Divorce, Morality & the Internet: Cause or Effect?
By: Martin E. Friedlander, Esq.
Is the internet causing divorces? The answer to this question is an
unequivocal, “yes.” In the community at large and specifically the Orthodox community,
authors and lecturers constantly forewarn the many dangers that the internet poses on
children. Very little information, however, is published as to the danger that adults face
while using the internet and viewing online pornography and the harmful effects that the
internet has on marriages. As adults, people have rights to view scenes and sites that
demean and portray individuals in the most horrific and disgusting manner, but this does
not diminish the detriment it causes on their moral and religious character.
We need to expose this culprit in the adult community; otherwise there will be
long lasting effects on the entire fabric of our society. People who would not be seen in
a bar or club if their lives depended on it, for fear of being seen in that environment, can
easily access all of the lures of that environment, and worse, with the click of a mouse,
this can be in the comfort of their home or business setting, without the accompanying
embarrassment. Unfortunately, all of society, including the Orthodox community,
has been plagued by this epidemic and its harmful effects. This does not diminish the
negative ramifications doing so has on the viewer and the influence it has on one’s family
life. There is no question that the immorality that has become rampant in the world has
infiltrated the Orthodox and Chareidi communities and the number of divorces based on
this has risen significantly.
From a religious standpoint, there are obviously halachik prohibitions against
viewing these materials. Community Rabbis and leaders have urged public awareness
about this subject due to the upsurge of immorality and infidelity as the cause of divorce
within the Orthodox community. Inappropriate computer usage and acts of immorality
have not been limited to gender, as it affects both men, women and even children within
the community. One of the topics that will be addressed in this article is the interaction
between the internet and its effect on divorce.
MENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVE
Frequenting these inappropriate sites is creating a new type of addiction. Those
who are affected need professional help and counseling. Any mental health professional
will unequivocally state that constantly viewing such content, sites, and videos,
negatively affects one’s mindset, decisions, and interactions with his/her spouse, children,
loved ones and others. In a countless number of legal cases involving excessive internet
usage, experts have presented data which reveals that the people engaged in this activity
all contain a manifest level of addictive behavior. Many people who are addicted to the
internet spend hours upon hours browsing the internet searching terms that we hope are
not in the vocabulary of a yeshiva educated individual. The extent of the addiction is
revealed by the fact that there are legal cases in which Orthodox people have generated
inappropriate searches for these sites even on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. There
are also people who can not turn off their computer at the outset of the Sabbath, so that
they can feed their addiction throughout the Sabbath. Computer experts who had access
to internet addicts’ computers’ also remark regarding the extent of this phenomenon
that has entered our community. Forensic experts note that this epidemic can lead one to
transgress the Sabbath and Yom Tov.
STATISTICS ON INTERNET USAGE
The United States Senate heard testimony concerning internet pornography
usage and its effects on divorce and custody determinations. Dr. Mary Anne Layden of
the University of Pennsylvania indicated before the United States Senate at a hearing
relating to internet usage in 2005 that 40% of people addicted to the internet will lose
their spouse, 58% will suffer several financial losses and 27%-40% will lose their jobs or
profession.1
At a meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, it was found
that 56% of divorce cases involved one party’s obsessive interest of pornographic
websites and 47% of divorce cases involved spending excessive time on the computer.
Psychologist Janice Abrams has noted an explosion of online extra-marital affairs due to
its accessibility and anonymous nature. More than half of the population uses the internet
and 20-33% go online for these pursuits.
SYMPTOMS OF INTERNET ADDICTION
It is important for people to become aware of this predicament plaguing our
society and be able to detect when someone is suffering from an internet addiction in
order to help that person seek help and to rectify/save a marriage. Dr. Kimberly Young
indicates that many family/marital therapists are unfortunately not proficient in treating
this addiction. There are, however, common symptoms indicative of internet addiction,
such as spending excessive time on the computer and becoming very defensive when the
other spouse comes near the computer or enters the room where the computer is located.
1 Hearing on pornography’s impact on marriage & the family subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights
and property rights committee on judiciary. United States Senate. November 10, 2005.
