“Good people” can be found everywhere – be careful when choosing your friends

One of my ex-clients, and actually a good friend as well, wrote this note asking my opinion: Should she send it to her ex-husband?

Hello Ploni,

It has been brought to my attention (yes people actually called me) that you have mentioned me, …. mentioning your ex-wife and her children in a conversation you had with Almoni online!

I find this airing of your personal issues totally inappropriate and a violation of my privacy and my children’s, especially on a public forum.

I would like you not to ever mention me or my children. If any future … mentioning your ex-wife, her children or our relationship I will consult with a lawyer about libel and privacy issues.

Thank you,

Leah

After I heard what was said by Ploni according to these “good friends” and after reading his response below, I was convinced that the best way for them to deal with this matter was to let it go.

This was the answer Leah received from Ploni.

Dear Leah,

 I understand how you and some of the people you know might find similarity to our situation based in just about any conversation I have regarding divorce, however, as you know I handle many such conversations in my line of work.

The truth is that there are probably a couple dozen stories that apply to thousands of cases handled by lawyers, courts, social workers, government clerks, etc. throughout Israel and the US.

The reason I have these online conversations about divorce and family dynamics is because I’m trying to help others avoid the problems and prepare them for the possible outcomes of their behavior. I want them to seek help through mediation and avoid divorce – just as I had hoped would have been the outcome of our relationship.

It was not my intent to hurt you in any way. If you can provide me with the specific sentences and their online location that you find offensive, I will find a way that your concerns are resolved.

I wish you happiness and peace,

Ploni

After this simple answer, Leah could not really provide any specific offensive sentences.

The first question I asked Leah was: “Can you tell me what kind of “friends” are these and how are they helping you in life?

If these are Leah’s friends I don’t want to know who her enemies are. These “good people” are nothing more than pariahs of society looking out for their own personal agenda – all they want is “Riv and Madon”. There is no doubt the best interest of Leah was not in these “friends’ mind” but some other interest – maybe a personal agenda against Ploni or some kind of inner desire to cause harm to others by using the most effective weapon known to humanity “Lashon Hara”!

I told Leah to save her time and money. We live in a democracy and mentioning someone or the nature of their past relationship or even some details of their divorce is not a crime, not here and not in any other country that I know!

What is not acceptable is to mention personal details of that person’s life or any detail of a minor but in this case it was clear that Ploni was only talking about the grief and the mistakes he and Leah had made in the past. There was no personal attack or even the disclosure of any personal details.

Court rooms are never a good place to be and are the last place you want to “solve” a libel dispute. It will only bring out more hate, bad feelings, adding more fuel to the fire and possibly more libel.

A divorce or a dispute between friends is already painful enough, therefore, adding “lashon hara” will only cause more pain and more hate.

Even if you feel “bad” or “responsible” for a friend, don’t do it! Hold your tongue and refrain from “helping”.

The title of the article is the beginning of a real and true story, the case of which has yet to be decided. Although the story is extremely recent and true, the names and some details were changed in order to keep the real identities private.

Background: The Parents

Martha met Jacob in Israel when she came to visit as a tourist with a peregrine group of Protestants from South America.  Jacob, a Jew born in Israel, found her to be an amazing and interesting woman; it was “love at first sight”!

They married and left Israel for the US. There, 3 children were born including Jonny, a 19 year old serving as a soldier in the IDF’s infantry for over half of his compulsory service of 3 years.

I was contacted by Martha who told me their story… After few unsuccessful business ventures in the US, Martha and Jacob moved to Israel when Jonny was 12 years old. The relationship between her and Jacob was very tense. During the years they had lived in the US, Jacob earned his MBA degree, and despite the fact that he had a good job, they were almost financially broke. It seems that Martha had been in control of the family’s finances and spent beyond their income!

In Israel, Martha continued spending much more than they could afford accumulating almost 150 thousand dollars of debt in 4 years.  Jacob, who was eventually diagnosed as “Depressive” or “Manic Depressive” (not clear to me yet), remained passive regarding their finances.

Martha left Israel after a long and painful battle in court, losing custody of the children to Jacob. I never saw any of the legal papers regarding custody therefore there is nothing I can contribute about that case, but after speaking with both parents (even though I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist), it is clear to me that they are both severely in need of professional psychological counseling.

The Soldier

Martha wanted my help to check on her “child”, Jonny, who was being held as a detainee in a military base jail after refusing to show up for service for almost two months (in Hebrew a deserter is called ARIK). Jonny had been brought in front of a military Judge and received an “ultra-light” punishment of 14 days in jail.

In speaking with the father, who has filed for bankruptcy, he told me that he had instigated and encouraged Jonny to be a deserter (!) and a deserter Jonny became – believing that the army had not treated him fairly.

Jonny has seen 5 military psychologists (KABAN), 1 military psychiatrist and 2 others privately. They all think Jonny is mentally capable of serving in the IDF despite of his emotional problems and immaturity.

