What Went Wrong at Ohel Childrens Home and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse?
This is a chapter by Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher, published in the new book, "Sexual Abuse; Breaking the Silence," Ersi Abuci Kalgoglu and Rehat Faikoglu, Editors.
There have been so very many individuals who have had their lives and the lives of their families destroyed, not "elevated" as Ohel advertises in its logo. As these victims get help and empowerment to come forward and bear witness, the extent of the spiritual holocaust will slowly become more known.
But the quickest, most moral and Torah-demanded approach to dealing with this would be, as the author's suggest in their scholarly, thoroughly documented and impeccably argued chapter, for all of us to call for a government investigation.
Lets finally let the chips fall where they may, and start cleaning house so we can truly have a safe Ohel for the needy and vulnerable innocent children of our community.
Lesher Neustein Book Chapter on Ohel
Help Us Regain The Children Legal Research Center USA
1. Introduction
The cover-up of sex crimes at the expense of child victims has become an all-too-familiar
story in many religious communities. The protection of priests accused of child molestation
by the Catholic Church hierarchy is now a matter of record; more recent publicity has
identified Orthodox Jewish communities as another locus of such misconduct (Dorff, 2009).
Central to such cover-ups is an institution powerful enough to suppress the evidence of
abuse and motivated to do it. This chapter presents an analysis J for the first time J of the
role in the suppression of child abuse scandals played by the American Orthodox Jewish
communityKs most prominent child welfare agency. The agency, Ohel ChildrenKs Home and
Family Services (hereafter, OOhelP), is a large state-licensed agency located in a heavily
Orthodox wedge of Brooklyn, New York, and performs foster care, adoption and counseling
services. The Ohel agency first opened its doors in 1969. Rapidly, it grew into what the
Village Voice in 1994 dubbed a ObulwarkP of the Orthodox community (Barrett & Bowles,
1994), with a budget of over $4 million, and political ties that have brought U.S. Senators,
Congressmen, state legislators and New York City mayors to its annual fundraising dinners.
Given the nature of its services J foster care was always one of its priorities J the agency
dealt early with problems of child abuse. In early 1997, the agency doubled its investment in
the issue by opening a program for child sex offenders. That program was shuttered after
about five years (Winston, 2009b), but the agency continues to highlight its role in working
with child victims of abuse. In April 2009, Ohel and the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles
J. Hynes, jointly announced the formation of a special program called OKol Tzedek,P the
ostensible purpose of which was to encourage the highly insular Orthodox Jewish
community in Brooklyn to recognize the seriousness of child sex abuse, and to confront the
problem honestly J with steps including reporting all such abuse to appropriate city or state
authorities (Winston, 2009a).
Lamentably, the agencyKs actual record belies these stated intentions. In February 2011, Ohel
was skewered in an exposé reported by Hella Winston of the Jewish Week. WinstonKs article
contained damning evidence that Ohel had blatantly ignored New York statutes requiring
the reporting of suspected child abuse to state authorities. (Winston, 2011a). 184 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
The forum of the exposé was itself significant: the Jewish Week is anything but a fringe
publication. On the contrary, it is a nationally distributed weekly magazine claiming over
100,000 subscribers to its hard copy weekly edition and a quarter of a million readers of its
electronic version (updated daily). What is more, it is affiliated with the centrist Jewish
Federation, a fact that tends to moderate its news reporting and makes it highly sensitive to
criticism that it is singling out one religious group, such as Orthodox Jews, in its coverage.
Nevertheless, WinstonKs initial foray was soon followed by even more alarming allegations.
In an article dated May 31, 2011, she revealed that Ohel, apparently in a frantic effort to clear
its name from the charges contained in the earlier article, had shared confidential files about
abuse cases with outsiders. Such conduct raised the hackles of a number of child welfare
experts, as Winston reported:
OEven if it were technically legal for Ohel to show the files to handpicked outside
individuals, sharing patient information with consultants for the purpose of clearing the
agencyKs name may be an inappropriate use of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, which governs privacy regulations, according to Abner Weintraub,
a national authority on HIPAA. Mary Vandenack, another authority on HIPAA, told
The Jewish Week that bringing in a consultant who is not an expert in the specific area
or who has an interest in the outcome is unethical and may even constitute fraud if the
agency and/or consultant make representations that the consultant is an expertP
(Winston, 2011b).
In addition to what may have been a serious breach of confidentiality, Winston revealed that
David Mandel, the agencyKs CEO, apparently implied to a group that reviewed those files Othe
prospect for future collaboration with and funding from Ohel.P In other words, Ohel appears,
in essence, to have bribed those who reviewed confidential files in order to elicit from them an
assessment more favorable to the agencyKs public image. Sharing the files with outsiders in the
first place was bad practice; the act threatened critical standards of confidentiality. Indeed, as
Winston reported, it may have violated federal HIPAA laws. Coupled with an offer of
financial benefit to the outside organization asked by Ohel to clear its name, the act took on a
possibly criminal character. (Winston has told the authors that child advocates are asking law
enforcement officials to investigate possible criminal violations perpetrated by Ohel.)
These startling details tell only part of the story. The authors J both as researchers and as
members of the Orthodox Jewish community
1
J consider it imperative to examine the larger,
systemic implications as well. How does OhelKs approach to reporting child sex abuse cases
to authorities relate to its role vis-à-vis Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States,
Canada and Israel, all of which financially (and politically) support the agency? How does
the interlocking of Ohel and the Orthodox communities it serves contribute to the reification
by which Ohel has become, as noted above, a Obulwark of the Orthodox Jewish communityP
(Barrett & Bowles, 1994)? Clearly, Ohel is a part of the Orthodox Jewish community rather
than external to it. For this reason, our analysis of OhelKs conduct begins with a recognition
of the agency as something integral to and generative of the community that has built,
sustained and promoted it.
In this chapter, consequently, we will use the prominent and readily available example of
Ohel to investigate the underlying reasons for the Orthodox communityKs all-too-frequent
1
One of the authors is the daughter of the late Rabbi Dr. Abraham Neustein, a highly distinguished
clergyman, educator and Talmudic scholar. What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 185
subordination of the rights of sexual abuse victims to the preservation of the communityKs
good name. Similarly, we will examine the sociological background to the mounting
evidence that Ohel, as part and parcel of the community it serves, has flouted state laws that
require reporting of suspected sex abuse to authorities. It is worth stressing, in this
connection, that when Ohel addresses its own community it goes out of its way to avoid any
mention of such mandatory reporting, even in places where such mention should have been
de rigueur. For example, in a promotional newsletter Ohel distributed in the summer of 2009,
in which it quoted from a press release issued by BrooklynKs District Attorney announcing
the new joint sex-abuse initiative with Ohel (OKol TzedekP) mentioned above, the agency
carefully removed from the press release every reference the D.A. had made to police,
prosecutors and the reporting of sex crimes to secular authorities (Lesher, 2011).
