November 21, 2013 10:36 am at 10:36 am #611346
I once overheard someone arguing with big activists that campaigns against men withholding gittin, (the type that most of us do not approve of) about this point, it sounded like he fully agreed, and their disagreement was the %.
Does this makesense?November 21, 2013 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #988298akupermaParticipant
A husband who has not given his wife a “get” is required by our law to continue to pay her bills. If we enforce this, it would largely solve the problem since no sane man would in effect give his credit card to the woman he has come to hate. The fight over children is a separate issue that will continue to exist until the children are old enough to take matters into their own hands – and this is regardless of the parents marital status.
The approach we should take in the US is for a woman’s lawyer to object to any civil divorce on the grounds that the man is not seeking to truely dissolve the marriage, and therefore the divorce is an attempt to commit fraud on the legal system. If the frum community offered to pay for the women to “lawyer up” when a man separates without giving a “get” it would resolve most matters.November 21, 2013 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #988299The little I knowParticipant
The sequence that needs to exist universally is agreement, get, civil divorce. If anyone gives the get without settling the affairs, he is foolish and so is she for accepting it. Batei din also want this sequence to be followed, though there are times when matters are peaceful enough that settlement is expected without requiring it up front.
Divorce is based on hate, just as marriage is based on love. Strong emotion overcomes logic, and often pushes someone to commit violations of well accepted and recognized standards of morality. All these crises, agunah, children, visitation, etc. are immoral, but justified by the passion driven hatred that fuels most divorces. Yes, we have some really nasty people among us, and it is an embarrassment for all that they dwell among us.November 21, 2013 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm #988300
If both sides follow the psak of a beis din for all matters, monetary, visitation etc….then whatever the decision, that is the halacha. Unfortunately, on both sides, the parties go to beis din for the items that suit their needs and the courts for those that dont.
We made our beds, now we must sleep in them. If we dont like it, we must remake our beds. Respect for batei din in general and rabbonim in particular (or more precisely the lack of it) is the root cause of all these problems.
There was a time when a Rav or beis din issued a psak and those who flaunted it were looked down upon, now when someone gets a psak they dont like they just look for a new Rav or beis din and the gabbai gives him shlishi in shul the next shabbos.November 21, 2013 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #988301notasheepMember
My sister in law was an aguna for a long time. Her ex husband refused to pay support, yet insisted on visiting rights. There are cases where the wife paints her ex out to be an evil guy and brainwashes the children into her way of thinking, however these are not as common as we think. Very often the wife withholds visiting rights because the ex is not capable of responsible fatherhood.
Actually, Family First’s new serial addresses this issue.November 21, 2013 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #988302
This doesn’t make any sense.
Withholdig a get after the marriage is over and dismantled is a contradiction.
Withholding children after the marriage is over and dismantled makes sense. You certainly wouldn’t withhold the kids if the marriage was not over!
So why would you compare the twain?November 21, 2013 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #988303🐵 ⌨ GamanitParticipant
notasheep- excellent point. It’s sometimes the mother that isn’t capable of parenting, in which case the father will get full custody and the mother little to no visitation, or only supervised visitation. Somehow in those cases, the fathers are looked at as protecting their kids while when it’s the other way around she’s a monster. popa- you’re right as well!November 21, 2013 5:27 pm at 5:27 pm #988304golferParticipant
Holy b, to answer your question- Yes, this does make sense. But I wish you’d have done some proofreading; your ” % ” showing up in odd places had me confused.
Akuperm, on the other hand is not making much sense. Are you suggesting we wait until the kids are adults to straighten out things between them and their fathers (or mothers, in some cases)?
It’s important to do everything possible to maintain a warm, loving relationship between the children and both of their parents (unless we’re dealing with a psychopath, or other severely disturbed parent), the mother’s anger notwithstanding.
Husbands and wives both play their own ugly, indefensible games in the midst of a divorce- husbands by withholding a get; wives by withholding child custody and/or visitation. Unfortunately, both sides sometimes play the game of poisoning the child’s relationship with the other spouse.