The parents promised Jonny that they would provide him with the best university education in South America, financial help and fulfillment of a few other dreams I am convinced they could never financially make happen. Jonny believed all these promises and therefore decided not to go back to his duties as a soldier, claiming that he had to support his father and help raise his brothers, etc.

In order to help Jonny, I had to contact friends in the military DA’s office and after few days I was permitted to visit him and obtain a promise that his sentence would be shortened thus providing Jonny with a new start.

I spoke to Jonny, a sweet boy but very spoiled and somehow emotionally dependent on his parents. Jonny told me he had asked his parents endless times not to fight using him and the brothers as weapons but they would not listen.

Jonny asked me to help him to be released from service. He was ready to renounce his Israeli citizenship on the spot. He wanted to be released in order to go back to his mother in South America. I explained to him that this was not possible and gave him the following analogy:

Let’s say I am an Israeli and Uruguayan citizen. I go to Uruguay, enter a local bank and rob it, but am caught later. In court or in the police station I ask to renounce my Uruguayan citizenship and ask to be released in order to go back to Israel.

Just to make it clear: when you transgress a law in a country hosting you, you are under that country’s jurisdiction and nothing will help you to get away without punishment.

Jonny was released that same day after speaking again to a psychologist. Jonny promised me he would consider finishing his compulsory service in the IDF. No, I don’t think he will finish his service or honor his promises, but I did what I could.

As much sympathy as I have for such an unfortunate situation involving the lives of these 5 families members, I cannot agree with the parent’s behavior. It is a pity they have learned absolutely nothing from this event; they are still behaving as if nothing had happened in the last few weeks.

Parents should not interfere in their children’s choices regarding the IDF. This is a compulsory service, an obligation of the child and not of the parents.

To be a soldier in the IDF is not only an obligation, but a great honor. The right to wear a soldier’s uniform in the only Jewish army in the world is an enormous honor. Respect and enjoy this honor that wasn’t afforded to most of our grandparents – an honor and responsibility they would have happily taken upon themselves.

So many times as a lawyer, as a simple citizen and even as a husband I have asked the same question again and again: have I tried everything? Have I given my all to this matter? Have I really done all I could? So why were the results so negative? Why didn’t I succeed in fixing my mistakes?

How could I have avoided my own divorce? How could I have prevented myself from making such wrong decision or bad choice in life? I don’t have all the answers, but recognizing and taking responsibility for  the mistakes we’ve made in the past is the first step toward helping ourselves not repeat these same mistakes again and again.

As a lawyer, I know that I am not the only one asking these questions about various life experiences. Each one of us is confronted once in a while with a situation we can’t handle in spite all our efforts.  I am sure we all made mistakes we tried to mend unsuccessfully feeling deep disappointment for failing. Making mistakes is just human and unavoidable but also provides a very good lesson on how to improve our skills in life.

You cannot win all your battles, as you cannot successfully overcome every difficulty you encounter in life – no one can win all and this is why it is recommended and wise to pick your battles carefully.

I am not a saint and cannot perform miracles, yet too many of those seeking help from us, and even some of my regular clients, expect me to find miraculous solutions to problems they themselves have created. Unfortunately, too often, what these clients are looking for is an easy way out and they learn absolutely nothing from their mistakes.

To these clients my message is simple and clear: despite my willingness to help, I just can’t help them before they take the first step to mend a mistake. People must take full responsibility,  stop blaming others and be ready to pay a price when necessary – and sometimes there is no way out without paying a price.

The price for a mistake will be paid not only by you

As we will learn from our recent true case still to be decided in court, the mistakes we make will have lifetime repercussions not only for those involved in the case, but also to the entire family and even friends.

Lora, an Argentinean living in the US, met Morris, a nice and attractive Israeli. Soon after their meeting, she realized that she was in love with him and hoped that he would be the answer for her. She was over forty, not married and wanted not only a companion and friend, but a child as well.

Together they made a decision and a year after their union, Ilana who is 4 years old today was born. The couple had ups and downs in their relationship but managed to “survive” the bad times, mostly Morris’ bad times due to his addiction to light drugs and his very unstable business nature.

Six months ago Morris told Lora, he must leave American soil in few days because he was there illegally for too many years and the authorities had tracked him that day. He was asking her to accompany him just for a short period until he could find a way to go back to the US. Lora agreed to do so.

In few days they had sent a container to Israel with almost all their belongings. They arrived in Israel into a most threatening and stressful situation for a woman. Lora had no family or friends in Israel but Morris had a big family in Israel, Lora didn’t speak Hebrew, Morris was a native. All her belongings were in that container, yet Morris had more than enough to start his life in Israel without the container. Lora wasn’t even a regular new immigrant with standard benefits due to the lack of advance notice that she had to quickly prepare to move to Israel.

Two weeks after arriving, Morris already had another woman, was taking drugs again (after rehabilitation in the US) and therefore, there was no more need for Lora. As a result she could be disposed of and this is was what he did.