We hope our example will inspire researchers to inquire along similar lines into other
institutions, connected with religious communities, which may have failed to protect
children from child sexual abuse. The effect of religion-based organizations taking on
public functions is already receiving public attention: in the wake of the grisly murder in
July 2011 of eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky in one BrooklynKs Orthodox neighborhoods, one
of the authors was asked to write an editorial for New York CityKs most widely-read daily
newspaper about the misuse of public money for Orthodox Jewish Ocitizen patrolsP
which, like Ohel, often refuse to report suspected Jewish offenders to police (Lesher,
2011).
The remainder of this chapter is divided into three main sections. First, we offer a
sociological analysis of the Orthodox Jewish communityKs attitudes towards the reporting of
offenders, as these related to a Jewish welfare agency like Ohel. Second, we examine the
documented history of abuse or neglect cases apparently covered up either by Ohel officials
or by professionals working with Ohel, such as pediatricians, counselors and their rabbinic
advisors. Finally, we offer some suggestions for addressing the problems examined.
2. A case for denial
Ohel does not operate in a vacuum. Its actions reflect deeply held beliefs, attitudes and
prejudices of the community it represents.
Although, strictly speaking, Jewish law requires adherence to governing secular law, in
practice the observance of traditional Jewish piety is often at variance with secular laws
requiring the reporting of suspected Jewish offenders to police. Let us examine how the
Orthodox Jewish culture affects this sensitive issue.
2.1 Community homeostasis
Much as the physiological system of an organism maintains internal stability, owing to the
coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus tending to disturb its normal
condition, Orthodox Jewish communities as a whole strive to maintain internal stability by
rejecting or attacking any forces that threaten to disturb the communityKs perceived
harmony. An important component of that harmony is the perception that the community
continues to project a public image as a locale of behavior that is devout, sober, ethical, and
so forth. 186 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
Sex abuse charges asserted against community figures such as teachers, rabbis, etc. can
represent a serious threat to community homeostasis. To begin with, the accusation
challenges ingrained hierarchies J rabbis above laymen, teachers above students, men above
women, adults above children.
In addition, the accusation often threatens the livelihood of the accused in a community
marked by the interdependence of community members. For instance, the teacher whose
student credibly accuses him of sexual abuse will likely have to leave his teaching position.
But where is the teacher to go? In truth, he (or she) is not likely to find a job in a secular
environment, nor even to seek one, since religious Jews are socialized from an early age to
stay within the Orthodox community; such insular Jewish communities look askance at
socializing with non-Jews, or even non-religious Jews, for fear that the cultural norms that
guide and regulate the everyday activities of Orthodox Jews might be questioned when
members of such insular communities are exposed to outsiders. Consequently, exposure to
the outside world is kept to a minimum. So, the community is faced with a stark choice
between ignoring the alleged victim and jeopardizing the career of the teacher being
accused. This weights the communityKs response heavily against the accuser.
Besides the loss to the accused, sex abuse charges threaten a loss to the community itself.
The tight-knit social organization that has come to depend on each of its members for
fulfilling religious obligations J participating in a quorum for communal prayer, assisting in
ritual washing and burial of the dead, visiting the sick, consoling mourners, etc. J suddenly
faces the possibility of losing a memberKs participation in the tasks that punctuate, define
and regulate religious life. By the same token, a charge of sexual abuse endangers the
participation of the accusedKs children in community life; if the charge is publicized, and still
more if it is accepted as true, the children are no longer seen as desirable marriage prospects
because of the taint of scandal looming over their family. And, on the other hand, unmarried
life is very much frowned upon.
It may seem ironic that the same community that struggles to hold on to its members, even
those accused of abuse, because of the vital role each Orthodox Jew plays in the social and
religious communal structure, is ready, if need be, to ostracize (in some cases, even to expel)
a victim of abuse who presses an accusation. But this too can be explained. The communityKs
choices seem peculiar only in light of an assumed egalitarianism, which in fact the
community rejects. As mentioned above, the Orthodox Jewish community constantly
reinforces the inequality of the status and power of its members as a vital part of its
homeostasis. When we consider that abusive dynamics traditionally involve an imbalance of
power, it is not hard to see why homeostasis favors the more powerful. In fact, one highlyplaced rabbi declared to one of the authors, OHow would a school function if its principal or
its teachers were expelled because of a sex abuse report made by a ten-year-old student?P
That puts the whole case very neatly indeed. And when other officials offer patently
inadequate excuses for disregarding child sex abuse reports (e.g., OIt takes time and money
to find a replacement for a teacherP), they are implicitly affirming the same thing.
Erica Brown, a contributor to Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities & Child Sex Scandals J
a collection of essays by rabbis, educators, mental health professionals and lawyers,
published in 2009 J wrote passionately about the plight of clergy abuse victims when their
complaints are disregarded or ignored: What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 187
OThat there are people who abuse authority for personal, immoral gain should not
come as a shock. That some of these individuals have embraced a life of sacred service
is extremely upsetting, but sadly, still not a surprise. . . . What we cannot excuse are
those who stand on the outside and permit abuse because they do not call it by name. . . .
The cry of clergy abuse victims is shattering. It breaks our hearts, and it can break our
faith. . . . We must blame ourselves when we allow a religious leader to remain in place
who has the power to break hearts and shatter soulsP (Brown, 2009, p. 72).
A decade earlier, Sandra Butler, an expert on sexual abuse, addressed the same conspiracy
of silence. Writing in 1999 in the Journal of Religion and Abuse, Butler wrote: OOne urgent
concern I have is that there are many in the rabbinic leadership who still hold tightly to the
illusion lnot here,K lnot them,K lnot us,KP when faced with alleged sexual abuse in families, in
yeshivas and in the synagogue (Butler, 1999, p. 107).
Even before this, Rabbi Irving (OYitzP) Greenberg challenged rabbinic leaders to take
responsibility for crimes of sexual abuse in a 1990 article appearing in Moment. Rabbi
Greenberg was unsparing in his address to his fellow Orthodox rabbis:
OTo be silent then is to incur the grave guilt of accessory after the fact. Spiritual leaders
who ignore or even cover up the presence of sexual abuse, Jewish media that continue
the conspiracy of silence by acting as if this does not happen in the Jewish community,
those that cut off or isolate victims who dare speak out, bring upon themselves the
judgment that the Torah places on the accessory and the bystander: lDo not stand idly
by the blood of your neighborKP (Greenberg, 1990, p. 49.)
2
Notwithstanding these warnings, it is clear that communal denial of sexual abuse is one way
of maintaining homeostasis within the insular world of Orthodoxy. Denial may also be
employed among Orthodox Jewish families J which exist as microcosms of the Orthodox
community writ large J to deal with the disruption to homeostasis brought about when one
family member charges sex abuse committed by another.
