Get Refusal

[aygart]

Collective punishment isn't necessarily immoral.

It is against the torah in almost all cases.

[PlatinumGuy]

It is against the torah in almost all cases.

That may be true but the criteria aren’t clearly defined. Even in standard Get refusers, the Rama explicitly allows sanctioning the husbands kids in order to pressure him. Perhaps there’s a difference between passive abstention and proactive action, but that’s a chiddush and a fine line.

Modern justice tabooed collective punishment much more than the Torah.

[Lurker]

That story is where this whole movement should fall apart. When I first read the VIN article they make it sound like it's very simple, but in reality this is another one of those cases where she doesn't allow him to see his kids, but yet they're demanding a get. This needs to sorted out in BD or arbitration before anyone has a right to demand a get. If they'd be protesting to get him to BD I would understand (assuming all their stories about the attempts at BD and arbitration are true, but as we see they're already hiding half the story).

I know absolutely nothing about this story, other than what I saw on some flyers. The whole "she doesn't allow him to see his kids" thing tugs at the heart, until you stop and think for a second... they are legally divorced. The only way to do that is to have a legally agreed upon custody arrangement. If the court is allowing her to keep the kids from him completely, there's a lot more to the story than "she doesn't allow him to see the kids." I see Rabbi Efrem Goldberg has been involved, and based on what I know of him, I don't think he'd be for the protests if it was as simple as her keeping the kids from him.

FTR, I really despise when they involve the extended family, and I'm not a huge fan of the movement, either. I agree that both sides need to be published, or no sides at all.

[avromie7]

I know absolutely nothing about this story, other than what I saw on some flyers. The whole "she doesn't allow him to see his kids" thing tugs at the heart, until you stop and think for a second... they are legally divorced. The only way to do that is to have a legally agreed upon custody arrangement. If the court is allowing her to keep the kids from him completely, there's a lot more to the story than "she doesn't allow him to see the kids." I see Rabbi Efrem Goldberg has been involved, and based on what I know of him, I don't think he'd be for the protests if it was as simple as her keeping the kids from him.

FTR, I really despise when they involve the extended family, and I'm not a huge fan of the movement, either. I agree that both sides need to be published, or no sides at all.

So go to BD. I don't know what's holding them up; and I'm not going to take her side at face value, but no BD has ruled him to be a meagein. What gives people a right to demand a get before BD demands it?

[Lurker]

So go to BD. I don't know what's holding them up; and I'm not going to take her side at face value, but no BD has ruled him to be a meagein. What gives people a right to demand a get before BD demands it?

The siruv by BDA doesn't count for anything?

[avromie7]

The siruv by BDA doesn't count for anything?

A siruv doesn't require a get, it requires him to go to BD.

[Lurker]

A siruv doesn't require a get, it requires him to go to BD.

So go to BD. I don't know what's holding them up

... what's holding them up is he doesn't show... hence the siruv. What recourse does she have at that point?

[aygart]

If the court is allowing her to keep the kids from him completely, there's a lot more to the story than "she doesn't allow him to see the kids."

Getting a court to enforce their own custody rights can take years even with an abusive parent.

[avromie7]

... what's holding them up is he doesn't show... hence the siruv. What recourse does she have at that point?

1) stop withholding his kids
2) Work to get him to BD or arbitration (assuming her side of the story is true).

[yelped]

There are multiple cases going on now, but the VIN article naming siblings and the rally in Lakewood last night outside parents home can't be blamed on these parents enabling their son by supporting him and him living by them, as he lives in Boca. I also didn't see any local Rabbanim publicly supporting this. One look at the picture published of the family tells you that his parents don't control his choices, because if they did he would look a lot different. It's difficult to understand why it's ok to rally outside the parents' house and publish siblings' info, including pictures of teenage brothers.

AKA doxxing?

[Euclid]

1) stop withholding his kids
2) Work to get him to BD or arbitration (assuming her side of the story is true).

They discuss it here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xbj8E6prH8

[Mootkim]

but in reality this is another one of those cases where she doesn't allow him to see his kids, but yet they're demanding a get.

I am pretty familiar with that story and that is absolutely untrue, rather it is the narrative that they are trying to portray. He sees his youngest kids all the time and up until about 2 months ago saw his oldest as well. When he said in front of his oldest kid that he has a gun and would kill her mother if so and so, she refused to go back to him and they were granted a restraining order by the court that he cannot see her for 2 years. The kid testified in private to a judge that she was scared to go to him. I am not taking sides on any of this as all of it sounds like childish fighting in general to me, however, to have many people believe that she is holding back the kids etc. which is untrue is just sad.

[avromie7]

They discuss it here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xbj8E6prH8

I watched the whole thing. Quite frankly I don't believe they're telling the whole story, we've already seen that they're withholding relevant facts. Additionally, why was it necessary for him to mention "Aaron was disrespectful throughout the process, so much so that he was excused from the Attorney’s office."? It has no bearing on the case, other to make him out to be a lunatic who doesn't have another side of the story (which we already know is false).

[avromie7]

I am pretty familiar with that story and that is absolutely untrue, rather it is the narrative that they are trying to portray. He sees his youngest kids all the time and up until about 2 months ago saw his oldest as well. When he said in front of his oldest kid that he has a gun and would kill her mother if so and so, she refused to go back to him and they were granted a restraining order by the court that he cannot see her for 2 years. The kid testified in private to a judge that she was scared to go to him. I am not taking sides on any of this as all of it sounds like childish fighting in general to me, however, to have many people believe that she is holding back the kids etc. which is untrue is just sad.

To summarize, 2 babies are fighting and one of them is holding up a sign saying "I'm an agunah everyone take my side".

[aygart]

To summarize, 2 babies are fighting and one of them is holding up a sign saying "I'm an agunah everyone take my side".

Not always are there really 2 sides. Sometimes one side really is a monster. I know nothing about the case (or even what case is being referred to) but when someone tells a child how he would kill her mother that is somewhat indicative (if true).
ETA: Added items in parenthesis

[Lurker]

we've already seen that they're withholding relevant facts

?

[Mootkim]

?

I'm assuming he means not saying which 2 rabbanim they spoke to who gave the ok to continue as is.

[Lurker]

I'm assuming he means not saying which 2 rabbanim they spoke to who gave the ok to continue as is.

Maybe, but these aren't stam shleppers saying they asked a rabbi...

[drosenberg88429]

That may be true but the criteria aren’t clearly defined. Even in standard Get refusers, the Rama explicitly allows sanctioning the husbands kids in order to pressure him. Perhaps there’s a difference between passive abstention and proactive action, but that’s a chiddush and a fine line.

Modern justice tabooed collective punishment much more than the Torah.

I would actually disagree with this. The Rama you are citing is really an example of sanctioning him, not his children. These are things that he has to take care of, and which they are not feeling the physical effects of. He never said you cannot feed or medically treat his children. Regardless, we do know that sometimes minor children are stricken due to parental transgression, but never adult children (which is an explicit passuk), who are independent beings.

Thank you for the quotation, though. Your posts are always well reasoned, well constructed, comprehensive, and displaying formidable knowledge and understanding of the subject matters, no matter the topic.

[YitzyS]

I can't wait until one of these spills over onto DDF.

Picture the scene: A big rabbi opens a DDF account (or one of the resident rabbis, like Chief Rabbi of NY) and posts that a certain DDFer is a get refuser, and that anyone on DDF who does not try to cajole him to give the get is complicit in the act.

Now let your imagination run wild...