In Israel, a discussion in the Rabbinic Courts has centered around a debate
regarding the similarities between eating virtual pork and engaging in online virtual sin
via pornographic websites. A case before the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem involved
a woman suing her husband for divorce, on the grounds of virtual adultery. Virtual
fantasies are conducted by placing electrodes on the head while engaging in the online
fantasy. In particular, eating virtual pork is accomplished by placing electrodes on the
head, while placing bland food in the person’s mouth and the program to which the
electrodes are connected, simulates the food the person desires to eat. The Beis Din
had to grapple with this issue and its ramifications, but today, Batei Dinim are forced
to deal with situations far more serious than virtual adultery. The hurt one spouse
suffers after being confronted with the user’s habitual online browsing of inappropriate
material is undoubtedly a cause of divorce; the awareness is accompanied by a feeling of
unfaithfulness and disgust, which attacks the core of the marriage.
Surprisingly, Rabbinical Courts are not giving considerable weight to a parent’s
immorality and significant internet usage in deciding whether that parent should be
awarded custody of children. Has our society become so jaded that viewing this material
is no longer considered a significant factor in divorce and child custody matters before
the Rabbinical Court (Beis Din)?In New York, adultery is still generally a crime in secular courts, but individuals
are not generally prosecuted for this crime.
After numerous discussions with prominent Toanim, it has become clear that
unless there is an issue involving child pornography, then in a practical matter, Beis Din’s
view on infidelity and internet immorality will have no bearing on custody and parent
visitation determinations in divorce proceedings before them.
In my years of practice in the matrimonial field, I have seen a wide spectrum of
unfortunate cases involving internet usage. Despite claims that Orthodox Jews are an
insular community, the causes of divorce are universal and not limited by the constraints
of religion or level of religious observance.
Outcry from clients, family members, Rabbis, and community leaders regarding
internet usage and its negative impact on our lives is downplayed. Further uproar must
to be generated due to the lack of serious ramifications within the religious community
and its tribunals for violating the Jewish prohibitions against pornography and excessive
usage of the internet for inappropriate matters. The religious community must address
and acknowledge this epidemic. The number of Orthodox cases involving allegations
of excessive and inappropriate computer usage and acts of immorality is staggering and
it is growing. The usual and customary response that this problem does not plague the
religious community is ludicrous and simply untrue.
Countless families have been destroyed by the internet and other technology
and in many cases, children are unfortunately aware of the reasons behind their parents
divorce. As a result, they are exposed to this immoral behavior. The lesson children learn
from their parents’ behavior can only handicap their development and religious growth.
A recently created website has attracted much negative media attention and provides a
forum in which married Orthodox individuals may seek partners for extra-marital affairs.
The screen names and descriptions as reported are quite telling of the challenges we face
today. The fact that this website was established by allegedly religious individuals, for
religious individuals, makes one wonder what values our children are instilled with today
and the frightening ramifications that such sites will have on future generations. This site
has drawn significant negative media attention as well as the interest of law enforcement.
CONCLUSION
Internet addiction is an addiction like any other. Not only are there signs which
can be picked up on, but only through trained professional specialties in this area, can one
obtain proper assistance. This addiction has ruined many marriages, having placed
barriers in relationships between the addicted and their children, which at times requires
the parents contact to be supervised.
Martin Friedlander P.C. is a firm specializing in
matrimonial matters in both secular courts and Beis Din.
(212) 321-7092
Showing posts with label By: Martin E. Friedlander. Show all posts
Showing posts with label By: Martin E. Friedlander. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Mediation, Arbitration and Beth Din:
Those who are going through a divorce are faced with choices as to the venue their dispute will be heard, in addition to the traditional forum of litigation before the Supreme Court of New York.
Mediation and arbitration are alternative forums where divorce settlements may be resolved.
