The Phenomenon of youngsters going off the derech (OTD) is well-known in the haredi world. Ideally, such an event does not have lasting repercussions on the parties involved. The individual parts ways with the community and moves on in life, to the satisfaction of both. (That is to say, if it is meant to happen, the community would rather that the individual no longer exert any influence or retain any foothold in the community).
What to do, however, if the wayward individual is already married with children? Now there is a permanent, indelible mark that he/she has left in this world to which they must eternally relate to, for better or for worse.
The variables are inextricably complex. Who should raise the children? How should they be raised? Where should they live? What schools should they go to? Should the non-custodial parent have visiting rights? If so, how should they conduct themselves so as no to offend the culture of the custodial parent? Should the non-custodial parent be required to pay child-support if the divorce is a result of a culture clash rather than a personal rift?
In fact a quick survey of the field reveals that such divorce cases are very messy. Among the common tactics parties employ in order to try to gain an upper-hand are the following:
- A spouse refuses to grant or accept a religious divorce unless the other spouse surrenders custodial rights.
- A spouse refuses to grant or accept a religious divorce unless the other party pays a certain sum of money.
- A spouse contests the grounds for divorce in civil court, often in order to pressure the other spouse into unreasonable concessions.
- Visiting rights are not properly honored by the custodial parent.
The conventional wisdom both in the haredi world and in civil courts seems to be that the party who is maintaining the status quo (i.e. they are NOT going OTD) should be entitled to custody. This, however, seems a bit arbitrary, especially if the children are still very young and it is the mom who is leaving the community. An argument can be made, quite plausibly, that the best interest of the children would be served by having them depart in lockstep with their mom -- assuming of course that appropriate social/educational institutions can be secured for them in the new world.
What exacerbates matters perhaps is that the haredi world doesn't approach this the same way as the courts do. Secular courts typically ask: what is the best interest of the child? The haredi world asks: how can we assure that the child remains religious?
In a recent case that typifies this dilemma, Peralperry Reich, a mother of four who recently dropped out of the haredi structure but whose husband is conditioning a divorce on her surrendering custody of the children, is profoundly distraught over the denial of access to her children that the Hasidic community has imposed on her without the matter ever having been sanctioned in court. Her children have simply "remained" Hasidic by the sheer fact that they were born and initially raised in the Hasidic world.
She has recently issued a heart-rending plea on facebook for her friends and acquaintances to help her raise the $25,000 she claims is needed in order to mount an effective challenge to the status quo. All the while, her own dad --Abraham Reich-- is refusing to support her struggle; he would rather see his grandchildren raised Hasidic than having them reunited with her daughter.
P.S. It should be noted that the Haredi/Hasidic world normally operates under an assumption that anything and everything outside its realm in anathema. The question in the custodial struggle is NOT principally whether the child will grow up religious or not (although that is often a legitimate question to ask as well). The haredi concern is mostly, rather, that the insular setting in which they operate --which excludes social intercourse with even Centrist and Modern Orthodox elements-- will not be compatible with the non-haredi lifestyle the other spouse has chosen.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