Massachusetts psychologist Joan M. Featherman demonstrates how the institution of the
Jewish family is quick to eschew members who are alleged to disturb its harmony. In Sexual
Abuse in Nine North American Cultures: Treatment and Prevention, Dr. Featherman wrote:
IJewish families tend to break off contact with family members who are perceived to
have breached their commitment to the family harmony. These perceived breaches of
commitment range from not attending a family eventmto divorce, intermarriagemor
disclosing sexual abuseP (Featherman, 1995, p. 130).
Baltimore psychologist Joyanna Silberg, who specializes in treating child sexual abuse
trauma, reflected in OOut of the Jewish Closet,P a co-written chapter appearing in NeusteinKs
Tempest in the Temple, on the psychodynamics of Jewish families and their response of sexual
abuse. After examining the accounts of various incest survivors, Silberg and her co-author,
nurse practitioner Stephanie Dallam, showed how incest survivor Sue William Silverman
described the ironic trap posed by the Jewish family structure:
2
It should perhaps be noted that, although Rabbi Greenberg is Orthodox, he does not belong to the
more religiously Oright-wingP Orthodox body of opinion that governs the more traditional Orthodox
communities. 188 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
O[T]he sacredness of the family unit in Jewish communities may make it impossible for
even the adults to get help outside the familyP (Silberg & Dallam, 2009, p. 93).
SilbergKs own clinical experience bears out that claim. Writing in Tempest, Silberg and her coauthor described how many clients originally sought family support when they discovered
that their husbands were abusing their children. OThey reported that, instead of giving
support, their parents and friends encouraged them to look the other way, to lstay with
him,K or to work it outP (Silberg & Dallam, 2009, p. 93).
There is at least one more way in which a sex abuse accusation threatens community
homeostasis. It challenges a principle of religious culture. The community considers it a
touchstone of traditional Judaism that this ancient creed is perfect, answering to all needs
and addressing all possible situations. Accordingly, Orthodox rabbinic leadership teaches
(and enforces) the belief that whatever evil is encountered in Jewish life comes from
OoutsideP; those raised entirely within Orthodoxy could not possibly be guilty of something
as far from Jewish norms as sexual depravity. An accusation of child sexual abuse by an
Orthodox Jew, particularly a rabbi or teacher, violates this basic principle and is therefore
anathema. Judy Brown, who in 2009 (under the pseudonym OEishes ChayilP) authored a
book about child sexual abuse specifically aimed at the Orthodox community, recently
published a column (under the same pseudonym) in which she revealed that she and her
publisher received threats from members of the community. OThe message was clear,P
Brown wrote. OI had violated the rule that said victims must protect the community from
their own crimes. Now, I would pay.P And in BrownKs candid assessment, it was just as
clear what OmessageP the community preferred to send to Orthodox Jews in general:
OAfter I started meeting with victims and speaking with therapists, I began to encounter
the community's wall of denial. These are things Jews donKt do, I was told. . . .
OSome subjects are better left in silence, the rabbis said. Orthodox Jews did not need
such words. Those were words for gentiles.P
Brown wrote her book because, she says, Owe [in the Orthodox community] forgot [to] look
inside, to see that the most dangerous enemy always grows from within.P Unfortunately,
that is exactly the message that threatens the communityKs stability. (Chayil, 2011.)
3
2.2 Sacrificing victims
In 2002, the Catholic Church child sex scandal made headlines around the world. At that
time, presumably because of our high profile in speaking out about child sexual abuse in the
Orthodox community (long before it became popular to do so), the authors suddenly found
themselves invited by academic publishers, psychology journal editors and Jewish
newspapers to comment in print, and now for a wider audience, on the perils of sex abuse
within the Jewish clergy and the Jewish community writ large. We were asked, in particular,
to address how such offenses were systematically covered up by the rabbinate, Jewish child
care agencies, and powerful community organizations.
That year, the Jewish Exponent, a century-old paper serving metropolitan Philadelphia, invited
us to write a guest editorial on the subject. We argued that child sex abuse was drastically
3
Significantly, Brown explained in the column that she had published her book, Hush, under a
pseudonym Oto protect my family and friends from community retribution.P What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 189
under-recognized in religious Jewish communities simply because, thanks to the communal
fear of public exposure, too many victims met with cover-ups instead of compassion:
OThe denial by Jewish communities, and their leaders, that sexual abuse of all kinds does
occur among Jews J with the ugly result that victims can pay a higher price than their
tormentors when their accusations come to light. . . . In our examination of cases of alleged
sex crimes by Jewish offenders in recent decades, we have found that both Jewish
community figures and Jewish media lag behind in giving victims the support they
deserve. This means that all too often the victims, not their alleged attackers, are sacrificed
to the communityKs sense of shame. For instance, two years ago, a young boy in the ultraOrthodox neighborhood of Borough Park, Brooklyn, accused a rabbi of having sexually
abused him over a period of 18 months during private lessons. A child-abuse expert
backed his story, but the Chasidic [piously religious] community was so eager to protect
the accused rabbi -- whatever the facts -- that when a group of rabbis managed to
persuade the District Attorney to drop the charges, the community celebrated publicly.P
We concluded our editorial by asking the question:
OHow many victims must be sacrificed on the altar of the communityKs shame before
this conspiracy [of silence] ends?P (Neustein & Lesher, 2002a, p. 37).
Around the same time, Dane Claussen published our chapter in his book Sex, Religion,
Media, in which we demonstrated that Jewish media were still reluctant to run stories about
child sexual abuse.
Unfortunately, it was clear to us J and still is J that the Orthodox Jewish community has a
much larger problem in this respect than it has hitherto admitted. Nor have the emerging
revelations of the disastrous consequences of cover-ups in the Catholic clergy done much to
change the patterns of behavior in Jewish circles. Jewish media, which might conceivably act
as an antidote to the communityKs taste for secrecy, have instead absorbed its distorted
priorities. The religious leadershipKs need to block out the outside world, to protect itself
from scrutiny by a society it regards as alien and dangerous, finds a parallel in the Jewish
mediaKs reluctance to publicize scandals among Jews (Neustein & Lesher, 2002b, p. 82).
Little had changed when, years later, we were invited to write an article for a special issue of
the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse devoted to sex abuse committed by members of the clergy. The
guest editors of this special issue J Drs. Robert A. McMackin, Terence M. Keane and Paul M.