Mediation: This process, which today has gained popularity due to the fact that costs are curtailed. The parties choose a neutral person, preferably an experienced attorney, who is a trained mediator, to work with both of the parties. Sessions are conducted in which the mediator attempts to arrive at a mutual agreement with the participation of both parties. All issues are addressed from custody, parenting time and child support through the division of assets. The parties agree as to payment for the costs of the Mediator fees. Mediators generally require the parties to waive their right to call the mediator as a witness in any potential future litigation. Accordingly, the substance of the conversations and sessions cannot arise in any future litigation. It is only if the parties arrive at an agreement, will they execute a Stipulation based on the sessions. The drawback to the mediation is that at any time a person may withdraw from it and the time spent will be lost.
Mediation is a process that I have recently become involved with. The parties Rabbi or a psychologist are brought in to assist in the sessions to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. The parties if at the completion of the process leave with a draft of the understanding which they can review with whom they choose, which then can be submitted to the Court.
Arbitration: This process is one in which the parties agree that to submit their disputes to an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. The parties’ arbitration agreement empowers the panel to decide the issues presented which can later be submitted to a Court to confirm. New York State law Section 75 of the CPLR deals specifically with the laws and rules of arbitration.
Arbitration, as relates to divorce, can result in a final decision on all economic issues. Child support can be handled by arbitrators, should they follow the dictates of New York State law namely the Child Support Standards Act. The one area where arbitrators do not have final decision making authority is dealing with child custody issues. The Courts in New York have stated that custody and visitation disputes are not subject to arbitration. As the Court’s role as parens patriae (ultimate parent) cannot be usurped (Berg v. Berg a New York State case). A Beth Din is considered an arbitration panel under New York State law and a Shtar Buririm, an agreement to arbitrate, is deemed valid.
Once parties execute and empower a panel (including a Beth Din), there is a high burden one must reach in an effort to contest their decision. Accordingly, one is advised to insure that they have competent representation during the arbitration process in any forum including a Beth Din. Proper procedure and an opportunity to be heard and represented must be adhered to for the arbitrator or arbitration panel’s decision to be upheld. Ultimately after a decision or P’sak is rendered, one would move before a Court of competent jurisdiction to confirm the decision within one year of it being rendered. The moving side may remain silent or move to set it aside based on grounds that are specifically stated in the law. One should be aware that after adjudicating custody and visitation before the arbitration panel or Beth Din, should one party seek to set that issue aside, the Court will entertain that application. Today’s economy has forced parties to seek alternative solutions to resolve their differences, mediation and arbitration have been more popular as the cost of litigation has become prohibitive to many.
In the case of Beth Din, the process generally begins by one party summoning the other, which in return must be responded to. If the two parties cannot agree on a Beth Din, then each party selects a Judge (Borer) and the two selected will choose the third. This process is called Zabla. The parties execute a binding arbitration agreement which empowers the panel. In today’s society, Zabla is the most popular method in the Beth Din proceedings, within the Orthodox Community.
Process: As an aside, in a Beth Din proceeding, the Beth Din will issue three (3) invites (Hazmanas) from the person petitioning the Beth Din. If they are not responded to by the side being summoned, then the Beth Din can issue a Seruv (indicating that the person has not respond to calling Beth Din and should be sanctioned by the community according to Halacha, (for example, should not be welcome into synagogues or given any honor etc).
By: Martin E. Friedlander, Esq.
I can be reached by email at mef@mflawyer.com or by phone at 212-321-7092 and for suggestions for the column please email Inwhosebestinterest@gmail.com.
Mediation and arbitration are alternative forums where divorce settlements may be resolved.
Mediation: This process, which today has gained popularity due to the fact that costs are curtailed. The parties choose a neutral person, preferably an experienced attorney, who is a trained mediator, to work with both of the parties. Sessions are conducted in which the mediator attempts to arrive at a mutual agreement with the participation of both parties. All issues are addressed from custody, parenting time and child support through the division of assets. The parties agree as to payment for the costs of the Mediator fees. Mediators generally require the parties to waive their right to call the mediator as a witness in any potential future litigation. Accordingly, the substance of the conversations and sessions cannot arise in any future litigation. It is only if the parties arrive at an agreement, will they execute a Stipulation based on the sessions. The drawback to the mediation is that at any time a person may withdraw from it and the time spent will be lost.
