Withholding a get vs. Withholding children

A husband who has not given his wife a “get” is required by our law to continue to pay her bills. If we enforce this, it would largely solve the problem since no sane man would in effect give his credit card to the woman he has come to hate. The fight over children is a separate issue that will continue to exist until the children are old enough to take matters into their own hands – and this is regardless of the parents marital status.

The approach we should take in the US is for a woman’s lawyer to object to any civil divorce on the grounds that the man is not seeking to truely dissolve the marriage, and therefore the divorce is an attempt to commit fraud on the legal system. If the frum community offered to pay for the women to “lawyer up” when a man separates without giving a “get” it would resolve most matters.

If both sides follow the psak of a beis din for all matters, monetary, visitation etc….then whatever the decision, that is the halacha. Unfortunately, on both sides, the parties go to beis din for the items that suit their needs and the courts for those that dont.

We made our beds, now we must sleep in them. If we dont like it, we must remake our beds. Respect for batei din in general and rabbonim in particular (or more precisely the lack of it) is the root cause of all these problems.

There was a time when a Rav or beis din issued a psak and those who flaunted it were looked down upon, now when someone gets a psak they dont like they just look for a new Rav or beis din and the gabbai gives him shlishi in shul the next shabbos.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Withholdig a get after the marriage is over and dismantled is a contradiction.

Withholding children after the marriage is over and dismantled makes sense. You certainly wouldn’t withhold the kids if the marriage was not over!

So why would you compare the twain?

Holy b, to answer your question- Yes, this does make sense. But I wish you’d have done some proofreading; your ” % ” showing up in odd places had me confused.

Akuperm, on the other hand is not making much sense. Are you suggesting we wait until the kids are adults to straighten out things between them and their fathers (or mothers, in some cases)?

It’s important to do everything possible to maintain a warm, loving relationship between the children and both of their parents (unless we’re dealing with a psychopath, or other severely disturbed parent), the mother’s anger notwithstanding.

Husbands and wives both play their own ugly, indefensible games in the midst of a divorce- husbands by withholding a get; wives by withholding child custody and/or visitation. Unfortunately, both sides sometimes play the game of poisoning the child’s relationship with the other spouse.

There is definitely a need for intervention by Rabbonim and mental health care professionals to the advantage of both parents and children. The solutions are not simple. And finding them in an online discussion, or even in the pages of our venerable magazines, is highly unlikely.

Very often the wife withholds visiting rights because the ex is not capable of responsible fatherhood.

Would that be a determination she makes on her own in contravention of their agreements and court orders? What an amazing system.

I haven’t yet read these responses to your eloquently expressed question, so I may be repetitious of something that has been said. The tragedy of a divorce as you describe is always the people who suffer the most collateral damage – the children. Unless a father is mamesh abusive to his kids, there is no justification to rpeventing him from spending quality time with them, or badmouthing him. Kids should never be used as pawns by either side. Sadly, it IS often seen that the mothers consciously or unconsciously do this, especially when the divorce is acrimonious.

Leave the kids out of it. NEVER speak derisively of either parent to them. The parents may be divorcing, but the children are their children forever. Except in cases of physical or emotional abuse or chas v’sholom immoral behavior, NO one is the bad guy. Kids should not be made to feel they have to take sides. men shoudl give the GET and women should understand that the father will always be the father and he has the right to BE a father to them.

Some women may feel otherwise, especially if their exes spent very little time with the kids when they WERE married. Either way, one must deal with what IS and not with what SHOULD have been.

Her ex husband refused to pay support, yet insisted on visiting rights.

The two should not be conflated. Visiting rights should not depend on the other spouses payment of child support. A child needs to see his/her father/mother, regardless of their ability/willingness to pay support. If the parent is not making the required support payments, then the custodial parent should take whatever *legal* measures they can to recoup those monies. But they should not be withholding visiting privileges.