Kline J placed our paper prominently in this issue as the only contribution addressing abuse
and cover-ups within the Jewish clergy: a compliment, perhaps, but also an ominous reminder
that such analysis aimed at Jewish communities was still the exception. In our paper, titled OA
Single Case Study of Rabbinic Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox Jewish Community,P we
analyzed abuse cover-ups within the Orthodox Jewish community by way of a detailed case
history: a young, hearing-impaired Hasidic boy allegedly abused by his Hasidic tutor. The
teacher, charged with 96 counts of serious child abuse, ultimately escaped even an indictment
when, under pressure by a panel of rabbis, Brooklyn prosecutors dropped all charges against
him. Afterward, the alleged victimKs family faced so much ostracism from their Hasidic
community that they were eventually forced to move away. Thus, the victim and his family J
as so many prior cases J were sacrificed on the altar of the communityKs shame, paying the
price for the communityKs misdeeds as its leaders suppressed an investigation in serious child
abuse charges (Neustein & Lesher, 2008). 190 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
Our research has found that Orthodox Jewish community hostility to the publicizing of sex
abuse charges can turn violent. In 1991, the day after a Stamford Hill (north London)
rabbinic student was sentenced for sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl, a mob of between
one and two hundred ultra-Orthodox Jews menaced the victimKs family, hurling objects
through their windows, causing the family to run for their lives. This was the fifth time they
had been chased from their home during the criminal trial, which had lasted two years
(Guardian staff reporter, 1991, p. 2).
Alas, this pattern has not abated with the passage of time. This year (2011), the authors were
profiled once again in a Canadian television documentary called OWall of Silence,P which
offered a close look at sex abuse cover-ups in Orthodox Jewish communities in the United
States and Canada. Also featured in that documentary was a Brooklyn rabbi who alleges he
was shot at with a pistol J and very nearly killed J by members of his community for
speaking out about the plight of the abuse victim and the need to protect children from
sexual predators within the community. He was also widely denounced in Williamsburg,
New York (where he lives) on fliers distributed throughout his community depicting him as
a poisonous snake (Mendelsohn, 2011). To date, no one in the community has apologized to
the rabbi for any of these vicious attacks.
2.3 Conflicts of interest
As the facts above serve to illustrate, there is often a direct clash between the needs of abuse
victims and the values brought to bear on their cases within Orthodox Jewish communities.
Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Glick, vice president of an international organization of Orthodox
Jewish health professionals, expressed this plainly when he complained eleven years ago, in
a letter to The Jewish Press, that Oif the police do get involved [in a case of alleged sex abuse],
a massive cover-up and pressure campaign usually ensures that the case will either not get
to trial or if it does, will be dropped because potential witnesses are pressured (code for
threatened) to refuse to testify or outright lieP (Glick, 2000:87).
Recent developments confirm this pattern. This year, the entire Brooklyn Orthodox
community mobilized in a search for a missing eight-year-old Hasidic boy named Leiby
Kletzky. (In the end, lamentably, the boy was found dead: he had been abducted, smothered
and then dismembered by an adult Orthodox Jew.) Even as masses of Orthodox community
members scoured the streets for the abducted boy, one of the leading rabbis of Agudath Israel
of America J AmericaKs single most influential ultra-Orthodox rabbinic body J insisted at a
conference that any Orthodox Jew who suspects an act of child abuse must first turn to a rabbi,
who will decide whether or not secular authorities should be contacted. What was especially
remarkable about those comments is that the rabbi based them on the ruling of a highlyrespected ultra-Orthodox authority that has been widely claimed as evidence of the Orthodox
communityKs greater openness to the reporting of child sex abuse. Yet the requirement to take
any question to an Orthodox rabbi before reporting to police effectively reaffirms that the
communityKs leaders, not police, will decide the fate of a child abuse victim.
What is behind this apparent contradiction? Leading Orthodox rabbis have, indeed, begun
to discuss publicly the problem of child sexual abuse in their communities J a sign of
progress in itself, for as recently as the 1990s the head of a prominent Orthodox rabbinic
organization in Brooklyn could still insist to one of the authors that child sexual abuse
simply did not exist among Orthodox Jews. And it is true that Rabbi Y. S. Elyashiv, one of What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 191
the worldKs most respected Orthodox authorities, issued a much-publicized ruling that
clearly authorizes reporting cases of child sexual abuse to the police. No wonder that a
spokesman for Agudath Israel of America has argued that his community has fully
addressed the issue of child sex abuse (Shafran, 2006).
Yet it has not, for the Orthodox rabbinateKs assumption of its own ultimate power is so
strong, and so unacknowledged, that even the more OliberalP rulings with respect to
reporting abuse are read within the community merely as permitting a rabbi to authorize the
reporting of abuse in a specific case. The Orthodox rabbinate has not grasped that so long as
it operates as gatekeeper between victims and secular authorities, rabbis still can J and will
J choose to suppress evidence of sex abuse whenever they think it appropriate. That this
problem has not even been recognized by the Orthodox communityKs leading authorities is
an indication of the enduring strength of the very hierarchies and prejudices that, as we
argued above, have always worked against victims of abuse.
That these hierarchies are alive and well at Ohel is evident from the fact that the agency
continues to name Rabbi Dovid Cohen as its chief advisor on matters of Jewish law J
including the reporting of suspected crimes to secular authorities J and, in fact, singled him
out for honor at its annual dinner in February 2011. Reportedly, Rabbi Cohen has taught
publicly that Jews may steal from non-Jews or defraud non-Jewish governments, Oas long as
one doesnKt get caught, according to people in attendanceP (Jewish Week staff reporter, 2009).
2.4 Religious rationalizations for non-reporting
We must now examine some of the specific rationales given in Orthodox communities for
refusing to report suspected Jewish child abusers J or other criminals J to secular
authorities. While these are matters of religious law, it will be seen that the interpretation of
these concepts by contemporary rabbis is subject to, and an expression of, the underlying
attitudes of the Orthodox community toward its surrounding communities and toward the
issues posed by reporting one of Oits ownP to the representatives of non-Jewish institutions.
Only when these attitudes, and their effects on members of the Orthodox Jewish
community, are properly understood can we fathom the acts of institutions like Ohel.
2.4.1 M"sirah
Talmudic law contains a prohibition against mLsirah, or the OtraducingP of one Jew by
another to an extortionist (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) in order to cause the victim an
injury. Although, strictly speaking, the law has nothing to do with reporting to law
enforcement authorities J in fact, the Hebrew word mLsirah does not mean Oinforming,P as
often stated J the Talmud already cites a malicious report to a non-Jewish tax official as an
example of such forbidden Otraducing.P
4
The reason for this, according to a typical
explanation found in an influential nineteenth-century commentary, was entirely the result
of the ugly experiences Diaspora Jewish communities had suffered at the hands of rapacious
tax farmers and similar Oofficials,P who were often hostile to the Jews and in general were
little better than common criminals.
5
The consensus of contemporary Orthodox authority is
that the principle of mLsirah does not prohibit reporting suspected criminal assaults
4
Babylonian Talmud, Baba Qamma 116b-117a; Gittin 7a.