Mediation is a process that I have recently become involved with. The parties Rabbi or a psychologist are brought in to assist in the sessions to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. The parties if at the completion of the process leave with a draft of the understanding which they can review with whom they choose, which then can be submitted to the Court.
Arbitration: This process is one in which the parties agree that to submit their disputes to an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. The parties’ arbitration agreement empowers the panel to decide the issues presented which can later be submitted to a Court to confirm. New York State law Section 75 of the CPLR deals specifically with the laws and rules of arbitration.
Arbitration, as relates to divorce, can result in a final decision on all economic issues. Child support can be handled by arbitrators, should they follow the dictates of New York State law namely the Child Support Standards Act. The one area where arbitrators do not have final decision making authority is dealing with child custody issues. The Courts in New York have stated that custody and visitation disputes are not subject to arbitration. As the Court’s role as parens patriae (ultimate parent) cannot be usurped (Berg v. Berg a New York State case). A Beth Din is considered an arbitration panel under New York State law and a Shtar Buririm, an agreement to arbitrate, is deemed valid.
Once parties execute and empower a panel (including a Beth Din), there is a high burden one must reach in an effort to contest their decision. Accordingly, one is advised to insure that they have competent representation during the arbitration process in any forum including a Beth Din. Proper procedure and an opportunity to be heard and represented must be adhered to for the arbitrator or arbitration panel’s decision to be upheld. Ultimately after a decision or P’sak is rendered, one would move before a Court of competent jurisdiction to confirm the decision within one year of it being rendered. The moving side may remain silent or move to set it aside based on grounds that are specifically stated in the law. One should be aware that after adjudicating custody and visitation before the arbitration panel or Beth Din, should one party seek to set that issue aside, the Court will entertain that application. Today’s economy has forced parties to seek alternative solutions to resolve their differences, mediation and arbitration have been more popular as the cost of litigation has become prohibitive to many.
In the case of Beth Din, the process generally begins by one party summoning the other, which in return must be responded to. If the two parties cannot agree on a Beth Din, then each party selects a Judge (Borer) and the two selected will choose the third. This process is called Zabla. The parties execute a binding arbitration agreement which empowers the panel. In today’s society, Zabla is the most popular method in the Beth Din proceedings, within the Orthodox Community.
Process: As an aside, in a Beth Din proceeding, the Beth Din will issue three (3) invites (Hazmanas) from the person petitioning the Beth Din. If they are not responded to by the side being summoned, then the Beth Din can issue a Seruv (indicating that the person has not respond to calling Beth Din and should be sanctioned by the community according to Halacha, (for example, should not be welcome into synagogues or given any honor etc).
By: Martin E. Friedlander, Esq.
I can be reached by email at mef@mflawyer.com or by phone at 212-321-7092 and for suggestions for the column please email Inwhosebestinterest@gmail.com.
Get: Heter Meah Rabbonim:
What is a Heter Meah Rabbonim and when can it be legitimately used under Halacha (Jewish law). Recently, this has become a new weapon used inappropriately in divorce matters in the Orthodox Community. As discussed in my last article the cherem of Rabbienu Gershon instituted the prohibition of a polygamy on men and the fact that a women must accept a Get willingly. That raised a new concern for the observant community; what if a women could not or would not accept a Get? The answer was the Heter Meah Rabbonim, which was initiated for cases in which a wife became mentally incompetent (Shotah); who rebels and refuses to act as a Jewish Wife (Moredes), or one who simply disappears. The dispensation arose to those limited situations. The exact translation of the words as Heter is (permission) of Meah Rabbonim (one hundred Rabbis).
The process:
A Beth Din must thoroughly examine the claims of the husband as to the issues being presented.
Issues: Did the wife’s mental capacity deteriorate to the state of mental incompetence and is the condition irreversible? Moredes, is she in fact a rebellious wife vis a ve her conduct, not willing to live as husband and wife, is she no longer observant, not willing to mend her ways nor accept a Get that is being offered. Did she disappear and cannot be located?
