Ex-Hasidic mother loses custody of her children

[NotALoserLikeYou]

unpious.com/2013/05/ex-hasidic-mother-loses-custody-of-children/

A 32-year-old mother from Monsey, N.Y., has lost custody of her children due largely to what a judge described as the mother’s inadequate religious observance.

Kelly Myzner, mother of three boys, ages 5 to 8, recently had her children removed from her home, following a custody battle that ended with a ruling in favor of the Hasidic father.

In a ruling dated April 22, 2013, Judge Sherri L. Eisenpress, of Rockland County Family Court, ordered the custody transfer “despite the children’s expressed wishes.†The judge acknowledged that the mother has been the children’s primary caretaker, that the children were “extremely bonded†to her, and that she appeared to be “far more involved and vigilant†about their care than the father. Still, the judge worried that the mother’s lax religious observance would “tremendously confuse†and harm the children.

Complicating the case are allegations of physical and sexual abuse brought by the mother against the father, and the judge’s speculation that the complaints were only a ploy to alienate the children from their father. Myzner claims that she had no such intentions, and the court ruling acknowledges that the father regularly used corporal punishment coupled with a bad temper.

On May 14, after an unsuccessful bid for a stay on the order, the children were removed from Myzner’s custody. Due to pending investigations against the father on abuse complaints, the children were placed in foster care.

Her ex-husband, who works as a warehouse supervisor, hired a high-priced, aggressive attorney, who Myzner believes is being paid for by the Hasidic community. Myzner herself was forced to rely on pro bono legal representation from a local women’s shelter, which, she says, has proven insufficient to fight the aggressive tactics of her opponents.

Over the ensuing months there were additional C.P.S. complaints against the father, most of them filed not by Myzner but by professionals treating the children—pediatricians, therapists, psychiatrists. Myzner says she turned to professionals for guidance after the children returned from visiting their father with tales of beatings with belts and sticks. Their bodies were bruised. “What kind of mother would I be if I ignored it?â€

The judge acknowledged that Myzner had the right to live with or without religion. She also acknowledged that Myzner was overall the more involved and attentive parent, and that the father had shown a pattern of denial of the children’s needs. She also acknowledged the father’s anger problems and his regular use of corporal punishment. Ultimately, though, it came down to who fit in better with the children’s Hasidic lifestyle.

The judge wrote she was concerned that the mother’s decision to “become secular†would spill over to the children, and that, among other things, the mother “(may) [might] change the children’s conservative attire and grooming, change her appearance when she is with the children, permit the children to view television and access the internet.â€

For now, the children have been placed with a Hasidic family Myzner does not know. Days later, Myzner says the emotional toll feels too great to bear.

“I have no words. I am in so much pain, and I can’t escape it. I feel so helpless and scared and confused.â€

Myzner says she is determined to appeal the ruling. She lacks the funds to hire an attorney, she says, but she isn’t letting that stop her.

“I’ll file the paperwork on my own if I have to,†she says. “My children are my life, and I know that they need me. I am not giving up.â€

[anjulibai]

What the fuck? Is there another source for this? That website looks somewhat biased, but if this is true this is a horrible abuse of power by the judge.

[Coconut Flan]

Decisions like that should get the judge removed from the bench.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Thats disgusting. The children's right not to be abused is more important than the religion of the parent.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Googling it I see various forms of the same article on blogs, but no news sites.

This made me so upset that I donated money to her legal fund. A mother should be able to raise her children with or without religion, and SHE has rights to them, not the community to which they are living.

[anjulibai]

This is so sad. Those poor kids.

[Jana814]

This is so sad. Those poor kids.

Agree!

[Mango]

There's an indigogo for her legal fund. :( Such a sad mess!

[Dinorah]

If things really went how they are described, it's really disturbing. So abuse is ok, poor parenting's ok but confusing children religiously is not ok?

[AVENues]

Several things come to mind.

Divorce is/can be a bitch. I don't know why some people (mostly men) handle it so poorly and act like blood thirsty baboons. People go through the process showing no respect, no class, nothing.

That dick doesn't love the kids, he's a psycho and the whole separation from the mom is his primitive ways of him getting back at her.

