Get Refusal

[Mootkim]

A get given under undue duress is void. As critical as the divorcees wellbeing is, the Torah comes first.

What is called undue duress? If there is a siruv or a peak from a competent beis din saying that he needs to give a get, he is required to. Beis din would literally hurt him until he agrees. In fact even if he says afterwards that he didnt really mean to agree we ignore that because of his deep down desires to do the right thing.

[Mootkim]

There are husbands that are forced to pay absurd amounts of alimony and support so their exes should never have to work a day in their lives. The crippling of these men financially makes it almost impossible for them to remarry, as they cannot support a second household so long as they are chained and enslaved financially to their former wives. For all practical purposes, these men are nearly agunos. You'll never hear of anyone protesting such conduct on the woman's side, though. Demanding primary custody or full and full support seems to be par for the course. All is fair when it comes to family court, and if one side is given more leverage and rights by the court system due to their gender, then so be it. However, when the other side decides to exercise the only leverage given to the male in an attempt to force a more equitable settlement that will allow them both to move on in life, he is dubbed a monster. Life is not always so black and white. Two wrongs may not make a right, but it does puts a person's behavior in perspective before casting judgement without jury or trial.

We live in a world where we need to listen to the law. If someone has hardship with child support etc they should bring it to the judge but the bottom line is dina demalchusa dina and if thats what the law is then we must follow it. A get was never intended to put you above the law or to ignore the law or to bypass the law.

[avromie7]

We live in a world where we need to listen to the law. If someone has hardship with child support etc they should bring it to the judge but the bottom line is dina demalchusa dina and if thats what the law is then we must follow it. A get was never intended to put you above the law or to ignore the law or to bypass the law.

Where does the law come in here? If we're worried about the law they can have a legal divorce, if not all we care about is halacha.

[Mootkim]

Where does the law come in here? If we're worried about the law they can have a legal divorce, if not all we care about is halacha.

The law comes in when there are rules that govern someone being required to pay child support. This is no different than the law that makes a moving violation an offense. Does it make sense for someone to stipulate that they are withholding their get until they are granted full immunity from driving over the speed limit or that she should agree to cover all his fines that he ever gets for speeding? Of course not because one has nothing to do with the other. There is a law that governs child support which everyone is entitled to fight and present their case to a judge but if the law is against you then that is that. That cannot be tied to a get to bypass that law.

[PlatinumGuy]

If there is a siruv or a peak from a competent beis din saying that he needs to give a get, he is required to. Beis din would literally hurt him until he agrees.

Nope, there is quite a large gray area in between, where Beis Din instructs one to give a Get but do not compel. There is a concept known as '׳הרחקות דרבינו תם which serve to pressure somebody to give a get while refraining from outright duress. It is a fine line with a lot of nuance.

Most importantly, many who are considered 'Get Refusers' were never actually ordered by a Beis Din to give a Get, or have an equally valid halachic directive allowing them to withhold the Get.

The law comes in when there are rules that govern someone being required to pay child support. This is no different than the law that makes a moving violation an offense....

There is a law that governs child support which everyone is entitled to fight and present their case to a judge but if the law is against you then that is that. That cannot be tied to a get to bypass that law.

Who says? The law doesn't mandate giving a Get. One can ask the wife to pay a million dollars and one can ask the woman to relinquish her legal rights.

[avromie7]

The law comes in when there are rules that govern someone being required to pay child support. This is no different than the law that makes a moving violation an offense. Does it make sense for someone to stipulate that they are withholding their get until they are granted full immunity from driving over the speed limit or that she should agree to cover all his fines that he ever gets for speeding? Of course not because one has nothing to do with the other. There is a law that governs child support which everyone is entitled to fight and present their case to a judge but if the law is against you then that is that. That cannot be tied to a get to bypass that law.

The law has nothing to do with the get. If the divorce is not finalized in a halachikly acceptable manner, the case is still open. There is no reason he should be forced to give her a get so she has nothing stopping her from dragging him through the mud. As soon as she stops dragging him through the mud and they come to a halachikly acceptable agreement it's all over and he will give the get. This is the reality of the overwhelming majority of cases, when these women cry that they are "agunos"; and people run around defending them, they cheapen the case of the real agunos.

[Euclid]

The law has nothing to do with the get. If the divorce is not finalized in a halachikly acceptable manner, the case is still open. There is no reason he should be forced to give her a get so she has nothing stopping her from dragging him through the mud. As soon as she stops dragging him through the mud and they come to a halachikly acceptable agreement it's all over and he will give the get. This is the reality of the overwhelming majority of cases, when these women cry that they are "agunos"; and people run around defending them, they cheapen the case of the real agunos.

Source?

[Chapshnell]

to me its very simple, there is no excuse to not show up to beis din when called upon, there is no EXCUSE PERIOD!
If someone doesnt show up you are automatically in the wrong. There is no being dan lekaf zchus. You can say the wife was abusive etc etc etc..
Show up to beis din & speak to them, air your grievances or go to a dif. beis din.
But to not go to beis din & not giving a get you deserve everything & everything thrown your way.
I am very happy to see that this is being brought into the public light. If the husband has a beef with his wife there are solutions, but not showing up means automatically guilty even though he may have had a very strong case against her.