Not only one must obtain the signatures of one hundred Rabbi’s, but they must be located in three different locals. The petitioner must convince the initial Beth Din of the veracity of his claims, which will lead to the Beth Din conducting their own investigation. This is followed by the requirement by the Rabbi’s in the other locals, to listen to his claims and conduct their own inquiries. Only once 100 Rabbi’s in the three different jurisdictions are convinced can a Heter be issued. A further requirement is that a Get must be deposited to the Beth Din for the wife to pick up whenever she desires without condition.
A few years ago I was in court, when the following scenario was presented to the Judge. Someone obtained a Heter Meah Rabbonim from someone in the orthodox community known to facilitate the same for a fee. The women was informed that a Get was deposited to this Rabbi on the condition that she withdraw all court proceedings and agree to arbitrate all disputes only with this Rabbi. The Judge rightfully so ordered the Rabbi to appear before her. The abuse of this method cannot be tolerated by the Jewish community. It’s no wonder that the leading Halachik Poskim (deciders of Jewish Law) of our generation have issued warnings to refrain from the issuance of a Heter (Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”zl), except in extreme circumstances, once one hears of a Heter, it should be subject to great scrutiny as to its validity. One has to question a Rabbi who would consider performing a wedding when the groom has initiated and obtained a Heter Meah Rabbonim especially when the wife is ready willing and able to accept the Get.
In a noted case, the Supreme Court referenced a Heter Meah Rabbonim as to the question if that was sufficient to comply with the Get law or not (husband in that case did deposit Get for wife to receive). The wife as Court recounts did not want to accept a Get. Earlier in this series of articles we discussed in the opposite scenario, where a husband refuses. Under Halacha there is a concept of a husband being coerced to deliver a Get. The Bach (Rabbi Yoel Sirkes), a great commentator on the Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law) states, “whoever releases a Agunah is as if he rebuilt one of the destroyed buildings of Yerusholayim”, Our religious leaders have to ensure, that once a marriage is over without possibility of reconciliation, that women receive her Get.
By: Martin E. Friedlander, Esq.
I can be reached by email at mef@mflawyer.com or by phone at 212-321-7092 and for suggestions for the column please email Inwhosebestinterest@gmail.com.
The process:
A Beth Din must thoroughly examine the claims of the husband as to the issues being presented.
Issues: Did the wife’s mental capacity deteriorate to the state of mental incompetence and is the condition irreversible? Moredes, is she in fact a rebellious wife vis a ve her conduct, not willing to live as husband and wife, is she no longer observant, not willing to mend her ways nor accept a Get that is being offered. Did she disappear and cannot be located?
Not only one must obtain the signatures of one hundred Rabbi’s, but they must be located in three different locals. The petitioner must convince the initial Beth Din of the veracity of his claims, which will lead to the Beth Din conducting their own investigation. This is followed by the requirement by the Rabbi’s in the other locals, to listen to his claims and conduct their own inquiries. Only once 100 Rabbi’s in the three different jurisdictions are convinced can a Heter be issued. A further requirement is that a Get must be deposited to the Beth Din for the wife to pick up whenever she desires without condition.
A few years ago I was in court, when the following scenario was presented to the Judge. Someone obtained a Heter Meah Rabbonim from someone in the orthodox community known to facilitate the same for a fee. The women was informed that a Get was deposited to this Rabbi on the condition that she withdraw all court proceedings and agree to arbitrate all disputes only with this Rabbi. The Judge rightfully so ordered the Rabbi to appear before her. The abuse of this method cannot be tolerated by the Jewish community. It’s no wonder that the leading Halachik Poskim (deciders of Jewish Law) of our generation have issued warnings to refrain from the issuance of a Heter (Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”zl), except in extreme circumstances, once one hears of a Heter, it should be subject to great scrutiny as to its validity. One has to question a Rabbi who would consider performing a wedding when the groom has initiated and obtained a Heter Meah Rabbonim especially when the wife is ready willing and able to accept the Get.