There is definitely a need for intervention by Rabbonim and mental health care professionals to the advantage of both parents and children. The solutions are not simple. And finding them in an online discussion, or even in the pages of our venerable magazines, is highly unlikely.November 21, 2013 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #988305The little I knowParticipant
Next, with all the due respect to Gedolei Yisroel, our Roshei Yeshiva (with few exceptions) have not dedicated their lives to the experience of paskening the shailos that become the subjects of Kol Korehs, etc. Just recall the heated volley of Kol Korehs about the Boro Park eruv. Without taking a side, the messages bearing signatures of big talmidei chachomim who have great expertise in much but not dinei Torah.
Dayanim can easily take sides, but should not. Partiality has become more of a rule than an exception. I am choosing to ignore the commonly stated accusations that shochad affects most every dayan. Many are also not responsive to the challenges (such as non-compliance with visitation or child support), and often redirect the bickering to family court.
There are certain piskei din that, while having halacha status, deserve to be questioned. This is an entire subject of its own. I have often called dayanim to get explanation for a psak din that was inconsistent with the facts as I could understand them. I will note that there were times that my discussion led them to reconsider their psak. So I realize that the psak din is halacha, but it is needed to question them to be sure that it is either factually correct or otherwise. It is not guaranteed that listening to everything a dayan pronounces is for the ultimate good. But I wish that were the case.
Edited to be safe. You make excellent points but we are not experts in these issues and are concerned about opening certain lines of discussion.November 21, 2013 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #988306
Very often the wife withholds visiting rights because the ex is not capable of responsible fatherhood.
Would that be a determination she makes on her own in contravention of their agreements and court orders? What an amazing system.November 21, 2013 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #988307TRUEBTParticipant
Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. Real solutions require real work. Having a professional divorce mediator who works for the community would help avoid these problems. The mediator would go through the financials and prepare a proposal showing how each side would survive financially and deal with custody. Lawyers have a vested interest in creating Machlokes because they are paid by the hour. If both sides come to the court/lawyers with a negotiated settlement and just want it adjusted/checked for fairness/accuracy, things would be very different.November 21, 2013 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #988308oomisParticipant
I haven’t yet read these responses to your eloquently expressed question, so I may be repetitious of something that has been said. The tragedy of a divorce as you describe is always the people who suffer the most collateral damage – the children. Unless a father is mamesh abusive to his kids, there is no justification to rpeventing him from spending quality time with them, or badmouthing him. Kids should never be used as pawns by either side. Sadly, it IS often seen that the mothers consciously or unconsciously do this, especially when the divorce is acrimonious.
Leave the kids out of it. NEVER speak derisively of either parent to them. The parents may be divorcing, but the children are their children forever. Except in cases of physical or emotional abuse or chas v’sholom immoral behavior, NO one is the bad guy. Kids should not be made to feel they have to take sides. men shoudl give the GET and women should understand that the father will always be the father and he has the right to BE a father to them.
Some women may feel otherwise, especially if their exes spent very little time with the kids when they WERE married. Either way, one must deal with what IS and not with what SHOULD have been.November 21, 2013 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #988309
Withholding a get vs. Withholding children
Your title makes it sound like a choice. Why can’t they just do both?November 21, 2013 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #988310WolfishMusingsParticipant
Her ex husband refused to pay support, yet insisted on visiting rights.
The two should not be conflated. Visiting rights should not depend on the other spouses payment of child support. A child needs to see his/her father/mother, regardless of their ability/willingness to pay support. If the parent is not making the required support payments, then the custodial parent should take whatever *legal* measures they can to recoup those monies. But they should not be withholding visiting privileges.
A parent has a right to see their child. They also have an obligation to provide support for their children. But the two are not (and should not be) dependent on each other.
Leave the kids out of it. NEVER speak derisively of either parent to them.
My parents had a rather messy divorce. And yet, to this day, I am very appreciative of the fact that both of them took great pains to not put the other one down in front of my sister or I.