One night when they had a discussion regarding his inability to provide for the family while spending money in unimportant things (by that time she didn’t know that the money was being spent on his new affair), Morris called the police claiming Lora had turned violent and was threatening him. Lora was arrested but released after a few hours after being questioned by the police, and having her DNA, pictures and fingerprints taken. Eventually the accusations were dismissed and the case closed for lack of any criminal act.

The day the police released her they did so after issuing a restraining order so she could not get near Morris, but had the child given to her that same day. Morris gave her a suitcase with some of her clothes and sent her away from the apartment he had rented.

Lora was alone, had no income, no job, didn’t know Hebrew and learned the hard way the dangers of being extremely dependent on one other person as was her case.

Morris sued for custody but somehow with help from the family, Lora left Israel two days before a ban impeding her and their child from leaving the country was issued by the court. She is now safe in Argentina trying to recuperate from the experience.

The consequences:

Ilana will now be separated from her father because Lora will not let Morris get near the child. Ilana will have to adapt to another country she never knew without a father and being “overprotected” by Lora who fears Morris can find them and cause them harm somehow.

The grandparents from Morris’ side who had a good relationship with the granddaughter will probably never meet her again.

Lora’s friends gave Morris a big loan as soon as the couple arrived in Israel but now Morris doesn’t want to pay them back claiming they helped her to leave Israel. Because it is a civil dispute it may take years before these good people see any of their money back.

All wrong decisions:

Lora should know better, she should never have agreed to be totally dependent on a man who was from the first day a “non-committed” husband; never wanting to take any responsibility for his acts including  illegal business, drugs and more.

A word of wisdom:

Making such a drastic move, coming to a new country without any previous preparation is an invitation to be in a difficult situation, but coming as a new immigrant totally dependent on another person regardless of who he is, is nothing short of insane.

Don’t do it and don’t let your friends do it without at least warning them of the clear danger.

Rebbe Menachem Mendel of Kotzk once told us:

“If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!”

I suggest you ask yourself, are you doing what you want to do, what you believe in, or are you just trying to please others? Do you have your own rich inner world or are you just an “empty vessel” trying to fill yourself with ideas you’ve heard from others around you?

The Kotzker Rebbe also said:

“People are accustomed to look at the heavens and to wonder what happens there. It would be better if they would look within themselves, to see what happens there.”

Don’t try to change the world before you have succeeded in changing yourself. You may find that real progress and change can be a long and painful task that could take up to a lifetime.

This also applies to any type of relationship:  a family cell, a “regular” marriage, a common law marriage, or a friendship.

Sally’s latest adventure:

Sally was an overly nice non-confronting woman everyone loved. Her husband Harry was the opposite; he was a dominant, tough personality people refrained from confronting. Sally constantly “gave up” or asked Harry to make the decisions for them. So Harry embraced his role seriously.

Sometime in the relationship Sally changed, or so she thought. She began demanding her share of the decision-making role. Now this could have been a good and healthy sign, if it was a sincere change on Sally’s part. Unfortunately, it wasn’t.

Sally was not only demanding her share – she now began blaming Harry for every wrong decision “he had made in the past”. In Sally’s eyes, Harry was the only one to be blamed.

And so I ask … “why is there this need to blame someone”? The answer is simple – there is never any need to do so. Blaming someone else can only serve one purpose, Sally was simply avoiding reproach herself. Feeling guilty, she found that blaming others was an easier solution. After all, if Harry was “guilty,” then poor Sally was innocent.

Sally’s problem was much deeper than not being able to confront others. She was in denial of the roots of her inability to confront, coming from a deep inner emptiness. Sally had yet to find her true self; in the meantime, she let others take control of her life and decide what was good for her.

Somebody was always ready and waiting to control Sally, including her siblings. So eventually when Harry was “disposed” of as a husband, Sally’s children and even her therapist quickly took his place. Like clockwork, somebody was always in control of Sally’s mind, leaving no room for her own thoughts.

Sally continued to do a fantastic job of pleasing everyone, but the cost was high. Now after her third divorce, she was already in a new unstable relationship.

Divorce or separation is never a solution:

Divorce is never a solution, yet somehow so many people choose divorce (or a break up when unmarried) to solve their problems. Separation is a clear escape from our problems we should be confronting, rather than running away from.

When you choose to separate all you really know is what you are losing or giving up. You never actually know what you will get in exchange. In general, it’s easier to save a marriage than start a new life with a new partner. You can’t predict the true nature of your future relationship before you’ve already entered in deep.

The solution:

In a family unit no one should ever be blamed, be made guilty or appointed the sole decision maker. Working together as a family is essential to making the unit work. Yet unfortunately most couples are too busy with power struggles rather than focusing on the most important joint venture of a family: running the show together!

When young Rabbi Eleazar of Koznitz was a guest in the house of Rabbi Naftali of Roptchitz, he once cast a surprised glance at the window, where the curtains had been drawn. When his host asked him the cause of his surprise, he said: “If you want people to look in, then why the curtains? And if you do not want them to, why the window?” “And what explanation have you found for this?” Asked Rabbi Naftali.