5
Arukh ha-Shulhan, Hoshen ha-Mishpat 388:7. 192 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
(including sex abuse) by a Jew to secular law enforcement authorities, certainly not in a
country with a functioning justice system (Dratch, 2009, p. 116).
That, however, does not prevent Orthodox Jews from condemning those who do report sex
offenses to authorities as if they had, in fact, committed a cardinal sin. Nearly all of the
Orthodox Jewish sex abuse victims who have spoken to the authors have described being
sternly warned not to report what was done to them to police. Indeed, the authors have both
been accused, by many Orthodox Jews, of committing mLsirah ourselves simply for
publishing the facts of a few such cases. Clearly, the force of the principle has slipped its
moorings in Jewish law and has taken on a life of its own. In fact, a declaration signed by
fifty prominent rabbis appeared in a Yiddish-language Brooklyn newspaper in 2000, openly
encouraging the murder of anyone who informed on a fellow Jew to secular authorities
(Neustein & Lesher, 2009, p. 201).
Obviously, mLsirah is a handy club to swing at abuse victims who speak out. As a rationale
for refusing to report crimes against children to police, however, it is does not pass muster
with experts in rabbinic law.
2.4.2 Lashon ha-ra
MLsirah is probably the most frequently invoked rationalized invoked by Orthodox Jews for
failing to report crimes against children, or for discouraging others from making such
reports. However, apart from the question of OtraducingP a fellow Jew, there are two
separate but related issues that often appear in the discourse.
Jewish law contains a prohibition against slander, gossip and tale-bearing, collectively
referred to in Jewish literature as Olashon ha-ra.P Although it is commonplace for Orthodox
community members to accuse abuse victims of violating this prohibition whenever they
speak out about their experiences, this J like the invocation of mLsirah discussed above J
quite plainly amounts to an abuse of Jewish law. As Rabbi Mark Dratch explains, using the
prohibition to intimidate genuine victims from speaking out is itself lashon ha-ra:
OLashon ha-ra can be a tool of abuse, both when derogatory speech defames innocent
people, destroying their reputations, and when warnings to refrain from derogatory
speech are used to silence victims of abuse who cry out for help. . . . Victims of abuse
need to speak out, for all kinds of personal reasons, in order to help themselves. . . . And
the community needs to speak out in order to hold the perpetrators responsible and in
order to protect other innocents from potential harm.P
It is evident that the claim of Olashon ha-raP will not take one any farther toward a OdefenseP
of non-reporting of child abuse than the parallel issue of mLsirah. Still, members of the
Orthodox community quite commonly invoke it to achieve exactly that result. Even
Orthodox journalists are not immune. As the authors reported in 2002, an Orthodox news
writer named Alan Borsuk has claimed publicly J and incorrectly, in our view J that being a
religious Jew and being committed to publicizing the truth are, to some extent, inconsistent
values because of the Jewish laws against lashon ha-ra:
OThe worlds of Orthodox Judaism and newspapering have some very different
philosophic premises. JournalismKs cardinal tenet of laying out the facts and letting the
chips fall where they may is definitely in conflict with Jewish traditionLs strong emphasis
on not saying things that unnecessarily harm others, even if they are true. . . . The neutral or What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 193
accepting position that the news media take on a lot of social and lifestyle issues is very
different from the strong stand Judaism takes . . .P (Borsuk, 1997).
BorsukKs assumption that truth-telling runs afoul of OJewish traditionKs strong emphasis on
not saying things . . . even if they are trueP was carried even further by an Orthodox Jewish
anchorwoman for a local television news station whose viewing area included parts of New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut. When one of the authors sought the stationKs news
coverage of serious allegations of a sex abuse cover-up at Ohel in 1987, the Orthodox
anchorwoman personally contacted her to urge her Onot to publicize the alleged scandal,P
because Oit was far better to have a rabbi settle the matter than to air it in the press.P As we
have previously reported, OThe station never aired the story until the anchorwoman left the
station several years later; thereafter, its feature length piece covering the story won an
Emmy AwardP (Neustein & Lesher, 2002: p. 83). Once again, Jewish law J as understood by
experts J cuts one way, but cultural attitudes, fears and prejudices cut another.
2.4.3 Hillul ha-shem
A final rationalization used within Orthodox Jewish communities to silence victims of abuse
is the prohibition against hillul ha-shem, which means Oa desecration of GodKs name.P The
phrase itself requires some explanation. OTraditional Jewish law,P writes Rabbi Dratch,
Odeems an act committed by a religious Jew that arouses public disgust (particularly on
the part of non-Jewish observers) a ldesecration,K in effect of God Himself, since in the
eyes of the Talmud Jews are identified with God through the responsibility of observing
His lawP (Dratch, 2009, pp. 116-117).
It is not difficult to see why the principle of hillul ha-shem is improperly applied to a truthful
report of a violent crime. It is not the report of the act that constitutes the offense, but the act
itself. To quote Rabbi Dratch:
OFirst, it is the unethical behavior in and of itself J not merely discussing it J that
constitutes a desecration of GodKs name. The abuser, not the abused, has committed
hillul Hashem. . . .
OSecond, when efforts to deny or suppress the truth about a crime are exposed, the
scandal is much greater than the exposure of the crime alone. And Jewish tradition
insists that scandalous behavior will always come to light despite efforts to keep it
hiddenP (Id., p. 117).
In a word, not only is reporting child abuse to authorities not an example of hillul ha-shem, a
failure to report it actually amounts to a massive violation of precisely the same principle.
Certainly, this element of religious law cannot be invoked to justify refusal to report such crimes.
It is fair to say that not one of the appeals to elements of Jewish law commonly deployed
within Orthodox communities to defend a policy of suppressing abuse reports can
withstand scrutiny. Yet the practice continues, for reasons we have already attempted to
explore. Let us now turn to some of the typical results.
3. Some relevant histories
In 1990, on Yom Kippur J the most solemn day of the Jewish year J eight-year-old Yaakov
Riegler was stabbed to death by his mother with a kitchen fork. The case attracted 194 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
considerable public attention because, it turned out, Ohel J which was responsible for the
boyKs care at the time J had been clearly warned that the boyKs mother was dangerously
violent. Still, rabbis working with Ohel and the Jewish community overrode the
admonitions of the cityKs child welfare administration to keep the child away from his
abusive mother. Although this was not a case of child sexual abuse, it illustrates J as far too
many sex abuse cases do J the power of rabbis working in concert with Ohel to override
secular agencyKs authority to protect children.
In the wake of the boyKs brutal killing, child welfare experts did not mince words in their
criticism of Ohel. Clara Hemphill, writing for New York Newsday, reported that just weeks
before the stabbing, Ohel had learned alarming facts about the boyKs condition. However,
Orather than call the State Central Registry in Albany J as required by law J officials said
they called a Child Welfare Administration office in Manhattan which had nothing to do
with the case. Ohel officials,P according to Hemphill, Ocould not offer an explanation why
they called the unit [in Manhattan] rather than the state hotline. Child welfare experts were
astonished by the blunderP(Hemphill, 1990, p. 23).