The idea of a community supporting a divorce lawyer, aka getting so deeply involved in 2 people's personal business suggests that this community might be a small cult.

I think the judge and everyone around that bench was bribed. If not threatened somehow, then bribed.

They come off very cult-ish.

I feel sorry for that mother, this is beyond crazy.

[dpndetfarm]

his rabbi says he has read the transcripts of the case and there were more issues at play, but didnt elaborate what the circumstaces were, but still mostly religious based.

finkorswim.com/2013/05/21/on-second-thought-now-that-ive-seen-the-court-transcripts/

However i found this comment highly telling of what the other issues might have been.

MarkSoFla  Shulem Deen • 15 days ago−

The automatic assumption that an OTD person is suffering from psychological issues (and is therefore of course an unfit parent).It's actually even worse than this in some cases. Early on, when the woman first shows signs of dissatisfaction [with the cult*], she is forced** to see an "approved" psychiatrist. This psychiatrist then, as is customary, creates a medical file for the woman, prescribes various medications, etc. Later on, that medical file is admissible during the divorce and custody hearings. And, obviously, the file shows that she suffers from mental issues. Meanwhile, no such file exists for the man in question, so he is deemed mentally healthy.* Characteristics of a cult - http://aolfree.wordpress.com/2...** I mean literally forced, not necessarily solely by social pressure (social pressure that she may already be ignoring to some extent at that point).

[2xx1xy1JD]

Fink is on the West Coast, so that's not the husband's rabbi. I think you may have meant "this" rabbi, not "his" rabbi.

There is a reference to "confusion", since the parents are going in opposite directions religiously.

Sure, that can be an issue, but it will exist regardless of what order is made.

I did a quick search, and the cases in my jurisdiction have taken the opposite approach - one local judge refused an order to compel the dad to feed the children only kosher food and to have the children spend all religious holidays with only mom (who was the more strictly observant parent).

Anyone with knowledge of New York family law here? Or access to a copy of the judgment (which I'd like to read, since the reasoning can often be different than what gets reported)?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

The part that struck me as odd is apparently the kids are old enough to actually choose to live with the Mom, and yet that didn't seem to win over?

I did enjoy the response to all the "but you can't just change a kid's lifestyle like that!!!" naysayers - someone said they should complain to Chabad and Aish also, then. Touche.

Not to mention that if these kids were already the children of a "bum" and now they have an absent mom who's gone off, their status is not going to be high. They're going to be "problem kids" to the community no matter what they're actually like. Not just living in the insular community, but being "problem" in the insular community. I feel for them.

[Mela99]

What the fuck? Is there another source for this? That website looks somewhat biased, but if this is true this is a horrible abuse of power by the judge.

I in no way am agreeing with this decision, but when deciding child custody, most states look at ten best interest factors. One of them is whichever parent is most involved with their religious and educational upbringing. They also put a lot of weight on what the children are used to - an established custodial environment. That's why, in some extreme cases, if a parent kidnaps a child and the child is with them for so long, they consider them the custodial parent, and they don't want to punish the child for the acts of the parents.

/family law concentration.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I in no way am agreeing with this decision, but when deciding child custody, most states look at ten best interest factors. One of them is whichever parent is most involved with their religious and educational upbringing. They also put a lot of weight on what the children are used to - an established custodial environment. That's why, in some extreme cases, if a parent kidnaps a child and the child is with them for so long, they consider them the custodial parent, and they don't want to punish the child for the acts of the parents.

/family law concentration.

From what I know, most jurisdictions have some form of "best interests" test, but which factors are considered relevant, and how they are weighted, can vary.

For example, here is the case from my area where the judge rejected the "kosher food only and no Jewish holidays for dad" argument:

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/20 ... c4758.html

OTOH, here is another local case (different judge), who granted mom's request to change the kids' school to one with other Jewish kids, when everything else about their existing school and living arrangements while at dad's was good (parents had joint custody):

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/20 ... 53970.html

Finally, courts here seem to reject any notion that the custodial parent has no right to change religion (esp. if the other parent presents a lousy case and comes across as an asshole):

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/1996/19 ... i7272.html

[i don't know anyone except the judges in these cases. I am also not giving legal advice. This is not intended to be comprehensive legal research, just food for thought and discussion.]