“When you want someone you love to look in,” said the young Rabbi, “you draw aside the curtain”.

How many times have you heard someone saying: “I will not tell you because you will not understand”? Didn’t you feel bad? Isn’t it condescending to say something like this? It is very clear that the chances you can understand what the other has to say are 50% but if they don’t tell anything, the chances are zero. This is a good way of not communicating and achieving absolutely nothing in life, but very often too many people do it in a relationship.

In a marriage:

I can recall few times where I’ve heard couples in my office telling each other this strong sentence: “you will never understand even if I explain it to you”. It is true that some people will need some help to understand some emotions, others will have a hard time accepting a new concept and few others will not understand because there is too much bad vibes going on between them, but in spite of the existing chances the other side will not understand, one must try to communicate and not discount the other side.

Working as a mediator, I’ve seen a marriage saved by a simple opening of one of the spouses. It is always a new and good experience to see how narrow the differences between two people can be and how easy it can be to bring them back together and closer again.

In a client – lawyer relationship:

Too many people (and I am talking especially about Americans here) “hide” information from me when seeking my help and advice. Too many people are even rude when they feel their privacy has been invaded or their private life exposed. As a result of having only partial information, I find myself incapable of making a decision regarding their problem or sometimes even unwilling to help them at all.

I always ask the person’s age and my answers for that same question may differ from one to another because of their ages. I may want to see someone in person if I feel he/she is too emotional or too young to accept an answer they will certainly not like or have a hard time coping with over the phone.

Years of experience with many hundreds cases has taught me that an in-person interview and a lot of information can make the difference between a happy end and a bad end of a case brought to me. I still struggle with people insisting I answer them by phone with a short answer but don’t give up; it must be my way because in the end it is my name and my reputation and also the future of these people.

In a divorce case:

Our “slogan” in the office is: Don’t you ever lie to your physician or your lawyer.

How frustrating it is to find out in a court room from the other side’s lawyer that you have been told only part of the story, part of truth or even worse: You have been lied to by your own client! One can never win a case with lies from his own client. We can work with any wrong-doing of a client if we know what he/she has done in advance, but we need to be prepared and not be taken by surprised by the contender side.

In a criminal case:

Doesn’t matter what you have done, your lawyer must know the truth. If you hide information from your lawyer you will certainly be in eminent danger of losing in court. Remember that the DA, the police or any other government office involved in your case (such as the tax authorities, for example) will have a lot of information in your case but your lawyer who is not a detective or never suspected you, has no information at all.

The more information and details you give your lawyer the better your chances he will find flaws in the case in order to help you. As a result your chances will be better if you confide with your lawyer and tell him everything.

A very personal touch:

When I heard my best friend using this strategy with me and telling me I would never understand, I knew it was over. It would never be the same between us and we will never be friends as we used to be because now instead of mutual trust and understanding I sensed a new and extremely high wall being built between us.

I knew that from that point forward my ex-wife and best friend would be, at most, a good acquaintance and unfortunately I wasn’t wrong.

Introduction:

Too many divorces occurs in Israel, too many families are been destroyed and too many people hurt. As I have written in previous articles, most of these divorces could be avoided if the system in Israel would follow a different approach. But not only in the system do we need a drastic change, we need to change our perceptions, take responsibility and try new ways to confront bad situations.

Add ADD or ADHD to the conflict and you have the best recipe for a stormy divorce – often a stormy and unnecessary divorce. The problem begins with the diagnosis as we know that most adults with ADD or ADHD were not diagnosed until they were already adults.

ADD:

One of the most clear articles I have read about ADD in adults was written by Dr. Ron Weinstein, Ph.D (http://www.addcentre.co.uk/translatingADHD.html) and I will try here to give some practical advice using Dr. Weinstein’s own words and my professional experience dealing with divorces.

Communication or the lack of good communication:

The lack of good and sincere communication is the most impacting factor in divorces and as Dr. Weinstein wrote below, regarding adults with ADD the situation can be more extreme.

“Many of the arguments and the resulting rages, tantrums or cold shoulders that arise between people in close relationships can often be traced to differences in perception and communication style. How we see and make sense of the world around us influences how and what we communicate to others. This usually becomes apparent to anyone involved in a relationship with someone who has AD/HD. Developing an understanding of these differences is essential to effective communication.”

“Good communication depends on people understanding one another’s true thoughts, regardless of the words they happen to be using. Since our brains work so much faster than our mouths, we often use a kind of shorthand, which might have an entirely different meaning for another person than it does for us.”

Unlike a “non-AD/HD” brain, which runs on batteries, the brain of an adult with AD/HD is like a wind-up watch that requires winding periodically throughout the day. The non-stop circulation of thoughts and ideas in the brain of a person with AD/HD provides stimulation and is a wonderful source of creativity, but it often creates difficulties with communication… the meanings of the words spoken and the priorities placed on tasks are quite different for the individual with AD/HD. It’s as if they speak a different language. This results in miscommunication, misinterpretation and misunderstanding! Thus we often hear, “That’s not what I meant!” or “You don’t understand!”

