Join Our Telegram Channel

OPINION: WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING WITHHOLDING A GET, HOWEVER IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE VISITATION WITHOUT HURTING THE CHILDREN


Submitted




There is a lot of media frenzy lately that claim that men are withholding giving a get purposely simply because "they can" or because "they want to harm their estranged wife," or because "they want leverage in a divorce."


However, I maintain that we men are not looking to harm anyone. In fact, men who withhold a get do so simply for the very reason that it's actually the only way to ensure they see their children without harming the children.


Here me out here.


In our Bais Din and judicial system, it's more common for women to look for ways to stop fathers from seeing their children than for men to look for ways to stop mothers from seeing their children. So much so that some women continue to withhold all visitation once the father gives a get.


Common tools to punish women who withhold visitation is to take away their custody, parenting time, or child support.


The problem with all of these "punishments" is that they harm the children, or as the legal lingo goes, it is "not in the best interest of the children" to stop them from spending time with both of their parents or to be missing necessary money.


(In fact, there have been cases where Bais Din has unilaterally ordered a mother to withhold visitation due to the father's failure to pay child support and the Court overturned Bais Din's psak, saying that it's not in the best interest of the children to stop them from spending time with both of their parent.)


So... If a father withholds child support until his estranged wife agrees to let him see the children, or he tries to take away her custody, parenting time, or child support, he would be acting not in the best interest of the children and everyone's schedules get messed up, and they would be missing necessary money.


So.... It seems that the only method available to a man who wants to ensure he sees his kids without acting against the best interest of the children would be to withhold a get. Any other method would be hurting the kids.


Do you see any other solution??


One final note: No one is campaigning "for men simply to refuse to give a get." Rather, both parties to a divorce do need to provide what they need to provide; the rational voices here are simply cautioning against giving a get before the rest of the divorce is settled.


Any further questions?


To join a FAA WhatsApp Group, click here.


To join the FAA WhatsApp Status, click here.


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Though logically, then it would stand to reason that if you can withhold a get to ensure visitation, you can withhold visitation to ensure a get.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander... and all that

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous - the difference is that by withholding visitation you’re causing damage to the children. There are many other obvious distinctions as well

Anonymous said...

I never understood the whole leverage thing.

Does this imply that when a Goyish couple gets divorced the man automatically
loses out big time because there is no offsetting threat of refusing a get?

I would think the legal system should have some semblance of common sense and equality.

Anonymous said...

Correct this is one of the benefits to be a Jew

Anonymous said...

Listen the court system for divorce is clearly ๐Ÿ’ฏ against men and ends up messing up children nothing to do about that I feel bad for goyim
but as Jews 5000 years ago hashem gave us a secret to protect us and our families against this crazy destruction going on
It’s called a gett

Anonymous said...

The Torah and chazal put in place protections for either spouse to ensure a society where marriage is the norm of society and ending a marriage is difficult and a big mess, further making the couple think long and hard before embarking on a decision that will have catastrophic consequences for themselves and their children. The get is a way for the wife to feel she has a large hurdle to clear, and many times in ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ the phrase ืฉืžื ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื ืชื ื• ื‘ืื—ืจ( perhaps her eyes are on another man) is often repeated. So to chazal we’re concerned a husband may discard his wife when the going gets tough and he will divorce her and take a younger and prettier wife, do they instituted a k’subah to make him think twice. Chaz Al and the Torah understood the complexities of a long marriage and the inevitable clashes, and when fueled by imagination of fantasies what’s greener in other Haden’s, it can lead to decisions that aren’t rooted in reason or reality, and will cause destruction in society so they put hurdles intentionally to slow down and/or stop it from happening frequently. While this may sound archaic and horribly unfair, until a few decades ago that was the norm in secular law as well, when you needed a reason to divorce, and a marriage wasn’t treated by the law as something you have a right to discard once entered into, no fault divorce is rejativejy new to society, and it’s aftermath whereby you can have an affair and still get 50% of your spouses assets, or dump a spouse after they loyally stood by while he climbed the corporate ladder and then take a new trophy wife 20 years younger. Look at what this has done to half the country’s children, ( besides the rest of the country that never married their partner to begin with) it has created a society of lost people that have learned to put themselves first and jump from partner to partner. Grim society is thankfully many steps behind, marriage is still sacred and the protections of chazal are helping, but therapists have brought society’s ideas home, and wrecked marriages needlessly. There will shears be bad actors abusing the process, however, let’s not forget why we have a better track record, and try to reign in the bad actors but not learn from a failed society.

Anonymous said...

Men who withhold a get would do well to remember that a get is not the only way their wife can be free of them. If they do not give a get, and they have her desperate, crying and davening to be free one way or another, well, the marriage just might be dissolved the other way.

Anonymous said...

Finally some sense in this whole agunah fiasco, if women would act civil the first year after separation, allow visitation, stop the restraining orders, etc. You will not have an agunah crisis

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 8:54

Senator Ted Kennedy's wife refused to allow him a annulment. (Yes, they were both drunks).
Former Governor Cuomo (the son) had a similar problem with his ex-wife (the Kennedy one).
So there is an alternative to Catholics.
Muslims and Mormons slightly different.

To anonymous 8:45
Not all children support is for the children.
Many cases of ex-wife refusing to accept child support.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that 99% of the time it's not even a leverage point. The ex-wife to be, 90% of the time brainwashed by her therapist/representative to destroy her life, makes insane, unilateral demands in the divorce agreement and simply points at him that he's not giving a get while she isn't willing to move forward on normal terms.