Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Gital Dodelson, agunah featured in N.Y. Post, obtains get R
Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 12:31 am
checkbefore wrote:
I wonder if the money he wanted was to cover his legal expenses?


Does that make it ok? What about her legal fees?
Back to top

checkbefore




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 12:33 am
It does not make it ok, but it is something I was wondering about.
Back to top

lucymaud




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 4:34 am
Sometimes there aren't 2 sides to every story. There's a right side and a wrong side. Get extortion is just wrong. It is a total abuse of power that quite frankly, one side should not be allowed to have over the other. In this case, the get process dragged on for 3 years and then was only given for an exorbitant amount. That's all I need to know.
Back to top

Ms.MaryMack(inblack)




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 4:41 am
I heard that the Dodelsteins have a lot of money. He wouldn't have asked for it if they didn't that's obvious. There was a lot involved in this story, that we don't know about, so it's really not up to Imamother to judge!!
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 7:52 am
Teawithlemon, it's not up to us to judge. It's also equally not up to us to spread innuendo.

I'm very relieved for her.
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 8:41 am
anonymrs wrote:
Since we're all just speculating, just keep in mind that maybe, just maybe, he also sold his rights to ever see his child again....

Ok, let's imagine some imaginary couple where one parent wants custody (or shared custody, or more visitation, etc.) but offered a deal, give him money, and (s)he'll back down. It makes no difference if it's the father or the mother.

No if the parent lost in court and accepted the court's verdict, that would be a good thing. Or if (s)he appealed (assuming (s)he had a reason, not just that (s)he had more money to spend on lawyers and thought (s)he could win by attrition). But taking money? Even if (s)he didn't demand the money but was offered it by the other spouse it would disgusting to take it. How much more so if (s)he demanded the money as a condition for giving/accepting the get?
Back to top

MommyZ




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:42 am
He chose the civil court in New Jersy. Had he filed in NY they would not have granted a civil divorce without a get.
Back to top

tzemerupishtim




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:48 am
Happy18 wrote:
A while ago someone who is friendly with the boys side of all of this said that the perception in this case is really off and that the main reason that the boy was holding out on the get was because he got slammed in court and essentially lost all rights to his child and the get was his only bargaining tool. Regardless if this is true, we really don't know what happened, but this person got me thinking that no matter how many articles are written its all coming from one side. There are two sides to every story and none of us know what really went on. I feel terrible if this man/boy has any unmarried siblings, and that poor child is going to grow up being famous for a terrible situation. I wish there could have been more tasteful solution, but it is what it is and we should move on.


From what I read. He was holding out for more custody/visitation rights. I read a lot about this case. This guy just wanted to be a father to his child. The money was because she was dragging things out to make it that he wouldn't. As someone who knows of both a woman and a man being victimized in this issue. I say kol hakavod to him for fighting for his kid!! Gital walked off with their kid eventhough a therapist (of her choice) said that their marriage was viable.. All she had to do for her get was be FAIR with the custody. Just because the court gave the husband what is generous does not mean it was fair. Gital walked out of a marriage but her son deserved his father and that is something she wanted to deny him of. She wanted to get him a stepfather to replace Avrohom Meir Weiss.
Back to top

MaBelleVie




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:53 am
The custody arrangement was very standard. It is not standard to try to force the other side by withholding a get and demanding money.
Back to top

dimyona




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:57 am
tzemerupishtim wrote:
From what I read. He was holding out for more custody/visitation rights. I read a lot about this case. This guy just wanted to be a father to his child. The money was because she was dragging things out to make it that he wouldn't. As someone who knows of both a woman and a man being victimized in this issue. I say kol hakavod to him for fighting for his kid!! Gital walked off with their kid eventhough a therapist (of her choice) said that their marriage was viable.. All she had to do for her get was be FAIR with the custody. Just because the court gave the husband what is generous does not mean it was fair. Gital walked out of a marriage but her son deserved his father and that is something she wanted to deny him of. She wanted to get him a stepfather to replace Avrohom Meir Weiss.
''

I don't see any valid reason as to why these arrangements couldn't be fought in court. If the court's decision wasn't fair, then that would be the place to appeal.

Withholding a get has no place in any of this. I also admire the fact that he's fighting to be in his son's life, but that battle can't be won via blackmail and extortion.
Back to top

MommyZ




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 10:36 pm
tzemerupishtim wrote:
From what I read. He was holding out for more custody/visitation rights. I read a lot about this case. This guy just wanted to be a father to his child. The money was because she was dragging things out to make it that he wouldn't. As someone who knows of both a woman and a man being victimized in this issue. I say kol hakavod to him for fighting for his kid!! Gital walked off with their kid eventhough a therapist (of her choice) said that their marriage was viable.. All she had to do for her get was be FAIR with the custody. Just because the court gave the husband what is generous does not mean it was fair. Gital walked out of a marriage but her son deserved his father and that is something she wanted to deny him of. She wanted to get him a stepfather to replace Avrohom Meir Weiss.


You read that the therapist said the marriage was viable? Whoever revealed this information violated HIPPA and should be ashamed of themself.