“A thought process begins when a question is asked. The person responding must stop, listen to what is being asked, compare this information to previous experiences, choose an option and then respond. The person with AD/HD most often has difficulty in step one – stopping. As such, the process does not occur and, like the balls in the lottery machine, what comes out of the mouth is often a surprise even to the person who said it! This happens because of the difficulty isolating individual thoughts in a brain that’s constantly being filled with new ideas. The spoken word only becomes real when it is uttered aloud. It is only after the word leaves the mouth that the AD/HD individual can decide whether or not it makes sense, and whether or not it’s appropriate. So the statement, “I didn’t mean that” should be taken literally.”

Not every behavior is acceptable:

Physical violence or any type of extreme abuse is not an option. It doesn’t matter how sick a person is, that behavior is not acceptable. These types of behaviors must stop even before a couple seeks professional help and if it can’t be stopped, it is better to separate and start therapy living in separate dwellings. 

“Neither partner in a relationship has to accept unacceptable behavior. When a person who does not have the disorder seeks a support group to help deal with a partner with AD/HD who is sloppy, has frequent outbursts, or is unable to hold a job, in some cases, our advice is to forget it! Behaviors that lead to disorganization, screaming or unemployment can be changed, but only if the person with the problems is able and willing to make an effort to change…”

We need changes but we can only change ourselves – not our partner:

“Most adults with AD/HD were not diagnosed until they were adults. Throughout their lives, they have suffered a great deal of pain. Many have had to develop coping mechanisms to help them survive. Over time, the constant pressure of trying to cope with their problems brought on by their new ways to cope can bring about stress. As a result, some adults become overwhelmed, depressed, anxious and lose confidence. Since we can’t go back and change this history, we need to move forward and realize that the efforts we put into our personal growth create hope for a changed life. Newly diagnosed adults finally have an opportunity to closely examine their lives in a more reflective and meaningful manner and to understand why they made the choices they did. But as we are aware, just understanding doesn’t guarantee anything will change.”

Don’t let it go – Don’t let the person you love go away:

When you let your marriage slip between your fingers you are letting go of your other half. You may find another half, a new half just to learn that you have lost your best half ever!

Try everything you can think of:

Don’t give up easily, try again and again. Have no fear of being rejected and remember that most probably there is no way back if you let it go.

When I say try everything I mean every new way you haven’t tried before. Don’t do the same things again and again because if your strategy didn’t work yesterday chances are it won’t work tomorrow.

Regarding strategy, consult with friends, better with those divorced. Ask about their failures and success and try to adapt their success to your situation avoiding the same mistakes they have made. Use creativity, but above all be sincere and kind.

Listen to the professionals but don’t rebuke your own good instincts:

Professionals can and usually do make a difference, but don’t forget that they are humans, they have their own agenda and own moral values. They tend to work with the tools they have, their values and their own success and failures.

In the end it is all about you and not them. If a professional tells you something like: “I think you should divorce” or “She/He is not for you”, watch out because as a result of his private opinion you may do something you will regret. This is about your marriage and not the therapist’s.

Let it go:

If you have tried your best, with good and true intentions but unsuccessfully, only then is it time to let it go completely and start a new chapter in life.

Accept your losses and start looking forward to new horizons, a new life. And never look back. Don’t feel guilty or sorry – accept facts as they are: FACTS.

A very personal touch:

I could myself have avoided my own divorce in spite of all the problems we were having with my ex-wife’s six children, which in my view resulted in the deterioration of our personal relationship.

Blaming the problems on the children was the biggest mistake. And it took me a long time to understand the basic formula of changing your own perception and behavior before trying to change anyone else. Don’t make that mistake!

Maturity and Immigration

Part of the needed maturity is accepting responsibility and reality. If a person cannot accept life as is he will be in eternal struggle with himself and with the entire world.  How many times have you found that you are powerless? You just can’t change reality? If you can’t change reality you have to accept the facts as they are – as the REALITY.

Coping with reality and accepting our limitations has become a big issue in our generation and as I have pointed out in my previous articles, we as educators are not doing a good job teaching the next generation a most important emotional toll: Coping with disappointments and being realistic in order to confront the real life out there in the real world.

If you are a new immigrant things are most probably more complicated because besides the language and mentality barrier you are now in an unknown zone regarding several issues you used to be in complete control of in your former country. As a result, frustration and disappointments are common causes of increased pressure.

You can complain, you can be upset or even be frustrated but in the end you have to remember that you are now in a new country, a different society, different lifestyle and specially different life standards! Yes, you will find here many standards that don’t fit yours and are “behind” your expected standards from abroad. Still you will have to get used to this until you can make changes with the legislators.

It won’t be because you are mad at the service you receive in the Ministry of Interior (as an example) that they will change the rules for you even if you are a hundred percent correct and believe it’s in your rights to be treated differently or better.  You will need to accept facts as they are and cope with reality otherwise you will find yourself being refused service – as happens so many times.