A parent has a right to see their child. They also have an obligation to provide support for their children. But the two are not (and should not be) dependent on each other.

Leave the kids out of it. NEVER speak derisively of either parent to them.

My parents had a rather messy divorce. And yet, to this day, I am very appreciative of the fact that both of them took great pains to not put the other one down in front of my sister or I.

The Wolf

“There are certain piskei din that, while having halacha status, deserve to be questioned.”

When people “question” certain piskei din the way they “question” halachos in shulchan aruch perhaps i would be open to a discussion on this topic, until then, you are correct, this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. I do think that overall, respect for Rabbonim and Batei Din are at an all time low. that is the greatest tragedy of our generation and probably the source for many of our ills. We think we are smarter than the halacha and look where it has led us. Every time you turn around someone is talking about a new crisis.

What do you think, though, of the get being used as leverage when visitation is being withheld?

That is wrong as well. Just as child support and visitation are two separate issues and should not be conditioned one upon the other, so too a get and visitation.

The Wolf

Wolf, you gave two reasons that visitation should not be withheld. You wrote that a child needs both parents, and that it’s a parent’s right to see his child (I agree with both).

If it were only for the sake of the parent, withholding a get would be unthinkable.

Isn’t it at least reasonable to consider the udea of withholding a get, though, for the other reason, to force the non-compliant parent to allow the child to have a relationship with both parents?

(For this discussion, I will consider the woman’s nonacceptance of the get to be the same as the man’s withholding it.)

The little I know is correct.

There’s no halachic requirement to give a get unless beis din orders one to be given. In the absence of such an order there is no basis to demand or attempt to force one to be give. And a beis din can only order one be given if the halachic criteria that a get is mandatory has been met. In the absence of that halachic threshold being met, even beis din cannot order one be given.

akuperma, if a court withheld a civil divorce, that would not help or hurt one spouse more than the other. So taking that approach accomplishes little as it has the same effect on both parties.

Refusing to give a Get is a horrible Avla and one of the worst forms of abuse that can be perpetrated.

Withholding a person’s right and ability to see their children is a horrible Avla and one of the worst forms of abuse that can be perpetrated.

I honestly tremble that one can use either to justify the other. Give the Get. Let the person see his children. I don’t see any overlap.

To reiterate in other words:

Beating a spouse vs. child abuse. Everyone always blames the spouse-beaters, but no one realizes that the beaten spouse is a bad child abuser. Obviously, this means that spouse-beating is okay in this circumstance. Especially when it’s done for selfish vindictive reasons.

There should be a “Wall of Shame” for both- the women who don’t let their ex’s see their kids and for the men who don’t want to give the get. Let this be public knowledge and the communities should shun both on either side . They are equally wrong!! and what about those that make up false allegations so their spouse cant see the kids!! all too common and not enough is being done about it!! thanks holybrother for bringing up this important topic!!! hopefully someone with power & resources can really do something !

DY: Exactly. Who would defend perpetrating one of the worst possible Avlas that can be done against another human being as “leverage”? Give the Get. Let him see his kids.

LAB: No. If he’s abusive, you call the police and have visitation rights rescinded legally. You don’t do it yourself. You have no right.

If they’re actually being abused, you have a friend/neighbor/someone there with him. Everything, especially in these situations, is subjective. Everyone thinks they’re right. So, while in theory some of these things might be viable in extreme situations, we certainly have no right to condone any such action. If she can’t stop it legally, it’s probably because the kids aren’t actually being abused. If they are, Children’s Services gets them away from him very, very quickly.

DY: I don’t disagree. But we can’t say that. Because once we legitimize that as a possibility, it will become the standard fallback for everyone who capriciously denies visitation. So we must say that everyone allows visitation and that we need to trust the legal system.

Wolf – not in her case. He lives overseas and the visiting would be at my sister in law’s expense. But I agree with your point that one parent should never paint the other parent black in front of the child.

Popa – some people can be very charming in court and get their way, even if they shouldn’t.