Brenda McGowan, a professor at Columbia UniversityKs School of Social Work and an
expert in foster care, commented to Newsday that OhelKs decision to call the unrelated
Manhattan office, rather than the State Central Registry, was OinsaneP (Hemphill, 1990, p.
23). McGowanKs was not a lone voice. Many child advocates and experts on foster care were
just as astonished. What must not be forgotten is that Ohel is not an obscure institution
working far from state authorities. Rather, it is a state licensed foster care agency with a
multimillion dollar annual budget, much of which comes from New York and federal
money. (In fact, Ohel pulls in even more government money than its budget reveals. For
example, in fiscal year 2010 alone Ohel was awarded $900,000 in federal OearmarksP J that
is, extra disbursements approved by individual Congressmen J approved by the laterdisgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner, who in turn had received a substantial campaign
contribution from OhelKs Executive Director, David Mandel.)
Yet the non-reporting in the Riegler was far from anomalous. Health care professionals
connected with Ohel have stated openly that notwithstanding state law which mandates
abuse reports to state authorities by such professionals, they J as observant Orthodox Jews J
will not make such reports without first consulting a rabbi. For example, Dr. Susan
Schulman, a Brooklyn pediatrician and a member of OhelKs Advisory Board, openly
declared in a recorded lecture she herself circulated that she always asked a rabbi before
making a legally mandated report, even knowing that by doing this she risked prosecution
(Fifield & Lesher, 1996). (Although Dr. SchulmanKs astounding statement has been
publicized in print at least since 1996, Ohel chose to feature Dr. Schulman on a video it
produced, ostensibly to promote OawarenessP of child sexual abuse, as recently as 2009.)
Similar evidence of OhelKs position on child abuse reporting can be gleaned from the
example of Rosalie Harman. Ms. Harman, a former senior-level supervisor for New York
CityKs Child Welfare Administration (CWA), testified at a New York State legislative
hearing chaired by Senator David A Paterson (who later became Governor of New York)
that she knew of a CWA employee whose responsibilities included overseeing Ohel.
According to Ms. Harman, once the CWA employee began to express her Osuspicion of
fiscal irregularities with that agency . . . and asked for someone from the state to come and
review the practices of Ohel she was . . . stopped in her tracksP and Otaken away from that
teamP that oversaw Ohel (Harman, 1993, pp. 34-35). What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 195
The authorsK years of investigation into abuses at Ohel confirm that the examples cited
above define patterns that continue to inform OhelKs handling of child abuse allegations.
The following three cases J all of which involve non-reporting of suspected child sexual
abuse by the agency J typify the sort of problems our research has repeatedly uncovered.
3.1 Stefan Colmer
The outrage of the Stefan Colmer case is that it might never have happened. Before Colmer
was ever criminally charged with sexually abusing two boys J for which he ultimately
served a jail sentence J he participated in an OoffenderKs programP run by Ohel, a program
supposedly intended to help protect the Orthodox community from further abuse from
OoffendersP like Colmer. Yet he abandoned the program prematurely in 2002, without
having been successfully treated, simply because he had decided to get married and didnKt
want to inform his new wife that he was a pedophile. During the following years, he
sexually abused at least two thirteen-year-old boys.
The astonishing thing was that, from the time Colmer dropped out of its offendersK program
until his arrest (in Israel) in 2007, Ohel did J nothing. It made no attempt to find out where
Colmer was, or what he was doing, or whether he was spending any time alone with young
boys. It never attempted to communicate with the Brooklyn religious school near which
Colmer settled and from which, according to police sources, he lured potential victims to his
house. In light of these facts, the Jewish Week reported,
OColmerKs case raises several thorny questions: Should Ohel have agreed to treat
Colmer, knowing that he had never been reported to the police? Is there a will on the
part of the community and its institutions to reform reporting policies and practices to
plug what appears to be a gaping hole in the reporting system, one that leaves children
unprotected from men like Colmer? And, most pressing of all, who, in the end, should
bear responsibility for what happened to the two innocent 13-year-old alleged victims
of Colmer, whose lives will likely never be the same?P (Winston, 2009b).
In our view, other questions might have been added: Why didnKt Ohel have a fixed policy
that would have triggered some sort of action in the event Colmer refused to complete an
agreed-upon therapy program as an offender? How many other dropouts were there from
OhelKs offendersK program, and what did the agency do about those? CouldnKt a program
whose ostensible purpose was to protect the community have included a provision, agreed
to in advance by the offender, that violation of OhelKs rules would result in, say, a report to
the police or (assuming no crime had yet been committed) appropriate notification to
protect potentialvictims? The fact that Ohel has offered no answers to any of these questions
suggests that the Colmer case, unfortunately, does not stand alone.
3.2 Avrohom Mondrowitz
Avrohom Mondrowitz fled Brooklyn for Israel in late 1984, just as police were closing in for an
arrest in what may be New YorkKs worst-ever case of serial child sex abuse. Authorities believe
that Mondrowitz J who was an administrator of a school for troubled youth, and a Ochild
psychologistP (with a fake diploma) who OtreatedP children J sexually abused well over a
hundred young boys, nearly all of them Orthodox Jews. He fled to Israel, which refused to
extradite him. Justice continues to elude his victims, despite extraordinary efforts to renew the
case against him, in which one of the authors has figured centrally (Lesher, 2009). 196 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
For our present purposes, the most important point is the fact that Mondrowitz obtained
several of his victims from Ohel J and that the agency did nothing in response to their pleas
for help (Lesher, 2009, p. 157). This allegation was made in print as long ago as 1999, when
one of the police detectives who investigated the Mondrowitz case Otold The [New York]
Post that his 1984 investigation,P while leading him to the conclusion that Mondrowitz had
molested Ohundreds of children J including some Ohel orphans,P was stymied Owhen cops
tried to question the agency.P According to the detective, OThey werenKt cooperating. . . .
lKids . . . had complained to Ohel and it was swept under the rug . . . [and] never reported.KP
Ohel officials have denied the detectiveKs allegations. But one of the authors has personally
interviewed one of MondrowitzKs other victims, who clearly remembers speaking, years
ago, to an Ohel foster child who told him J and his parents J that he had reported
MondrowitzKs abuse to Ohel officials, who had ignored him (Montero, 1999). The credibility
of OhelKs denials in the Mondrowitz case may be gauged from the following case history.
3.3 Simcha Adler
Two typical themes dominate the case of Simcha Adler, a camp counselor employed by
Ohel who, according to his victims, repeatedly raped them at knifepoint. First, Ohel seems
to have made every possible effort to minimize the offenderKs punishment and to silence the
victims. Second, Ohel claimed not to know of any danger posed by the abuser when, in fact,
evidence suggests it did know.