In a noted case, the Supreme Court referenced a Heter Meah Rabbonim as to the question if that was sufficient to comply with the Get law or not (husband in that case did deposit Get for wife to receive). The wife as Court recounts did not want to accept a Get. Earlier in this series of articles we discussed in the opposite scenario, where a husband refuses. Under Halacha there is a concept of a husband being coerced to deliver a Get. The Bach (Rabbi Yoel Sirkes), a great commentator on the Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law) states, “whoever releases a Agunah is as if he rebuilt one of the destroyed buildings of Yerusholayim”, Our religious leaders have to ensure, that once a marriage is over without possibility of reconciliation, that women receive her Get.
By: Martin E. Friedlander, Esq.
I can be reached by email at mef@mflawyer.com or by phone at 212-321-7092 and for suggestions for the column please email Inwhosebestinterest@gmail.com.
Monday, July 5, 2010
NEW YORK GET LAW:
New York State is one of the few States whose laws deal with the religious barriers to remarriage. Specifically Domestic Relations Law (the section of law dealing with divorce) Section 253, otherwise known as the “Get Law.” It states that the Plaintiff shall affirmatively state that to the best of his or her knowledge he or she has prior to the entry of such final judgment, taken all steps solely within his or her power to remove all barriers to the Defendants remarriage following the annulment or divorce. One is simply obligated to remove any barrier to the remarriage of ones spouse. In the case of Orthodox Jews, this means a valid Get. That applies to one who is the Plaintiff, or the one who initiates the action. Upon a spouses refusal to give a Get, the court can dismiss their civil divorce proceeding.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent lutptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius.
But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.
The Appellate Division, in Pinto v. Pinto, affirmed a Nassau County Lower Court decision which awarded a wife the entire marital estate, due to the husband’s refusal to give a Get. In that case the husband was the Defendant.
But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.
In another decision, Justice Sunshine in S.A. v. K.F. a 2009, decision from Kings County where the recalcitrant husband was the defendant. The court after trial issued a decision that the husband was entitled to receive both a maintenance award due to his age and not being the wage earner for a lengthy period of time, as well as a portion of the wife’s pension. At that trial, credible evidence was presented by a Rabbi that the husband has refused to give a Get. The Court in S.A. received further testimony as to what barriers in relation to the restrictions on the wife’s social and economic status, she faced in relation to not receiving a Get from her husband. The Court’s granting of an award of maintenance and a portion of the wife’s pension was contingent on the husband giving a Get within 45 days of the entry of the Judgment of Divorce; otherwise it would not be received. This case cites extensively to the Rabbi’s testimony explaining the Get process and even the history of when a husband may be forced to give a Get under halachah. In other unpublished decisions, Courts have even limited or stopped parenting time between a parent and child due to the recalcitrant spouse refusal to give a Get.
When the court issues such decisions one must consult their respective Rabbi. A Get in religious terms (Halacha), must be given and received voluntarily otherwise it may be considered a “meusah” or forced Get which can lead to halachic ramifications as to its validity.
Today our secular courts are quite aware of the ramification of the one who refuses to receive a Get, and they will use the applicable laws to assist the spouse who is not receiving a Get.
To be continued…
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent lutptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius.
But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.
The Appellate Division, in Pinto v. Pinto, affirmed a Nassau County Lower Court decision which awarded a wife the entire marital estate, due to the husband’s refusal to give a Get. In that case the husband was the Defendant.
But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.
In another decision, Justice Sunshine in S.A. v. K.F. a 2009, decision from Kings County where the recalcitrant husband was the defendant. The court after trial issued a decision that the husband was entitled to receive both a maintenance award due to his age and not being the wage earner for a lengthy period of time, as well as a portion of the wife’s pension. At that trial, credible evidence was presented by a Rabbi that the husband has refused to give a Get. The Court in S.A. received further testimony as to what barriers in relation to the restrictions on the wife’s social and economic status, she faced in relation to not receiving a Get from her husband. The Court’s granting of an award of maintenance and a portion of the wife’s pension was contingent on the husband giving a Get within 45 days of the entry of the Judgment of Divorce; otherwise it would not be received. This case cites extensively to the Rabbi’s testimony explaining the Get process and even the history of when a husband may be forced to give a Get under halachah. In other unpublished decisions, Courts have even limited or stopped parenting time between a parent and child due to the recalcitrant spouse refusal to give a Get.