[Mootkim]

Who says? The law doesn't mandate giving a Get. One can ask the wife to pay a million dollars and one can ask the woman to relinquish her legal rights.

Right but how can you use a get as a bargaining chip for that. They are 2 completely different things. Making her relinquish her rights is basically using the halachik get to bypass the law

[avromie7]

to me its very simple, there is no excuse to not show up to beis din when called upon, there is no EXCUSE PERIOD!
If someone doesnt show up you are automatically in the wrong. There is no being dan lekaf zchus. You can say the wife was abusive etc etc etc..
Show up to beis din & speak to them, air your grievances or go to a dif. beis din.
But to not go to beis din & not giving a get you deserve everything & everything thrown your way.
I am very happy to see that this is being brought into the public light. If the husband has a beef with his wife there are solutions, but not showing up means automatically guilty even though he may have had a very strong case against her.

Which BD? She doesn't have a right to pick a specific BD, he can choose a different BD. If they don't agree on a BD they need zabla.

[Mootkim]

The law has nothing to do with the get. If the divorce is not finalized in a halachikly acceptable manner, the case is still open. There is no reason he should be forced to give her a get so she has nothing stopping her from dragging him through the mud. As soon as she stops dragging him through the mud and they come to a halachikly acceptable agreement it's all over and he will give the get. This is the reality of the overwhelming majority of cases, when these women cry that they are "agunos"; and people run around defending them, they cheapen the case of the real agunos.

The dragging through the mud is done on an even playing field. If she is accusing him of something or demanding something then he has full rights and ability to fight that in court or in beis din. He can show how she is wrong which she very well may be, however, that is not tied to the get.

[avromie7]

Source?

My experience looking into cases over the years. I'm not an expert, but more often than not I was able to find that there is another legitimate side to the story that you would never imagine based on the story she is peddling.

ETA: Very often this included when there are big names pushing her side of the story.

[Moshe123]

And the age-old truth:

Every get has 4 stories. What he says, what she says, what the street says, and the truth.

[avromie7]

The dragging through the mud is done on an even playing field. If she is accusing him of something or demanding something then he has full rights and ability to fight that in court or in beis din. He can show how she is wrong which she very well may be, however, that is not tied to the get.

1) It's not an even playing field, the courts are stacked against the man.
2) Why should he give her an even playing field to drag him through the mud? While it may sound good in theory, when you look at it from the perspective of a man who just wants to move on with his life while having reasonable custody and being able to eat after paying child support and alimony, it really makes no sense.

[simplicity]

1) It's not an even playing field, the courts are stacked against the man.
2) Why should he give her an even playing field to drag him through the mud? While it may sound good in theory, when you look at it from the perspective of a man who just wants to move on with his life while having reasonable custody and being able to eat after paying child support and alimony, it really makes no sense.

+1

[pbf]

The law has nothing to do with the get. If the divorce is not finalized in a halachikly acceptable manner, the case is still open. There is no reason he should be forced to give her a get so she has nothing stopping her from dragging him through the mud. As soon as she stops dragging him through the mud and they come to a halachikly acceptable agreement it's all over and he will give the get. This is the reality of the overwhelming majority of cases, when these women cry that they are "agunos"; and people run around defending them, they cheapen the case of the real agunos.

Your overwhelmingly sexist tone is really bothersome

[YitzyS]

This thread makes my heart go out to anyone going through this, and so thankful for what I have.

[Moshe123]

I have a friend who got divorced years ago. She went to court against Rabbanim's advice and got everything. He lost his expensive house and everything else. He was allowed to take a few pieces of cutlery. Had to move into a dingy basement, pay a fortune in support and was left with literally nothing. He didn't have money for food and literally subsisted on coffee.
In these cases, such a person might be justified if he wanted to withhold. But most cases are not this and we should therefore hear what the involved legit Rabbanim say.

[Lurker]

Your overwhelmingly sexist tone is really bothersome

Without justifying anyone's tone or opinions, it is a direct reaction to the one-sidedness of the activism we've been exposed to over the last few years. The harder things get pushed towards one side, the harder the pushback. This isn't limited to the "get" issue. You can look at any issue society faces and see similar actions/reactions. Hence the polarization of our society.

[simplicity]

I have a friend who got divorced years ago. She went to court against Rabbanim's advice and got everything. He lost his expensive house and everything else. He was allowed to take a few pieces of cutlery. Had to move into a dingy basement, pay a fortune in support and was left with literally nothing. He didn't have money for food and literally subsisted on coffee.
In these cases, such a person might be justified if he wanted to withhold. But most cases are not this and we should therefore hear what the involved legit Rabbanim say.

It can’t be that the guy is always wrong, There is some notion whoever you want to say is running these campaigns that the guys always wrong no matter what.