Latest update: May 26th, 2013
Assemblyman Dov Hikind deserves credit for his attempt to deal with the issue of abuse in the Orthodox community – a community where people still refer to cancer as “yener machlah” (that disease); where mental illnesses (even those that are not genetic, such as postpartum depression) are rarely spoken of publicly; and where some parents are still afraid to have their sons and daughters tested and registered with Dor Yeshorim even though doing so might prevent a marriage resulting in children with genetic diseases.
And, of course, there are those who continue to deny that abuse exists in the community (though at the same time allegations of domestic abuse are used in many divorce cases to prevent fathers from seeing their children).
Given these circumstances, it’s not hard to understand why Assemblyman Hikind has come up against significant opposition in his attempt to deal with this issue.
In 1984, not long after I was admitted to the bar, I was employed as a law assistant to a judge in Brooklyn Family Court. The court deals with visitation, child support, juvenile delinquency and domestic and child abuse, among other matters. During the six years I worked there it was rare to see an Orthodox litigant.
After leaving my position, I returned six years later as an attorney in private practice. In the intervening years the court’s caseload had gown exponentially. The court calendars were clogged with child abuse and neglect cases against parents. Unfortunately, on any given day many of those cases involved Orthodox Jewish families.
Over the years I have written about the issues of domestic abuse and child neglect/abuse in the Orthodox community. I have spoken on these topics to audiences ranging from attendees at the Agudah’s annual convention to a group of Kings County assistant district attorneys. And I find that our community still cannot entirely grasp the concept that it is possible for Orthodox parents and spouses to be guilty of abuse or neglect.
I also learned that abuse occurs at many yeshivas and camps as I fielded phone calls from teachers, school administrators, camp administrators and parents.
The molestation of children by teachers and clergy came to the fore a few years ago with reports of widespread abuse in the Catholic Church. The publicity actually made it easier for victims of abuse in the Orthodox community to come forward. The problem, however, is what happens after someone comes forward with an allegation of abuse.
Rape victims, knowing they will be subject to cross-examination and in some ways feel victimized all over again, are often reluctant to prosecute, even with laws in effect that protect their rights during criminal trials. Imagine, then, how difficult it is for children to come forward, especially if the accused is a respected member of the community.
A number of years ago I was approached about setting set up a bet din to deal with cases of abuse within the Orthodox school system. I was told that a major roadblock was the fear that the bet din would be sued by the accused.
Pointing out that teachers, school administrators and all mental health professionals are mandated reporters of abuse in New York, I noted that a bet din could operate in cases where the secular criminal or civil legal systems were not involved. I then suggested that a committee, designated by the institutions that wished to become part of this process, institute employment guidelines for all staff members at their institutions. The guidelines might be as simple as staff members not being permitted to be alone with any child in a classroom, or they could specifically prohibit certain physical contact between staff members and children.
Once the guidelines were set, each staff member, from administrators to custodians, as a condition of his or her employment would be presented with the guidelines and expected to read them and sign an agreement to abide by them. The committee would also develop a list of dispositions for infractions of the rules. These dispositions could include loss of a day’s pay, suspension, simple dismissal, and dismissal with a recommendation that the person not be hired at any institution involving children.
A special bet din would be set up to deal with these cases and, to avoid lawsuits, I suggested that complaints be dealt with by the bet din in two stages. In stage one the bet din would determine only if there was an infraction of the employment guidelines signed by the employee. If a finding of a guideline violation was made, the bet din would then determine, in stage two, which of the dispositional options to apply.
The bet din would not list the guideline that was violated in its decision. Obviously, a short suspension or loss of pay would not necessarily become grist for the Orthodox rumor mill. If, however, the disposition was dismissal with the recommendation that the accused not be hired by any other Jewish institution, the name of the accused and the disposition would be made public.
Not listing the guideline(s) the accused violated would serve the following purpose: If the accused believed his rights were violated by the bet din, he would have to commence an action in the secular courts where he — not the bet din — would have to state in some manner what he was accused of and why the disposition was improper. I doubt most accused parties would put themselves in the position of having to make this information public.
In addition, the bet din, unburdened by rules of evidence or the constitutional right of an accused to confront an accuser, could conduct its hearings with much more sensitivity to both the victim and the accused than if the matter were handled in the civil courts. The bet din would not be a public forum where everyone’s identity could be exposed.
There have been many recommendations about how to protect our children. I do not believe fingerprint checks of teachers and camp counselors are useful. If the problem is that the abusers have not been reported to the authorities by our community, it is highly doubtful that fingerprints would indicate there was anything in the person’s background to make him suspect.
I also believe it is the duty of all parents, prior to and during the school year and at the beginning of the camp season, to have age-appropriate discussions with their children about the right to personal privacy and the difference between proper and improper touching.
I am not very confident that efforts to weed out abusers already in our system will be successful. Child victims who have not come forward will unlikely do so until they become adults, and I believe that in most cases parents of younger children who have come forward will in the end not permit them to be subjected to the criminal or civil justice system. I believe that if we wish to police ourselves in order to protect our children we can do so, but we must be honest about the realities of life in 21st-century America.
We are a holy nation and can remain so only if we take steps to protect our children from the predators who live and work among us.Shlomo Z. Mostofsky
About the Author: Shlomo Z. Mostofsky is a civil court judge in Brooklyn. He served as president of the National Council of Young Israel between 2000 and 2011.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.