Rally in Silver Spring this Sunday to help free an agunah

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 4:32 pm

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

But this is what is bothering me... according to his side of the story... by virtue of him going along with the 'daas torah' and following the Beis Din's direction in allowing her to take his child out of town, he was severely put at a disadvantage in civil court.
It seems that the wife used his willingness to abide by the Rabbi's ruling to gain an unfair advantage in court.

I would agree that they should be separate issues IF there hadnt been religious court intervention that put him at a disadvantage in the first place. Once that occurred and she used the religious proceeding to gain the upper hand in court, then he has a right to play this card on the religious court.

Chocoholic

Fri, Dec 17 2010, 5:07 pm

JC wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

A get is not a power tool.. he basically wants to get what he wants the way he wants or else she won't get her Get which basically means she has no options whatsoever... so who is the disadvantages person here..?

Dev80

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 1:16 pm

Put yourself in her shoes for a second....she gets married (and not as a young 20 year old, but finally finding her "bashert" at the age of 24), and moves to Silver Spring. After the separation, what's left for her in Silver Spring? Why should she stay there? So, she moves back to Philly to at least have the support of her parents, as being a single mother is not easy. Her father was niftar after a long battle with cancer last year, and even throughout the whole thing she was the only child in her family living at home. Now, her mother, an AMAZING AMAZING person who just lost her husband (and this is a woman who's family is the most important hing to her) has the bittersweet company of her daughter Tamar and probably very adorable granddaughter. Bitter because this daughter is unfortunately divorced, but at least now she's not all alone in her home.

I couldn't view the statements defending Ahron, but as I know the other side and what amazing amazing people they are, I'm happy that I don't have to see the garbage. Yes, there are two sides to every story, but I think the side almost "blackmailing" by withholding the get looks a lot worse then the side who is having rallies in her name so that she can get past this part of her life. Let them work these matters out in the civil court, it has nothing to do with the get. It's inhumane to dangle that over her. Doesn't she deserve to remarry and rebuild her home? Even if there are legal issues, why should he get to do that to her? And yes, they did try to make it work back in the beginning, and it didn't work, and even if he tried to get back together with her, as you can see from imamother itself there are all kinds of crazy reasons why people need to divorce, so who cares if he tried to get back together with her. If it's not gonna work out and she knows it, why should that be a reason to withhold her get?

I hope this rally is successful, although if this guy doesn't agree with R' Shmuel Kaminetsky, then I dunno what would get through to him...

smilingmom

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:00 pm

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

Can some one explain to me why preventing a father from having a close parental relationship with his already existing children is any more or less egregious than preventing a mother from forming a possible future relationship with a possible unknown person.

MommyZ

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:04 pm

sky wrote:

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.

The court determined a custody agreement. If he isn't satisfied he should appeal it not use the get as a leverage tool.

MommyZ

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:08 pm

smilingmom wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

Giving a get is a halachic obligation. Insuring that a father have a close parental relationship is not. We have no idea why she left to begin with and for all we know there could be serious reasons why she did so.

ora_43

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:15 pm

MommyZ wrote:

smilingmom wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

Giving a get is only a halachic obligation under certain circumstances. It sounds like it's not necessarily obligatory in this case.

It seems that support for pressuring the husband to give a get is coming from Israeli rabbanim, while the rabbis defending him and saying he doesn't need to give a get are local. If that's true, I'd be more inclined to believe the latter group, whether or not they are as well-known as the former.

MommyZ

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:18 pm

ora_43 wrote:

MommyZ wrote:

smilingmom wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

Rav Herschel Shachter and Rav Kamminetzky are both American Rabbonim who say he should give the get.

ora_43

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:19 pm

frummy613 wrote:

you can hardly blame a woman who is going through a divorce and watching her father die of cancer for moving back home to be with her parents....dont you agree?

I can't blame her for wanting to move, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.

What if his parent had been dying in a different state and he took their child away from her - would you be saying that we can't blame him for moving to be with family during a difficult time? would you say that she's obligated to accept a get, and it's not fair to link the divorce with the fact that he took her child and refuses to share custody?

Barbara

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:28 pm

MommyZ wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

MommyZ wrote:

smilingmom wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

Rav Herschel Shachter and Rav Kamminetzky are both American Rabbonim who say he should give the get.

Kamenetsky's letterhead indicates that he's from Philadelphia. Presumably, he's quite familiar with the situation in that context.

