This is a story of a court system that is doing
everything in its power to keep 6 Jewish children away from everything they
hold dear, including their mother.
Background:
On January 17, 1998, Julie Sharpe, a Jewish girl from
Toledo, Ohio, married Peter Goffstein, who
at the time presented himself as Jewish.
In 2002, when their oldest was starting preschool, the
two decided that they wanted to be more involved in their Jewish heritage, and
started their journey towards becoming more observant of Jewish traditions.
They agreed to send their children to Jewish schools, observe Kosher dietary
laws, keep the Jewish Sabbath and Holidays, etc.
In 2005, when Peter learned that he wasn’t really
Jewish (as he wasn’t born Jewish), he initiated the process of converting to
Judaism; a complex process which includes a great amount of study, a sincere
commitment to Torah observance, immersion in a Mikvah, as well as undergoing
circumcision.
In 2006, after completing the conversion process,
Julie and Peter renewed their vows in a second wedding ceremony.
During this time Peter was very much involved in the
growth of the Jewish community. He hosted meetings, and donated funds, to help
establish a local Rabbinical school, a Jewish Discovery Center, etc. He even
purchased a new home, just to be closer to the synagogue.
In 2008, after losing his job with Bear Creek Capital,
Peter started to drift away from his Jewish observance. He stopped observing
the Sabbath, stopped keeping Kosher, etc. All the while living at home with his
observant wife and children.
In 2010 Peter gave Julie an ultimatum: Either she was
to abandon her religious practices, stop observing the Sabbath, register the
children in public schools, etc., or he wanted a divorce.
On July 2, 2010, after all attempts at reconciliation/negotiations/arbitration
had failed, the couple filed for divorce.
In March, 2012, the Chicago Rabbinical Council
invalidated Peter’s conversion to Judaism.
They had 6 boys together: Reuven (15), Yaakov (13),
Aaron (11), Eli (9), Levi (7), and Aryeh (5).
The
Courtcase:
In July, 2010, Julie was assigned sole temporary
residential and custodial parent. She was allowed to keep the children in their
Jewish schools, and allowed to have the children for all Jewish holidays,
including all Sabbaths.
At the time, the Magistrate assigned to the case
understood the importance of maintaining stability in the children’s lives. He
understood that the mother was loving and caring, and only wanted what was best
for the children.
The magistrate followed the court’s policy of looking
out for the best interest of the children.
Peter tried filing many motions, all aimed at allowing
him to change the way the children were being raised. He wanted them to be
taken out of their schools. He wanted them to spend every other Saturday with
him, so they wouldn't be able to observe the Sabbath, but the magistrate would
not allow it. Peter was not allowed to disturb the environment that the
children were raised in. He was not allowed to change the way they were being
raised. The children were to remain in the stability that was established
during the marriage. That was the court’s philosophy, and that’s what the
magistrate ordered.
Unfortunately, the judge did not seem to share the
magistrate’s commitment to the court’s standards. The judge started caving to
the father’s demands. The judge was more concerned with the father’s “rights”
to his children, rather than considering what was in the children’s best
interest.
During the trial the court ordered evaluations by both
a social worker, as well as a psychologist. They were both called in as expert
witnesses, and both recommended that Julie be allowed to continue to raise her
children within the Orthodox Jewish community, as she had been doing since they
were toddlers. They both testified that she was a good parent. They both
testified that the children were doing well in her care. And they both felt it
was in the children’s best interest to leave everything as it was, and to keep
the magistrate’s decision as final.
During the trial Peter conceded custody of the two
oldest boys, ages 13 and 11, so the trial was only regarding custody of the
younger four.
On June 21, 2012, after an extremely drawn out trial,
the judge issued permanent custody of all six children to their mother.
However, contrary to the magistrate’s original decision, contrary to the only
two expert witnesses on the case, and contrary to the court’s own ideology, the
judge allowed for Peter to have the children every other Saturday, not allowing
the children to observe the Sabbath. He split the Jewish holidays between Julie
and Peter, allowing the children to only observe half of their holidays. He
allowed for Peter to serve them non-kosher food. He allowed Peter to interfere
with the children’s summer camps. Etc. Etc.
The more requests Peter put in with this judge, the
more he was granted.
The more Julie tried defending herself, the more she
tried defending her own religious rights, as well as the children’s rights, the
more she was ignored.
Peter kept coming back with the same complaint: he
didn't like the fact that the children were in Jewish schools. He also felt
that he had been alienated. The children were happy with their mother, they
were happy in their schools, they were happy being raised as Jews, and that
bothered Peter, so he kept coming back to court.
