by hit men!!

anon

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:01 pm

delete

Last edited by anon on Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

sky

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:07 pm

MommyZ wrote:

Chayalle wrote:

Except it seems (from the details posted) that the courts did not take the man's religious needs into account.

Then that's between him, his lawyer, her lawyer and the judge. Holding the get over her head is wrong on many levels.

but why isn't keeping a child away from a father wrong on so many levels. Or even worse.

robynm

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:08 pm

let him move closer to his child

sky

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:10 pm

robynm wrote:

let him move closer to his child

Again, I'm not sure how I feel about all this, and don't know the story.

But to play devils advocate: If a couple gets married and agrees to live in Community A. And then they get divorced I would think that they would be obligated to make things work in that community. Not that the ex would have to follow one to Community B.

and it sounds like he would have to pick her up at the ex wife's house anyway. So it sounds like he is willing to travel, just not at 6:00 on a shabbos like todays. And even if he did move closer he would have to live close enough that a 3 year old could walk back to his home 6:00 on a winter shabbos evening.

I feel the worst for the child stuck in the middle of all this.

Mirabelle

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:14 pm

sky wrote:

robynm wrote:

let him move closer to his child

Sounds to me like she went back to live near/by her parents, which I have to say I think I would do if I were in a similar situation (G-d forbid). If no one is willing to move this makes it all very difficult.

saw50st8

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:16 pm

robynm wrote:

Listen, I didn't say its "right" - but as a man, that's what I would do.

Is this the case we were discussing a while back where amother told us the woman moved back to her parents for 6 months and kept pushing off her husband saying "Maybe we'll reconcile" and ended up being able to file in a different state?

Barbara

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:16 pm

grace413 wrote:

anon wrote:

Why? Because of the last line in the letter? I thought it was funny.

Really? I thought it was patronizing, condescending and belittling.

Not to mention disgusting.

Not just child custody, but arrangements as to support and property *must* be determined before a get should be issued.

IOW, dude gets to hold his ex-wife hostage unless she agrees to walk away with nothing. Not saying all men do this, or would do this, but that's the result of what this rabbi states.

frummy613

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 1:26 pm

I know for a fact that aahron has made several attempts to get back together with tamar,
he is withholding the get regardless of who has child custody

Page 2 of 5

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next