The WolfNovember 21, 2013 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #988311
Wolf, I agree with you. Visitation should not be withheld for lack of financial support.
What do you think, though, of the get being used as leverage when visitation is being withheld?November 21, 2013 7:41 pm at 7:41 pm #988312
“There are certain piskei din that, while having halacha status, deserve to be questioned.”
When people “question” certain piskei din the way they “question” halachos in shulchan aruch perhaps i would be open to a discussion on this topic, until then, you are correct, this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. I do think that overall, respect for Rabbonim and Batei Din are at an all time low. that is the greatest tragedy of our generation and probably the source for many of our ills. We think we are smarter than the halacha and look where it has led us. Every time you turn around someone is talking about a new crisis.November 21, 2013 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #988313
Kol Korehs, another pet peeve of mine. I ignore all of them, no matter the subject, no matter the signatories. My hadracha comes from my rav, not the bulletin board in shul or grocery.November 21, 2013 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #988314WolfishMusingsParticipant
What do you think, though, of the get being used as leverage when visitation is being withheld?
That is wrong as well. Just as child support and visitation are two separate issues and should not be conditioned one upon the other, so too a get and visitation.
The WolfNovember 21, 2013 9:13 pm at 9:13 pm #988315
Thank you for your feedback! Let me add something here, the issue many times is not related to court and beis din as some pointed out, rather to the mother’s attitude. The written documents some times don’t equal the reality on the ground, it would be great to imagine that everything is dependent on them, but the fact is many times it’s not.
Who can and can not properly care for the children, is very rarely decided truthfully on the reality.
So leave boteiy din, courts, and signed documents out,is anyone getting the drift?!!
J”S was contacted and offered to settle a part of “his” crisis” by changing “ora” (a-agunot) to “orc” c-children.
Kudos to oomis, and wolfish! Leave the children out! and don’t withhold children for money!November 21, 2013 9:18 pm at 9:18 pm #988316
Wolf, you gave two reasons that visitation should not be withheld. You wrote that a child needs both parents, and that it’s a parent’s right to see his child (I agree with both).
If it were only for the sake of the parent, withholding a get would be unthinkable.
Isn’t it at least reasonable to consider the udea of withholding a get, though, for the other reason, to force the non-compliant parent to allow the child to have a relationship with both parents?
(For this discussion, I will consider the woman’s nonacceptance of the get to be the same as the man’s withholding it.)November 21, 2013 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #988318truthsharerMember
There is no justification to withhold a get. And the claim that the ex-wife is withholding the child is not the same. The court can enforce visitation. Give the get and then sue for visitation.November 21, 2013 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #988319
truthsharer: A court’s order can not change the reality on the ground, there are always games to play, including working on the children, again we are talking about the reality.November 21, 2013 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm #988320
Truthsharer: giving a get makes the shechina cry! I am surprised that you coulf think there ever IS a justification for it!
(Yah, my comment is as reasonable as yours)November 21, 2013 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm #988321lab (Joseph)Member
The little I know is correct.
There’s no halachic requirement to give a get unless beis din orders one to be given. In the absence of such an order there is no basis to demand or attempt to force one to be give. And a beis din can only order one be given if the halachic criteria that a get is mandatory has been met. In the absence of that halachic threshold being met, even beis din cannot order one be given.
akuperma, if a court withheld a civil divorce, that would not help or hurt one spouse more than the other. So taking that approach accomplishes little as it has the same effect on both parties.November 21, 2013 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm #988322TRUEBTParticipant
Holy Brother: Withholding a Get can not change the reality on the ground. Ultimately, the father has to advise the child to do what’s best for the child, and help the child avoid getting caught in the crossfire. Raising children is all Siyata D’shmaya. The father needs to make his Hishtadlus – but don’t make hishtadlus Yeter by withholding the get.