If changes are not made within a reasonable time according to the new immigrant, the end is always the same: good, yet immature, people will pack and go back to where they came from if they can afford or stay in Israel and feel miserable.

Maturity and Marriage

In a marriage these two don’t pair as we will learn from the following story. One of those true and sad stories where there is a possibility to have a happy ending but because we have so much trouble maturing, these stories end in a sad and unnecessary divorce.

Harry and Sally were like two little kids playing in a sandbox constantly fighting for this or that tool and pushing each other. When they were mad not coping with the frustrations they had created, they behaved as is expected from little children – they fought. But in the end they resumed their friendship. What they never did was to learn how to cope with the frustrations because “children are immature and cannot cope well with frustrations”.

They finally divorced and went separately to therapy where something eventually started to change for them as individuals.

Harry started learning the hard way to look at himself with maturity and began taking responsibility for his behavior and mistakes. He was not in despair and didn’t feel guilt because he knew guilt was an impairing feeling he should avoid. Instead of being devastated, he decided to rebuild his life.

He tried to approach Sally, hoping to rebuild trust and to give their relationship a second chance after so many years of marriage. Sally wouldn’t give an inch. Not because she was vengeful, but because of her lack of emotional tools and mainly because she was still the same immature person struggling to grow up.

Sally was a prisoner of the “reality” she created for herself. She was living in fantasy but calling it reality, therefore, she was incapable of taking full responsibility for her acts or her inability to cope with her former partner. It was easy for her to blame Harry and stay in the “safe zone” she had insulated herself in since she was a child. She was that same child today – a beautiful and intelligent child in a woman’s body.

It was revolutionary (or as some call him, terrorist) Ernesto Guevara (Che) who once said: “For great causes courage and audacity is needed”  and indeed courage is needed to reach full maturity in life, especially if you are already “old”.

In order to mend a divorce one will need a few essential ingredients; a small, yet very real “revolution”. Among others, one will need some good and new changes as follows:

Courage to accept life as is, courage to say “I have made mistakes – it was my fault as well”.

Responsibility is another essential ingredient because if you don’t take full responsibility with no “buts” you will be stuck in the old behavior of blaming the other side for your own doing.

Perseverance is key to success because one has to dare and try. One must fight to fix the mistakes and dare to believe it is possible and doable.

Audacity to claim a new chance, but courage to accept NO as an answer.

Harry is finally happily remarried but Sally decided to remain in the same safe zone avoiding a new and serious relationship because her “sandbox” was too small and somehow still unprepared to be shared with someone else.

Words of Wisdom

As a family mediator and divorce lawyer I have witnessed too many cases like the one I have described for you. My advice to anyone who is facing a challenge like this is:

Remember! You can only change yourself and not the other person.

“ג וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אָהַב אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִכָּל-בָּנָיו–כִּי-בֶן-זְקֻנִים הוּא, לוֹ; וְעָשָׂה לוֹ, כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים”

“Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a coat of many colors”

The Torah (Genesis 37:3) tells us about Jacob’s (Israel’s) preference for a certain son named Joseph. We all know the result of this preference, which caused the selling of Joseph and subsequently so much pain and distress to both father and son.

History is supposed to help us build a better future by teaching us lessons from our past mistakes and through understanding how to make better decisions in the future. However, as clear as it should be, we human beings are not good learners from past experiences. A very good example is the case presented in the Supreme Court (בע”מ 4990/12), which was decided on November 13, 2012 by the Honorable Judge Mr. Handel (born in the US and who made Aliya in 1983).

The regular procedure in court is that an inheritor asks a court or a Rabbinic Court (or the Rasham Hayerushot) to have a testament (will) certified by the court (Bakasha Le Kium Tsavaa) after the testator’s death.

The case:

Our case deals with a request by one of two brothers (the inheritors) to have a testament (will) certified by the court – and the opposition presented by the other brother.

The case was first introduced in 2007 in the Family Court in Ramat Gan and decided by the Honorable Judge Mr. Gaifman in favor of Mr. Z – in spite of the opposition presented by his brother, Mr. M, who lost the case. As a result, Mr. M (the Applicant) appealed in the Appellate Court. Losing again, the Applicant asked the Supreme Court to review the case in a last chance to have the testament made by his diseased mother revoked, changed or sentenced as ‘null and void.’

The 13-page decision, written by the Honorable Mr. Handel, is a lesson in family conflict, on human nature, and on emotional pain due to discrimination. In my opinion, this case should never have gone to the courts, but instead to a panel of mediators and psychologists.

There is no controversy regarding the fact that the testament strongly and clearly discriminated between the two brothers. The mother left each of them a piece of land, but where Mr. M received land evaluated in 2001 (when she wrote her will) of around $2.400.000, Mr. Z received a piece of land evaluated at around $ 200.000 only – meaning that Mr. M. received 12 times more. A substantial difference indeed.