Barbara

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:41 pm

ora_43 wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

you can hardly blame a woman who is going through a divorce and watching her father die of cancer for moving back home to be with her parents....dont you agree?

Pennsylvania, like most states of which I am aware, has laws limiting the right of even a custodial parent to move out of state. See, eg, http://singleparents.about.com.....y.htm
discussing some of the factors considered by Pennsylvania courts.

Its highly unlikely that the Pennsylvania courts did not consider the fact that the mother relocated, and that the father lives at some distance, in granting a cusotdy arrangment.

Reading between the lines, however, based upon what the father is claiming, THE FATHER AGREED TO ALLOW HER TO MOVE OUT OF STATE WITH THE BABY. He contends that was only in the context of a possible reconciliation, yadda, yadda, yadda. Apparently, the court found differently. So this does NOT appear to be a case in which one parent attempted to deprive her ex-soouse of rights by relocating, and that's all a strawman. HE AGREED. End of story.

Logically, I also find the following to be unlikely:
(1) That rabbis would support a woman, to the extent of spending well over 100 hours negotiating, and organizing rallies, if the woman was trying to use religious obligations to deprive her husband of cistation rights.
(2) That a court refused to take into account the father's religious needs. He was the plaintiff in the action in which custody was determined. He presumably had an attorney. (In fact, is he not an attorney himself?) I wonder what the cusody order actually states. I thought that there was one reference to *near her house* Is this a case in which he is limited to supervised visitation? Why *near her house*?

Peanut2

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 7:06 pm

smilingmom wrote:

frummy613 wrote:

regardless of the custody issues, a man must give a get. he can battle in civil court if he chooses, but to withhold a get is immoral

Ideally, a father should have a close relationship with his child(ren), even when the parents are divorced.

A man must give a get when a couple is no longer living together and reconciliation is highly unlikely, such as in this situation, where the couple already has a civil divorce.

The two are not related and one should not be used to get the other. EVER!

The custody issue is separate. If it is problematic the husband should use proper legal means to convince the judge that he is correct. Judges can and will take religious considerations into account. This is the US, and you don't need to be in New York State to prove that shabbos is shabbos. If this is the reason, the custody issue can be resolved in court, and there is no need for get blackmail.

Any other issue that would prove Tamar is at fault can be proven in court. No need to get blackmail. This man is choosing to blackmail using a religious requirement. That is wrong.
If he is right, he shouldn't need to resort to these measures. If he's right, he shouldn't resort to them.

Again, if we as a community allow a man to "justifiably" use a get as blackmail, we open the door for men who should not be seeing their children to do the same thing. And we leave women vulnerable to blackmail that could compromise their children's safety.

sky

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 7:24 pm

MommyZ wrote:

sky wrote:

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.

The court determined a custody agreement. If he isn't satisfied he should appeal it not use the get as a leverage tool.

MommyZ I was thinking a lot about such scenrios over shabbos. And if G-d Forbid it would ever happen to me that I was threatened to not be able to see my children I would do anything humanly possible to see them and prevent that from happening. Wouldn't you?

MommyZ

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 7:27 pm

sky wrote:

MommyZ wrote:

sky wrote:

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.

The court determined a custody agreement. If he isn't satisfied he should appeal it not use the get as a leverage tool.

I would hope that I wouldn't do anything I'd be ashamed to tell my children when they grow up. Withholding a get is something to be ashamed of period.

Peanut2

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 7:34 pm

sky wrote:

MommyZ wrote:

sky wrote:

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.

The court determined a custody agreement. If he isn't satisfied he should appeal it not use the get as a leverage tool.

Really? You'd do anything? Would you kill someone? Maim someone?
I don't think so.

And as a society, we are obligated to prevent you from "doing anything". As a society, we cannot tolerate people "doing anything" to achieve a goal, even one as noble as this.

Withholding a get as a way to gain leverage is blackmail, and we must deem it unacceptable as a society. Even as we try to understand the pain of those who do it.

**** And as an aside, we don't whether this whole custody thing is true, and to what extent if any it plays a part in his decision to blackmail his ex-wife. If shabbos was the issue, why wasn't it raised during the custody hearing? ***********

MommyZ

Sat, Dec 18 2010, 7:41 pm

Peanut2 wrote:

sky wrote:

MommyZ wrote:

sky wrote:

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.

The court determined a custody agreement. If he isn't satisfied he should appeal it not use the get as a leverage tool.