Truthsharer: Even if the husband spends the money and the time and wins visitation rights, it’s difficult if not impossible to enforce them. The wife (who usually gets residential custody) can claim the child doesn’t want to go to visit or is too sick to go or whatever. The court is only going to enforce where she is blatant about it.November 22, 2013 1:08 am at 1:08 am #988323
Refusing to give a Get is a horrible Avla and one of the worst forms of abuse that can be perpetrated.
Withholding a person’s right and ability to see their children is a horrible Avla and one of the worst forms of abuse that can be perpetrated.
I honestly tremble that one can use either to justify the other. Give the Get. Let the person see his children. I don’t see any overlap.November 22, 2013 1:32 am at 1:32 am #988324lab (Joseph)Member
Sam, obviously that is if it is warranted.
If a parent regularly attempts to give drugs and alcohol during visitation to his children, such a parent would rightly be denied visitation. Obviously this is a rare situation but one that can happen.
If a spouse has no obligation to give/accept a Get, and one isn’t halachicly obligated to give/accept a Get simply because the other demands or wants it, then there can be no taaina against him/her for exercising their halachic and moral right to remain married should they so choose.November 22, 2013 1:33 am at 1:33 am #988325frumnotyeshivishParticipant
To reiterate in other words:
Beating a spouse vs. child abuse. Everyone always blames the spouse-beaters, but no one realizes that the beaten spouse is a bad child abuser. Obviously, this means that spouse-beating is okay in this circumstance. Especially when it’s done for selfish vindictive reasons.November 22, 2013 1:48 am at 1:48 am #988326
Sam, it’s not a question of justification or overlap. It’s leverage.November 22, 2013 1:48 am at 1:48 am #988327smartgalMember
There should be a “Wall of Shame” for both- the women who don’t let their ex’s see their kids and for the men who don’t want to give the get. Let this be public knowledge and the communities should shun both on either side . They are equally wrong!! and what about those that make up false allegations so their spouse cant see the kids!! all too common and not enough is being done about it!! thanks holybrother for bringing up this important topic!!! hopefully someone with power & resources can really do something !November 22, 2013 2:39 am at 2:39 am #988328farrockgrandmaParticipant
Withholding a get for any reason, interfering with visitation (except at risk of kidnapping or harm to the children) is a good idea if you wish to prove that being spiteful or proving a point is more important than being an adult and moving forward with your life.November 22, 2013 3:23 am at 3:23 am #988329
DY: Exactly. Who would defend perpetrating one of the worst possible Avlas that can be done against another human being as “leverage”? Give the Get. Let him see his kids.
LAB: No. If he’s abusive, you call the police and have visitation rights rescinded legally. You don’t do it yourself. You have no right.November 22, 2013 3:50 am at 3:50 am #988330
What? You allow your kids to be abused if you can’t stop it legally!!??November 22, 2013 4:05 am at 4:05 am #988331
If they’re actually being abused, you have a friend/neighbor/someone there with him. Everything, especially in these situations, is subjective. Everyone thinks they’re right. So, while in theory some of these things might be viable in extreme situations, we certainly have no right to condone any such action. If she can’t stop it legally, it’s probably because the kids aren’t actually being abused. If they are, Children’s Services gets them away from him very, very quickly.November 22, 2013 5:04 am at 5:04 am #988332
Legally, she may not be able to enforce supervised visitation. If she knows that he abuses the kids, whether others condemn or condone is irrelevant. She has to protect them.November 22, 2013 7:20 am at 7:20 am #988334
DY: I don’t disagree. But we can’t say that. Because once we legitimize that as a possibility, it will become the standard fallback for everyone who capriciously denies visitation. So we must say that everyone allows visitation and that we need to trust the legal system.November 22, 2013 9:38 am at 9:38 am #988335
smartgal: Thank you! B’h someone understands the depth of the issue, in a mature responsible form, without getting caught up…you hit it on the nail.November 23, 2013 6:47 pm at 6:47 pm #988336notasheepMember
Wolf – not in her case. He lives overseas and the visiting would be at my sister in law’s expense. But I agree with your point that one parent should never paint the other parent black in front of the child.
Popa – some people can be very charming in court and get their way, even if they shouldn’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.