Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Halachic Synopsis for Child & Domestic Abuse - reviewed by Rav Moshe Sternbuch

We have seen that there are rabbonim who have failed to acknowledge their error in running a talmid chachom out of town for reporting abuse to the police. It seems that part of the problem is a lack of knowledge about the issues of child abuse - both the halacha and the psychology. Therefore I am posting my synopsis which was reviewed and approved by Rav Moshe Sternbuch. (This is included in my books on abuse.) They mistakenly claim that calling the police is mesira and that a beis din is required to give permission and not just a single rav. They are not aware that an abuser is a rodef and that he thinks differently than normal people - and can not be trusted. Some rabbonim seem willing to talk with me - this is the initial step.

Update July 6 2013 Regarding G's question of whether my view  and that of Rav Eliashiv is inconsistent with that of Rav Sternbuch:

I don't think there is any difference between Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch. What I have been saying all along is based on the halachic guidelines I heard from Rav Sternbuch.

1) If you think there is a possibility that a delay in contacting the police places a child risk - then go right to the police.

2) If you think that a there is no harm in waiting then consult a rabbi. However Rav Sternbuch clearly has said one does not abdicate his judgement when consulting a rabbi. It is to basically just to provide an objective view that there is reasonable basis to suspect abuse. However if you feel that the rabbi is wrong - then you are required by Rav Sternbuch to ask another rabbi. All of this again is only if the delay doesn't create a possibility of danger for a child. Rav Sternbuch said in addition that a rabbi needs to be consulted in order that the world shouldn't be hefker. Again this principle does not override the welfare of a child and thus is only relevant when it doesn't endanger a child's welfare.

In addition if there is mandated reporting - in New Jersey that applies to everyone - then you also must report possible abuse. Rav Sternbuch said that even with mandated reporting one should go to the rabbi because the police don't mind if you ask a rabbi or professional or friend first.

This latter point is problematic. There is no question that some places don't mind or rather there were some places where up till recently didn't feel it was critical to report immediately. However if they do insist that you report immediately you could get into trouble for delaying. For example if a child is abused because you delayed then you could be in serious trouble. The halacha does not require you to endanger your welfare, finances or professional license to first consult a rabbi. So practically speaking - especially where there is mandatory reporting - it is typically best to go right to the police if you think that any delay would possibly danger a child.

In sum - I recorded what Rav Sternbuch told me his views are. And he approved the accuracy of my report. However I am saying that utilizing his principles - most of the time it is best to call the police first because the lack of rabbis who know what they are talking about in these issues and therefore there is the distinct possibility that a delay caused by trying to consult with a rabbi would endanger a child.Thus on a practical level you are creating a possible harm to a child by delaying. Rav Sternbuch seems to feel that typically you will have time to consult a rabbi without endangering the child. It is thus a question of reality - not of halachic principle. In my experience with Rav Sternbuch - he doesn't actually conduct an investigation and call in witnesses. He listens and if it sounds that there are grounds to suspect abuse then he says to call the police.

The rabbi is not serving as a beis din and the rabbis is not poskening halacha here. There is no din of mesira in reporting abuse. Reporting abuse is a non-judicial procedure based on rodef. Even if it is only a sofek rodef - we treat it the same as certain rodef.

A molester is considered a rodef because typically they will attack again.  We did have a disagreement regarding someone who hasn't molested for many years. Rav Sternbuch said he is presumed to be no longer dangerous while the professionals I spoke to disagreed and said that some pedophiles will be inactive for 20 or more years and then start again. This is especially true after they have been sentenced to jail for abuse - they tend to behave themselves for various periods after getting out. On the other hand as far as I know there is no requirement to report according to  mandated reporting - if you don't think it likely that he will attack again.

