It’s A Wimminz’ World

Down Below, Jew613 reports:

In America, at least in New York state if you go to family court and you had an Orthodox Jewish wedding the judge will send you to the Jewish courts. I personally know of one case where this happened.

While this didn’t seem immediately plausible to me, I wanted to check with an actual attorney. So, I called Anna, a divorce lawyer that I was banging in the summer of 2014. Anna has a steady boyfriend at this point, but we collaborated on a paper last year and remain cordial.

Anna actually backed up a scenario in which Brother Jew613 is correct. She told me that in the state where she practices, if both parties can agree to accept the ruling of a religious court, it will be rubber-stamped by a secular judge. The divorce courts treat religious tribunals as binding mediation sessions. There are some limitations. The law doesn’t ever allow for child support to be set at zero. Apparently, though, if your religious wife is silly enough to agree, she can allow the rabbi to rubber stamp the waiver of alimony.

While Anna isn’t admitted to the NY bar, it would surprise me if that wasn’t the status quo there too. So, I learned something new.

As to whether Jewish communities are better, Jewish families are healthier, or Jewish children less likely to grow up with skank single mothers than the average, I don’t know. Jew613 seems to often speak with the perspective of an Israeli, and if that’s his home, then he has a wealth of experience that I am not privy to.

What I can say is that I’ve met a fair share of North American Jews. I think my experience is based on the fact that religious outliers tend to gather together as kids, and several of my childhood friends were Hebrews. It seems to me that their mothers were just as likely to be raging bitches, and their families were equally likely to be broken, as anyone else’s. Again, though, that may have had something to do with the fact that divorce bastards tend to congregate together, in the same way that non-protestant kids do.

And now, to the point of all this. Being the curious bastard that I am, I went to courts dot state dot ny dot us, and typed in “orthodox jewish divorce” into a search field. The first case I came up with is quite entertaining. Let’s take a moment and read the depressing saga of…

Weisberger v Weisberger

The opinion opens with the following lovely declaration:

Per Curiam.

The parties were married on March 5, 2002. In 2005, the mother told the father that she could not tolerate having sexual relations with men, and that she was sexually attracted to women.

A disgusting bulldyke larps as a nice religious girl and good potential wife, succeeding in finding a sucker to marry her. Three years after the wedding date, bitch finally cops to the fact that she didn’t want to have sex with her husband any longer. Sounds like a real prize catch of a wimminz, this one.

The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce dated March 6, 2009. They have three children together, a son and two daughters.

It took the victim of this pathetic fraud four years to finally break free. In the mean time, three divorce bastards were born. Lucky kids, for sure.

In a stipulation of settlement dated November 3, 2008, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce,

This “stipulation of settlement” sounds like the ruling of the religious court. Did the rabbinical courts do the right thing, and admonish this lying dyke whore for defrauding her poor husband? Did they declare the marriage null and void, and award this man some pittance to compensate him for nine long years, living with a deranged lesbo? Let’s see…

the parties agreed to joint legal custody of the children with the mother having primary residential custody. The parties agreed that the father’s visitation with the children would consist of a two-hour period once per week after school (to be increased to twice per week with respect to their son when he turned eight years old, for the purpose of religious study); overnight visitation every other Friday after school until Saturday evening for the observance of Shabbos (the Sabbath); for two consecutive weeks every summer; and an alternating schedule for holidays.

How wonderful for her! She gets everything, despite running a colossal scam on an innocent man, and embarrassing her entire community.

Of course, it’s in “the best interests” of the children to keep living with their perverted mother, rather than to be removed to the safety of their father’s house. Let’s take a look at the results…

The father learned that in fall 2012 a transgender man (hereinafter O.) moved into the mother’s home, and that a curtain was installed to separate the adult bedrooms from the children’s bedrooms. According to the father, his children informed him that O. assisted in bathing them and told them about sexual parts of the human body.

That sounds like a fantastic addition to these children’s lives. I’m sure this weird tranny, who plays with the children’s genitals, is exactly what the religious courts had in mind.

And it must have been, given the fact that they engineered this lunacy. The father, a deeply religious man, was first betrayed by his wife, and has now been betrayed by his own elders, who sent his children to live with a gang of depraved perverts.

The father, having no recourse in his own ethno-religious group, appealed to the state courts in New York, and was immediately granted primary custody of his children. In an unusually wise decision, a divorce court judge forbade the degenerate mother from having contact with the children, beyond supervised and therapeutic visits. (By “therapeutic,” I assume this means some sort of court-enforced psychoanalysis, designed to heal the trauma of being raped and molested by the mother and her weird tranny friends.)

His wife then appealed to the New York supreme court, which recognized that a grave injustice was being done, by keeping these children from the “enrichment” that their mother was providing.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to modify the stipulation of settlement so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the children, as well as final decision-making authority over medical and dental issues, and issues of mental health, with supervised therapeutic visitation to the mother. The court stayed the provision of the order limiting the mother’s visitation to supervised therapeutic visits, conditioned upon, inter alia, her compliance with the religious upbringing clause contained in the stipulation of settlement. The court directed that, while the stay was in effect, the mother was entitled to unsupervised visitation every Monday after school or camp until Thursday morning.{**154 AD3d at 50}

In addition, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to enforce the religious upbringing clause so as to require the mother to direct the children to practice full religious observance in accordance with the Hasidic practices of ultra Orthodoxy at all times. Further, the court ordered that during any period of visitation or during any appearance at the childrens’ schools “the [mother] must practice full religious observance in accordance with the Hasidic practices of ultra Orthodoxy.” The court denied those branches of the mother’s motion which were to modify the religious upbringing clause and to modify the vacation and holiday schedule contained in the stipulation of settlement. The mother appeals.

“ ’Modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child[ren]’ ” (Matter of Spencer v Killoran, 147 AD3d 862, 863 [2017], quoting Matter of O’Shea v Parker, 116 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2014]; see Matter of Bodre v Stimatz, 150 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2017]). “The best interests of the child[ren] must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Preciado v Ireland, 125 AD3d 662, 662 [2015]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172 [1982]; Matter of Boggio v Boggio, 96 AD3d 834, 835 [2012]).

Not only does the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirm the right of lesbos to farm out their kids to trannies, they must make certain that the alienated father pays his fair share of the rent for such shenanigans.

The father testified that he had expected the mother to keep her religious beliefs and her sexuality a secret from the children and from the community, although the stipulation of settlement did not explicitly require her to do so. The father acknowledged that the stipulation of settlement required him to make child support payments to the mother in the total amount of $600 per month, which sum was to cover his total monthly obligations with respect to all three of the parties’ children.

So: What can we learn from the sad tale of Naftali H. Weisberger? The first lesson is that religion is not a refuge. Your kids belong to the feminist state. You are merely the ATM machine that funds their mother’s frivolities. She will never be questioned, no matter how destructive her behavior becomes.

If Brother Jew613 tells me that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in his own country, then I’m grateful. It’s actually difficult to fathom that this lunacy happens anywhere. If I were him, I’d be agitating to restrict American Jews from immigrating to Israel, lest this sort of insanity spread there.