In March, 2013 Peter filed for a reallocation of
custody. He wanted the judge to retry the case. He argued all the same
arguments that he had argued in the past. He tried convincing the judge that
he, not Julie, had the children’s best interest at heart. He wanted the
children to have a chance at a “normal” life. He wanted them spared of the
Jewish radicalism that Julie was exposing them to. He wanted all rights over
all the children, including those of which he had conceded custody.
After 2 days of trial, at which no new evidence was
presented, no witnesses were called in, and no investigations had been done,
the judge agreed to change custody of the four younger boys.
On May 22, 2013 the judge split this family. He left
the older two with their mother, yet issued the change in custody for the
younger four, stating his reason for the change as the mother’s “misplaced
priorities”, referring to her desire to maintain the Jewish education that had
been established during the marriage, by sending her teenage son to Yeshiva
(rabbinical school).
The judge ordered that, as long as Julie paid their
tuition, the children can remain in the Jewish elementary school they were
attending, however Peter would have rights over their high school. Parenting
time was split evenly between the two.
Julie, who was obviously very distraught by the
judge’s actions, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
Considering that the children were still in Jewish
schools, and still felt like they were part of the Jewish community, Peter was
still not happy. So he kept filing motions with the court. Peter asked the
court to modify the previous order, and allow him, among other things, to pull
the kids out of their school.
The judge once again scheduled a hearing to listen to
all of the same claims, all over again.
The hearing was scheduled for July 29, 2013, the same
day as their son Yaakov’s Bar Mitzvah. Yaakov was out of state at sleep-away
camp, and was celebrating his Bar Mitzvah at camp.
Julie filed a motion, asking the court to reschedule
the hearing, to accommodate her son’s Bar Mitzvah.
Julie also filed a motion, asking the judge to “stay”
his previous ruling pending the appeal’s case.
In addition, Julie filed a motion asking the judge to
dismiss the case, as the judge no longer had jurisdiction to modify a ruling
that was being appealed.
The hearing continued as planned, in Julie’s absence.
The judge addressed all of Julie’s motions, and dismissed them one at a time.
He dismissed her motion about her not being able to be
there, on grounds that she wasn't there to argue it! i.e. because she’s not
here to tell us why she’s not here, we’re not going to accept her motion, which
explains why she’s not here.
He then addressed her motion to stay judgement pending
appeal, and expressed that she was being “presumptuous”, and that she obviously
felt that a stay was automatic, and it therefor denied.
He then addressed the motion to dismiss, based on his
lack of jurisdiction, and simply said: I do not find that proposition to be
well taken. That motion is denied.
After getting all of Julie’s defenses out of the way,
the judge proceeded to hear Peter’s motions.
And once again, without establishing any change in circumstances,
without any discussion regarding the Jewish elementary school the children were
enrolled in, without any mention of the children’t best interest, the judge
gave Peter everything he was asking for.
Peter asked that he be allowed to remove the children
from Jewish school, and enroll them in public school, the judge allowed it.
Peter asked that Julie’s parenting time with the young
boys be limited to every other weekend, and 3 hours a week, the judge granted
it.
Peter asked the judge to prohibit Julie for signing
the children up for any activities, the judge granted it.
Peter asked the court to mandate Julie’s participation
in weekly counseling sessions, the judge ordered it.
Peter also convinced the court to dismiss him of his
financial obligations, of both child support, as well as Alimony, and of course
he got what he wanted.
And the list goes on.
Right
now:
The divorce is not yet final, closing arguments are
due next month.
Peter was relieved of all financial obligations. Julie
is completely on her own.
The case is in Appeal’s Court, and will probably be
heard in January, 2014. There are also Federal lawyers taking an interest in
pursuing action against the judge.
Julie has custody of the two older boys (ages 15 and
13), and they are living with her. Although Peter has scheduled parenting time
with them, they refuse to go with him. Peter enrolled them in public school,
but they refuse to go. They insist on remaining in Jewish school, and insist on
continuing to live the religious life with which they were raised.
The four younger boys are in Peter’s custody, and
living with Peter at his girlfriend’s house, together with her children. They
miss their mother terribly, and barely get to spend any time with her. They
each deal with the stress differently: the 10 year old has been placed on
anti-depressants, the 8 year old is developing twitches, and the 6 year old
constipates himself.
The younger children are forced to attend public
school, and are yearning to return to their community, their school, their
friends, their family. They complain to the social worker, but he turns a deaf
ear. Julie tries talking to the court, to the social worker, even to child
services, but no one listens. They all refer to the judge. They all assume that
the judge knew what he was doing.
This judge has abused his power, gone against
everything the American judicial system stands for, and issued rulings based on
his personal preference of religion. This is outrageous!