He chose the court. Mothers generally are awarded primary custody. If he wanted more visitation maybe he could have tried NOT extorting over 100k from his ex's family. Sheesh!
Back to top

Barbara




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:50 pm
teawithlemon wrote:
I heard that the Dodelsteins have a lot of money. He wouldn't have asked for it if they didn't that's obvious. There was a lot involved in this story, that we don't know about, so it's really not up to Imamother to judge!!


are you suggesting that it is okay to withhold a get, forcing a woman to be tied to her ex- husband forever, because her parents have money? I call that extortion, which I am relatively sure is not halachically condoned.

What part of the story is unclear? Withholding a get is wrong. Period.
Back to top

Barbara




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:58 pm
tzemerupishtim wrote:
From what I read. He was holding out for more custody/visitation rights. I read a lot about this case. This guy just wanted to be a father to his child. The money was because she was dragging things out to make it that he wouldn't. As someone who knows of both a woman and a man being victimized in this issue. I say kol hakavod to him for fighting for his kid!! Gital walked off with their kid eventhough a therapist (of her choice) said that their marriage was viable.. All she had to do for her get was be FAIR with the custody. Just because the court gave the husband what is generous does not mean it was fair. Gital walked out of a marriage but her son deserved his father and that is something she wanted to deny him of. She wanted to get him a stepfather to replace Avrohom Meir Weiss.


As I've said over and over, if you read the papers he posted, he had 50% custody. As determined by a court, where he brought the case, and which heard all the evidence. Not by someone who is willing to attack a woman based on rumor, innuendo, and blatant lashon hara.

And who cares if a therapist says it was a viable marriage? She didn't want to be married to him. It's that easy. Doesn't matter if he was a total a-hole, or a wonderful man. She doesn't have to be married to anyone she doesn't want to be married to.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 1:07 am
What does that mean, the marriage was viable? For a marriage to be viable, at minimum both partners have to want to be married!
Back to top

abound




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 5:42 am
I do not know the ins and outs of the story, There is a place for with-holding a get and it is in only one instance in my humble opinion.
If a spouse does not honor the custody arrangements decided in court or any other legally binding place.
I for one would do anything to fight for my child. (if a parent does not like the court agreed custody arrangements that is another story)

I know my opinion is un-popular but I would do anything to see my child, so I can understand why someone else would do it.
Back to top

Frumdoc




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 6:52 am
As Barbara said, according to the court papers he himself made public by posting them online, he had 50% custody of the child's awake time, taking into account the fact that they both worked/ learned/ were busy in the morning, he was available in the afternoons and had his son then and evenings, for half the weekdays and they alternated weekends. It was one of the most evenly divided custody rulings I have seen, and took into account all the peculiarities including the time each parent was available to spend with their son and drop off arrangements.

The money was, according to the husband's website, to pay his uncle, who had acted as his litigation friend or advocate, unpaid. Make what you wish of that.

Irrelevant of what some therapist says, the marriage was unviable because at least one person in the marriage felt it was. A therapist who comments publicly on a case s/ he is seeing confidentiality has by default lost their credibility.

Although it is the result many wanted, it leaves a bitter taste as it will encourage more men to withhold the get in expectation of enormous bribes.
Back to top

abound




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 7:02 am
A man who demands or even agrees an offer to take money for a get shows the lowest of character. (and it is anti-Torah hashkafa)
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 9:03 am
tzemerupishtim wrote:
From what I read. He was holding out for more custody/visitation rights. I read a lot about this case. This guy just wanted to be a father to his child. The money was because she was dragging things out to make it that he wouldn't. As someone who knows of both a woman and a man being victimized in this issue. I say kol hakavod to him for fighting for his kid!! Gital walked off with their kid eventhough a therapist (of her choice) said that their marriage was viable.. All she had to do for her get was be FAIR with the custody. Just because the court gave the husband what is generous does not mean it was fair. Gital walked out of a marriage but her son deserved his father and that is something she wanted to deny him of. She wanted to get him a stepfather to replace Avrohom Meir Weiss.

None of that justifies demanding money.
Back to top

chavamom




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 11:27 am
QUEENY wrote:
Do you mean I hope her parents didn't have to pay?


Yes. Fixed it.
Back to top

chavamom




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Feb 11 2014, 11:35 am
MommyZ wrote:
You read that the therapist said the marriage was viable?violation Whoever revealed this information violated HIPPA and should be ashamed of themself.

He chose the court. Mothers generally are awarded primary custody. If he wanted more visitation maybe he could have tried NOT extorting over 100k from his ex's family. Sheesh!


If it was in the court record? It becomes public and that is not a HIPPA violation.

My opinion of this case still remains "a plague on both their houses". But get extortion is reprehensible.
Back to top
Page 3 of 4 Previous  1  2  3  4  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Post your strands score!
by amother
231 Today at 10:12 am View last post
Passport at Pomona Post office
by mom923
8 Tue, Mar 26 2024, 2:07 pm View last post
BP Babysitter Pre/post Purim? 5 Tue, Mar 19 2024, 9:20 am View last post
by mfb
Chilling short story about agunah 27 Tue, Mar 12 2024, 12:15 pm View last post
Chasidishe tour this summer for post grad 8 Tue, Mar 12 2024, 9:04 am View last post