My understanding of Satmar and Lakewood - is they are in agreement with Rav Menashe Klein. There is a requirement of beis din, there needs to an actual investigation and witnesses and they don't seem to understand that nice people with proper yichus can be pedophiles. They don't understand that promises mean nothing to a pedophile.They are not trained or experienced in conducting an investigation in these issues. In sum they are willing to give the molester the benefit of the doubt - even at the expense of children being attacked. Rav Sternbuch is clearly not requiring anything which might endanger the child and he leaves the investigation up to the police.

18 comments :

  1. Not loading in my firefox.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been reading your opinions for a while.
    My impression was that you say (and that Rav Elyashiv said) go straight to police on allegations (here you suspect they are true). This document seems to say go straight to rabbi and if you convince him that the child WAS molested then he will give you permission to go to police if he thinks the guy might do it again.
    With my impression of your opinion and satmar on to ends of the spectrum, this doc is not to far from satmar.
    Have I totally misunderstood you in the past, or is this document just the most Rav Shternbuch would sign off on (in contrast to your stated opinion and advice for practice)?
    Thanks,
    G

    ReplyDelete
  3. HaRav Reuven Nakar, whow as a Dayan with Rav Eliyahu, reveals further grave details of the evil that was done by C.W.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXnuIJsGKjI

    ReplyDelete
  4. A dayan is not supposed to reveal details - not even which judges declared guilt or innocence

    ReplyDelete
  5. if they didn't reveal details, what is the Mishnah then? It is all about details, and decisions, and votes. How do oyu have case law if you have no precedents?

    ReplyDelete
  6. for what?
    The prohibition is discussed in Sanhedrin

    ReplyDelete
  7. To reveal details
    What do all the teshuvos do , other than reveal details of the case?

    ReplyDelete
  8. A court that can't decide guilt or innocence but is simply gathering rumors needs to maintain confidentiality

    The police and lawyers are supposed to avoid yappig about their cases
    Would a therapist be allowed to reveal what clients say or can doctors?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Police will reveal some details. But not information they feel will weaken their chance of getting a conviction.
    Courts generally provide transcripts, except where the judge might hide certain things, eg for security reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Which teshuva can you cite that based on hearay or even valid testimony identifies someone as an abuser rapist or adulterer
    Read the tshuva o f shoel umeishiv regarding a suspected abuser
    he does say a teacher by the name of X employed in yeshiva Y is alleged to abuse students

    In fact the teshuva typically leaves out information that can readily identify people

    ReplyDelete
  11. In any case, this was an unusual situation, and there is no further bd since walder is dead. Whilst they were investigating rumours, they were not revealing anything. BTW, those who accuse the bd of "murder" are motzei Shem ra, and the bd are justified in defending themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nope!
    Beis din doesnt have the right to defend themselves by slandering the accused- alive or dead

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nope try harder!

    police cannot slander some one to ensure conviction
    Often times juries are excused and isolated to conceal information from them
    Judges often have irregular commrnts removed from transcipt or even mention of previous crimes

    ReplyDelete
  14. you are sidestepping the issue -
    i already said some comments may be remvoed. Previous crimes is moot, since they have already been tried for them.

    There is a transcript, journalists are allowed in, and they report what goes on; some are even televised.
    Police have to present a case .

    When someone is dead, there is no longer a trial against them. There may be an inquest, such as the Jimmy Savile inquest.

    If they die by suicide, then they are not even allowed to be honored, according to the Rambam.

    And what if someone accuses you of murdering someone who committed suicide? Here, the din rodef actually applies- so the nirdaf has to defend himself and his reputation. I have to ask you what planet you are on sometimes.
    How do we know that Epstein was accused of rape and child trafficking, or the same with Maxwell? it is obvious that these charges were made publicly , as was the reporting of the trials.

    ReplyDelete
  15. sometimes the opposite is true!








    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/oct/31/courts-are-close-to-collapse-over-police-disclosure-failures




    Defence lawyers say system is facing a crisis as over 1,600 cases have collapsed due to omission of key evidence

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is a bif difference between saying someone is charged or a person of interest and saying they are guilty and this is what we heard said about him

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.