According to press reports, Adler repeatedly and violently abused his eleven-year-old
victims at a summer camp where he was their counselor, and then continued to molest and
rape them at Ohel, where both were foster children. Yet the boysK complaints to Ohel
officials were ignored J for more than a year J Ountil a worker caught [Adler] straddling
Michael,P as Douglas Montero reported in the New York Post.
Amazingly, although Ohel officials knew the abuse had been severe and chronic, it stood by
silently as Adler plea-bargained for a sentence that did not involve even a single day of jail
time. Still more amazingly, the plea bargain was concluded less than two months after his
arrest.
Despite charges of sodomy and sexual abuse that could have resulted in a sentence of more
than twenty years in prison, court records reveal that AdlerKs punishment was minimal: five
yearsK probation and psychological counseling. His victims only learned of AdlerKs plea deal
years later, and were outraged, as Montero reported:
OKItKs a crime that he could walk away . . . and have a normal life,K said Michael, now a
mailroom worker in Midtown. lThis man ruined my life.K . . . . lI was [angry], but I
couldnKt do anything J I wasnKt smart enough to do anything,K said Robert, now a City
College freshman who wants to be an optometristP (Montero, 1999).
Here, in a nutshell, is a vivid illustration of OhelKs priorities. Ohel took no action when the
boys complained of heinous abuse for over a year; Ohel never accepted any responsibility
for what was done to them; Ohel never talked to the boys about the status of the criminal
case. (One of the victims remembered OvaguelyP that an Ohel officer told him, after the fact,
that Adler was getting Oprobation; other than that, there does not appear to have been any
communication between Ohel and the victims about the prosecution of their assailant.) What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 197
OhelKs only clear priority was self-protection: both victims charged that OOhel swept the
abuse lunder the rugK to avoid a legal battle that might ruin its reputation.P
This confirms the first theme mentioned above: Ohel acted to minimize the consequences
suffered by the abuser (and thus, by the agency itself), while doing nothing to aid the
victims. This would be bad enough; but in fact, it goes hand in hand with the second theme
J that Ohel knew far more all along than it admitted J as duly reported by Montero:
PA former Ohel employee told The Post the boysK allegations were not taken seriously
or investigated by Ohel because Michael was thought to be a lliar.K . . .
PThe owner of a Borough Park building where Adler, until recently, had been living told
The Post that the former counselor J who married in December and moved to Jerusalem J
admitted to her several years ago that he was a pedophile. She said his confession came
after Ohel officials knocked on her door and told her to keep an eye on her childrenP (Id.)
This is a singularly damning juxtaposition of facts. On the one hand, Ohel would do nothing
for the victims because it assumed J why, we are not told J that the eleven-year-old accuser
was a Oliar.P On the other hand, at the same time Ohel allegedly allowed young boys in its
care to be raped at knifepoint, Ohel officials quietly warned the abuserKs Orthodox Jewish
landlord Oto keep an eye on her children,P which was all it took to elicit a OconfessionP from
the abuser J though the Orthodox landlord, like the Ohel officials, apparently had no
qualms about keeping the confession a secret.
This illustrates a kind of doublethink at work in Ohel that can only be explained as an
intellectual method of protecting a culturally-ingrained set of priorities. OhelKs position
cannot be described simply as refusing to believe young boys who reported abuse. In fact,
the agency did believe them, or believed them at least enough of what they said to try to
protect someone elseKs children. But the agency did this only when it could act without
publicly acknowledging the reality of the victimsK abuse and without forcing it to confront
the abuser. What is at stake here is not simply ignorance. It is a systematic arranging of
priorities so as to preserve the community homeostasis described above. Unfortunately, this
approach has the effect of further victimizing children entrusted to its care.
4. Solutions
While the sort of fundamental rethinking of abuse issues that must take place if institutions
like Ohel are to be truly reformed is likely years away, practical short-term strategies may
still be suggested. This is particularly true because Ohel receives government money, which
makes it accountable to state child welfare authorities, as well as to the federal government,
as discussed below. The first major steps toward reforming the agency require little more
than the political will to exert power already inherent in government authorities.
4.1 Federal mandate
Some years ago, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
for the purpose of helping the states create and maintain more effective child welfare
systems.
6
The authors believe that this federal statute has the potential J so far,
6
42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 5116 et seq. 198 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
unfortunately, unused J to support a detailed federal inquiry into the child welfare system
of any state that accepts federal money under this statute, as New York certainly does
(Neustein & Lesher, 1999). Such an inquiry could, and should, include an examination into
the proper oversight of agencies like Ohel. Has the agency complied with state reporting
laws? Has it met government standards for maintaining the safety of foster children in its
care? If not J and our research suggests it has not J federal funding should be terminated, a
penalty that would almost certainly spur reform.
There are also federal civil rights statutes that OhelKs officials may be found to have violated
if they have knowingly suppressed the reporting of child sex abuse. For example, Section
241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, provides that a conspiracy of two or more people Oto . . .
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United StatesP is a
federal crime. Since access to the court system is just such a Oright or privilege,P this means a
concerted effort by Ohel officials to prevent a child abuse victim from pursuing a criminal
charge may justify federal prosecution. This point should be borne firmly in mind where
OhelKs acts are at issue.
4.2 Investigation
Because of OhelKs close relationship with secular authorities, it necessarily falls under
additional regulatory authority. To some extent, therefore, the nature of OhelKs apparent
wrongs suggests its own remedy.
The first logical step would be a thorough investigation by the governments that have
funded Ohel J those of New York City, New York State and the United States J to ensure
that those funds have not been misappropriated. We have already discussed additional
authority for such a probe under CAPTA. In any event, the misappropriation of government
funds for an improper purpose (for example, the personal enrichment of an officer) would
probably involve a violation of law.
OhelKs role in the non-reporting of suspected abuse to authorities might also implicate
federal civil rights statutes, as discussed above. Even where there is no criminal violation,
the facts unearthed by a federal investigation might support civil litigation by victims who
were wrongfully intimidated or pressured not to approach police for protection.
5. Conclusion
This chapter aims at offering some guidance to scholars, advocates and policy makers who
grapple with problems similar to those posed by Ohel. Ohel does not stand alone. It is quite
possible that other institutions serving other insular, fundamentalist religious sects also act
in violation of secular law and in violation of the public trust.
Analysis of Ohel is important for another reason. Given OhelKs central role in a closely knit
and family-oriented Orthodox community, we must now consider and observe what
happens when such an iconic institution comes under scrutiny for possibly violating
mandates related to child welfare and safety (not to mention confidentiality).