Mr. Z tried to convince the courts that his diseased mother had written her will out of ignorance of the facts regarding the value of the land. He cited “wrongful or unfair influence” by his brother, but every one of his arguments contesting his brother was repelled in the different courts.

In the background, there had been years of conflict among the family members – including violence. This case is not the fruit of a legal dispute born from a testament, but a result of years of bad conflict management among family members. In his decision, the Honorable Judge quoted another court decision as follows:

“The goal of the law and its rules regarding an examining of the validity of a will is to determine whether, and to what extent, the will reflects the true wishes of the Testator in his commandments on the will and be sure that it was written with a clear mind and was not subjected to unfair influence”

The Honorable Judge quoted not only the law – different decisions from other cases in the Supreme Court – but also Jewish scholars and even the “Rambam” (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon) as well.

The Judge was perplexed as to the extent of the discrimination, but did not change his opinion that the Appellant hadn’t convinced the court that the will wasn’t “Kosher.” He wrote as follows in a final decision:

“I admit without shame that a will like this before me, so blatantly discriminatory between the two sons, without any previous disconnection between the testator (the mother) and her son the Appellant, raises clear questions. The power of these questions can cause the Court to examine whether this will reflects the desire of the mother, or if it was done by mistake, which could justify the requested amendment of the provisions on the will or even revoke it. However, since it was clearly proved in court that the editing and the signature of the will, are not controversial and there are even external circumstances reinforcing the contents of the will, the burden of the proof rests on the Appellant’s shoulders to show that a mistake was done and evidence must be presented.”

“Law and family are not considered closely to each other. The encounter between them occurs in times of crisis on the family, and not on moments of success” (“DANA 1892/11” 22.5.2011). Even in times of crisis, the power of the Court is limited. The Court is subject to the provisions of the law, and which, based on the facts established in this case, I think dictated the two previous court’s decision as well as the result of this decision. Inheritance law does not restrict the liberty of the Testator to discriminate between his children, and it is on the Appellant’s shoulders seeking to eliminate or invalidate such will based on provisions of the law. However, the Court cannot, and we do not, pretend to give a comprehensive response to questions that arise in difficult situations in the life of a family.”

This is a quintessential case whereby discrimination has not caused the deeper conflict, but it certainly could intensify it. It would be noble from the respondent to behave on the reservoir of the law (“Lifnim Meshurat Hadin”), and find a way to appease even slightly the opinion of the Applicant, his only brother.

The decision was to deny the request and leave the previous decisions unchanged – the will is “kosher.”

A word of wisdom:

Many times I have had clients come in to ask for legal help when, in fact, all they needed was a good mediator and/or a good psychologist. The lawyer is a professional dealing with the law, and as much as we try we are not in the “soul and emotional” business – we are in the law business.

When seeking legal advice or legal representation, please try to leave emotions behind and bring in as much logic and rationality as you can.

Edited by Jennifer Rojas

Agrat Televisia is the Hebrew name of another one of the various types of taxes we pay in this country. This is one of the most ridiculous ones but due to “politics” it is not abolished and who knows if it will ever be abolished. Instead of saving millions abolishing this office called “Reshut Hashidur – Hagaf Hagvia” or the collecting department for the TV agency in charge of the TV management or at least combining this department with the National Insurance, VAT or the Taxes Authority’s collecting department, the State of Israel is providing an enormous amount of “unnecessary jobs”.

This department has created a system using hired lawyers, to collect unpaid taxes (Agrat Televisia). These lawyers have no problem sending letters and charging a very high fee for each letter sent or suing those who dare not to pay the Agra when requested. I am one of those who dares not to pay, who hasn’t paid these taxes for more than a decade and won’t be paying in the future all for the very simple reason of not having a TV!

For various reasons, I “gave up” on having a TV in the year 2000 and haven’t had one since.

A personal saga:

My deceased father z”l was a very sick man as a result of a head stroke he had back in 1996. When we decided to move him in 2004 to a home for senior citizens, I as his legal guardian and the son who was taking actual care of him, decided to buy a TV set and have it installed in his room in the “Beit Avot”.

In order to have a TV in the senior home, one must buy one and here is how I made my first big mistake. My father was impaired and suffering from an early type of dementia and thus could not possibly buy a TV for himself. Therefore I went and bought him one using my real name, my ID and my address.

In 2010 after receiving many letters from the TV collections department I lost it and sent them a harsh letter. This was my second mistake because a few weeks after that I was served – I received the “green paper” from the “Otsaa La Foal”. From there I ended up last week in court for the second and last time after a Judge finally decided on MY case.

The question was a legal one. Does the “possession” of a TV as required by law commence when a person buys a TV or when he owns and uses or at least has the physical possession of that TV set?

The law is clear regarding the “use” one does with his TV set. It doesn’t matter if you watch TV or use the TV as a furniture piece never turning it on. The Agra must be paid if you HAVE a TV regardless of the use of it or even where you keep it – in your house or in your neighbor’s house.

My point was clear: I had purchased a TV but I had breached the law because I never sent a registered letter to the collecting department stating that the TV was bought by me for someone else. By not notifying them, yes I had breached the law, I agreed.