When the court issues such decisions one must consult their respective Rabbi. A Get in religious terms (Halacha), must be given and received voluntarily otherwise it may be considered a “meusah” or forced Get which can lead to halachic ramifications as to its validity.
Today our secular courts are quite aware of the ramification of the one who refuses to receive a Get, and they will use the applicable laws to assist the spouse who is not receiving a Get.
To be continued…
The Effects of the Ponzi Schemes on Divorce Settlements:
The community at large has been severely affected by ponzi schemes whether it has been with Madoff Securities or one which recently hit the press aimed specifically to the local Orthodox community. How does this effect settlements that were negotiated, prior to the realization that these accounts in fact have no value. One who has divided the assets with ones spouse maintaining the account (which was later found to be valueless) and the other spouse receiving in liquid funds or trade off of some other asset of value. A law suit has been filed in New York County; Steven Simkin, a partner in a large New York law firm, entered in a divorce settlement with his wife of thirty years in which they divided all their marital assets. Included in that assets division was an investment of 5.4 million dollars with Bernie Madoff of which Mr. Simkin paid his wife 2.7 million dollars in cash for the value of the account. The agreement was executed on June 27, 2006. A time period before the revelation that in fact Madoff's investments were in fact a ponzi scheme. In February, 2009 Mr. Simkin instituted an action against his ex-wife to recover the amount paid to her for her share of that account. This raises an interesting question of law. Can one go back after an agreement was executed, based on new found evidence to renegotiate or recover assets thought to be in existence?
The case is pending, and one in which this column will keep you updated on when a decision will be rendered.
The issues to be reviewed are: Did Mr. Simkin have reason to know, despite the fact that statements were issued as to the balance of the account, that the returns were not in the realm of reality and in sync with normal rate of returns? Did Mr. Simkin or his attorney have a duty beyond verifying the statement balance that the account and funds were in liquid or able to become liquid prior to the execution of the agreement?
Justice Rigler said that Mr. Schaeffer had manipulated events to place his wife in the position of having to submit to the rabbinical court's authority and dismiss her divorce proceedings in New York.
This case before the court will have far reaching effects, as many people, especially in recent times having been effected by numerous schemes, where people have been left with assets that do not in fact exist. Thus accounts that individuals divided as part of their marital agreements, years later they may find (after much publicity) that these accounts in fact not existent. Unfortunately, an occurrence that has become a regular news item. An obvious danger, always lies in the fact that the spouse who received the payout, may no longer have funds to recover from as well. This is quit different from stock accounts, that due to market fluctuations many loose their value and one would have no right to seek recoupment.
UPCOMING ARTICLES: Get laws and its practical application, Internet and Divorce- cause and effect
Martin E. Friedlander, Esq. is the principal of MARTIN FRIEDLANDER, PC specializing in Matrimonial/Family law.
The case is pending, and one in which this column will keep you updated on when a decision will be rendered.
The issues to be reviewed are: Did Mr. Simkin have reason to know, despite the fact that statements were issued as to the balance of the account, that the returns were not in the realm of reality and in sync with normal rate of returns? Did Mr. Simkin or his attorney have a duty beyond verifying the statement balance that the account and funds were in liquid or able to become liquid prior to the execution of the agreement?
Justice Rigler said that Mr. Schaeffer had manipulated events to place his wife in the position of having to submit to the rabbinical court's authority and dismiss her divorce proceedings in New York.
This case before the court will have far reaching effects, as many people, especially in recent times having been effected by numerous schemes, where people have been left with assets that do not in fact exist. Thus accounts that individuals divided as part of their marital agreements, years later they may find (after much publicity) that these accounts in fact not existent. Unfortunately, an occurrence that has become a regular news item. An obvious danger, always lies in the fact that the spouse who received the payout, may no longer have funds to recover from as well. This is quit different from stock accounts, that due to market fluctuations many loose their value and one would have no right to seek recoupment.
UPCOMING ARTICLES: Get laws and its practical application, Internet and Divorce- cause and effect
Martin E. Friedlander, Esq. is the principal of MARTIN FRIEDLANDER, PC specializing in Matrimonial/Family law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)