Finally, we have attempted this exploration of Ohel because we believe that what has
happened at Ohel, under the auspices of religious authority ostensibly designed to protect What Went Wrong at Ohel Children=s Home +
and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 199
and nurture children, demands serious scrutiny from anyone concerned with the future of
child welfare in todayKs religious communities. Many such communities enjoy
unprecedented political power and opportunities in the United States. These opportunities
can be used for good J as when community members use religious values to impress the
importance of compassion and human dignity on political institutions J or they can lead to
abuses. The authors hope to see the sort of abuses we have observed at Ohel quickly curbed
so that both religious and government values may be better served in the future.
6. References
Barrett, W., & Bowles, J. (1994). Unorthodox Politics: Did Joe HynesK Jewish Communityh
Ties Influence Four Cases? The Village Voice, (September 6, 1994), pp. (13-18)
Borsuk, A. (1997). Old fashioned Jew, Old Fashioned Reporter. Neiman Reports, Vol. 51, (Fall
1997), pp. (15-18)
Brown, E. (2009). Straying the Course: Can Jewish and Secular Leadership Archetypes Rein
in Religious Leaders? In: Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities & Child Sex
Scandals, Amy Neustein, (Ed.), pp. (60-73), Brandeis University Press, ISBN 978-1-
58465-671-5, Waltham, MA
Butler S. (1999). Because I Remember Terror, Father, I Remember You, by Sue Silverman:
Reviewed by Sandra Butler. Journal of Religion and Abuse, Vol. 1, No.1, (1999), pp.
(103-108), ISSN 1521-1037
Chayil, E. (2011). Orthodox Jewish Child Abuse: Shattering a Traumatic Silence, One Voice
JFCAdvocacy@yahoogroups.com, (August 1, 2011)
Dratch, M. (2009). A Community of Co-enablers: Why Are Jews Ignoring Traditional Jewish
Law by Protecting the Abuser? In: Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities &
Child Sex Scandals, Amy Neustein, (Ed.), pp. (105-125), Brandeis University Press,
ISBN 978-1-58465-671-5, Waltham, MA
Dorff, E.N. (2009). Foreword, In: Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities & Child Sex
Scandals, Amy Neustein, (Ed.), pp. (ix-xiii), Brandeis University Press, ISBN 978-1-
58465-671-5, Waltham, MA
Fifield, A. & Lesher, M. (1996). A ChildKs at Stake: A Custody Fight Becomes a Political
Nightmare. Village Voice, (October 1, 1996), pp. (10, 12-13)
Featherman, J. (1995). Jews and Sexual Abuse, In: Sexual Abuse in Nine North American
Cultures: Treatment and Prevention, Lisa Aronson Fontes (Ed.), pp. (128-155), Sage
Publications, ISBN 0-8039-5435-2, Thousand Oaks, California
Glick, M. (2000). Dealing With OOrthodoxP Child Molesters: A Response to the
CommunityKs Response. Jewish Press, (February 4, 2000), pp. (87-88)
Greenberg, I. (1990). Abuse in Jewish Families: Rabbis Can Help by Speaking Out. Moment,
Vol. 15, No. 2, (April 1990), p. (49)
Harman, R. (1993). Public Hearing on Family Court System. New York State Legislative
Hearing Record, (May 14, 1993), pp. (32-44)
Hemphill, C. (1990). The Agony of Yacov Riegler: Bureaucracy Fails to Save Brooklyn Boy.
New York Newsday, (December 16, 1990), pp. (6, 22-23)
Lesher, M. (2009). The Fugitive and the Forgotten: Cracking the Cold Case of Rabbi
Avrohom Mondrowitz, In: Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities & Child Sex
Scandals, Amy Neustein, (Ed.), pp. (126-162), Brandeis University Press, ISBN 978-
1-58465-671-5, Waltham, MA
Lesher, M. (2011). Their BrothersK Keepers : New York Should Stop Funding Separate,
Private Police Forces for Orthodox Jews. New York Post, (July 31, 2011), pp. (21-22) 200 Sexual Abuse + Breaking the Silence
Mendelsohn, A. (2011). Wall of Silence: Sex Scandals in Religion, Cogent/Benger Productions,
Inc. (May 16, 2011)
Montero, D. (1999). Victims Learn Kid-Sex Fiend Served No Time; Nightmare Lingers for
Kid-Sex Victims, New York Post, (September 21, 1999), p. (3)
Neustein, A. & Lesher, M. (1999). Legislative Solutions to the Protective Parent Backlash.
Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, Vol. 25, Nos. 2-3, pp. (19-26)
Neustein, A & Lesher, M. (2002a). Does the Jewish Community Sacrifice Victims of Sexual
Abuse? Jewish Exponent, Vol. 211, No. 22 (May 30, 2002), p. (37)
Neustein, A & Lesher, M. (2002b). The Silence of the Jewish Media on Sexual Abuse in the
Orthodox Jewish Community, In: Sex, Religion, Media, Dane S. Claussen, (Ed.), pp.
(79-87), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., ISBN 0-7425-1557-5, Lanham, MD
Neustein, A. & Lesher, M. (2008). A Single Case Study of Rabbinic Sexual Abuse in the
Orthodox Jewish Community. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 17, Nos. 3-4,
(September/October 2008), pp. (70-89), 1053-8712
Neustein, A. & Lesher, M. (2009). Justice Interrupted: How Rabbis Can Interfere with the
Prosecution of Sex Offenders J And Strategies for How to Stop Them, In: Tempest
in the Temple: Jewish Communities & Child Sex Scandals, Amy Neustein, (Ed.), pp.
(197-229), Brandeis University Press, ISBN 978-1-58465-671-5, Waltham, MA
Shafran, A. A Matter of Orthodox Abuse. Jewish Week, (June 23, 2006)
Silberg, J & Dallam, S. (2009). Out of the Jewish Closet: Facing the Hidden Secrets of Child
Sexual Abuse J And the Damage Done to Victims, In: Tempest in the Temple: Jewish
Communities & Child Sex Scandals, Amy Neustein, (Ed.), pp. (77-104), Brandeis
University Press, ISBN 978-1-58465-671-5, Waltham, MA
Staff Reporter (1991). Family of Sex Abuse Victim Driven From Home by Mob. Guardian,
(August 2, 1991), p. 11
Staff Reporter (2009). OhelKs Halachic Advisor: OK To Cheat on Taxes? Jewish Week, (June 10,
2009)
Winston, H. (2009a). Brooklyn DA Announces New Plan To Urge Reporting of Abuse. Jewish
Week, (April 2, 2009)
Winston, H. (2009b). A Suspected Pedophile Eludes the System. Jewish Week, (May 6, 2009)
Winston, H. (2011a). Abuse Case Tests OhelKs Adherence to Reporting Laws. Jewish Week,
(February 23, 2011), pp. (1, 8)
Winston, H. (2011b). Ohel Campaign To Bolster Image Questioned: In wake of Jewish Week story, social service agency shared confidential files about abuse case w