I also claimed that I acted as any reasonable person would act when buying a TV for his sick father therefore if I could prove that indeed I didn’t have a TV or even “possess” a TV, I was to be exempt of these taxes.

I had a copy of a letter I sent to the authorities in 2010 and this was enough for the years of 2010 until today but not for the seven years before 2010 (seven years being the period established under the statute of limitation law of how far back can a person be sued for such a violation).

The Judge agreed with me in principle but was having a hard time convincing the other side; she believed me on one hand and agreed with my legal analysis on the other. The plaintiff’s lawyers were not letting me get off the hook and wanted the case to go to the next step – the hearing and cross examination of the witnesses – when an idea hit me.

I crossed the room walking straight to the opponent lawyer holding a 10 shekel coin in my hand. The Judge was looking at me a little amazed but let me proceed.  I then asked the lawyer if he was willing to do me a personal favor and go out for a second and buy me a coffee. He was very confused looking at me and at the Judge and finally answered yes he would as soon as we finished the hearing. My next question was: “tell me please; when you bring me back that coffee what are you going to do with it”? He said it was MY coffee therefore I could decide what to do.

This is the answer I was looking for because now I could triumphantly tell him: “No. From the moment you took my money and bought the coffee for ME; this coffee becomes automatically YOURS as in our case where I went to buy my father a TV for him, for his use and to be in his possession in the Beit Avot!

In spite of his complaint,  telling me it wasn’t the same, he didn’t agree, etc. the Honorable Judge of the Shalom Court in Ramle Mrs. Papkin told the lawyer she saw no difference and she agreed. The case was dismissed and I was sent home without having to pay a penny.

What have I learned?

Acting in the heat of the moment with powerful people or a powerful governmental office, such as the collecting office, was not very wise. I should have tried to explain and send another letter, one much more polite than the one I sent.

I’ve also learned that as a lawyer I should know better and learn the procedures before I act. All I had to do by law was to send a registered letter with a declaration explaining the facts and I would have not been sued.

A word of wisdom:

If you have a problem and you are not sure how to act or what the letter of the law is, please consult a lawyer – if he doesn’t know he’ll find out the correct answer before advising you.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and many state constitutions as well as state and federal laws protect freedom of speech. However, this “freedom” is not absolute; the United States Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from this clause.

Among these exclusions include the publication of obscenity, child pornography laws, speech inciting imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising or any publication that may put national security at risk.

The point of these limitations on constitutional freedom is to find a balance between the right to free speech and other significant rights, such as those of authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (i.e copyright and patents), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons or the use of slander.

Despite these exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American Jurisprudence. Ironically, despite Israel’s eternal “state of emergency” regarding national security, it has one of the most liberal approaches on this subject.

It seems natural that Israel’s Anglo community would be less in favor of censorship, yet it’s not the first time I’ve experienced fierce opposition to my divergent opinions on a variety of subjects on Anglo Israel’s popular “JANGLO” list.

Last week I posted my weekly “voleh article” on Janglo. The headline read:

As a lawyer and a loyal Israeli citizen, I feel responsible and unafraid to confront any topic, including the explosive issue of a judge accused of hitting his children.

I imagine that the following statement will be unpopular, but I will state it, nevertheless. I think it is high time that more people from within the legal system begin to express divergent opinions, even if they are unpopular (http://lawadv.com/an-explosive-issue/).

It’s not the first time articles I’ve attempted to publish on Janglo have been blocked and this time I decided to ask why. I received the response below within two minutes, and it didn’t surprise me at all: “Hi Tzvi. Janglo is not a place for people to make public statements about whatever they want. That post was inappropriate for Janglo. Shavua tov”.

And so I ask, what kind of changes do we want to make in this country? Is our present situation perfect or even good enough? Do we not need to change anything? Of course if everything were perfect then there would be no need for criticism, or to publish any controversial issues. How many of you truly believe there is no need for change? Or room for a divergent opinion? Is there no reason to apply freedom of speech in Israel?

I am not talking about publishing an issue regarded as illegal or dangerous to national security, nor am I publishing pornography. I am writing about a very problematic situation: the deterioration of the already low “Parental Authority” and how to cope with this situation.

This issue was never “taboo” and even MK’s such as Rabbi Ravitz z”l and others have tried to amend the laws and change the judiciary approach. But as we all know, the issue is very problematic and any “unpopular opinion” can be damaging to the next election. Therefore we will not be seeing many, if even one MK trying to pass any bill on the subject.

The facts are what they are: The situation has deteriorated; crime among children is rampant and there is no national plan on the horizon.

A public debate on issues that may seem uncomfortable is still a legitimate debate and by censoring this debate we will get nowhere. It’s time to deal with unpopular issues even if they are “explosive,” because the only way to deal with what is wrong is to actually deal with it rather than ignore it.

Jordana Shay, Founder
www.TheWritingCompany.co.il

As a lawyer and a loyal citizen of the State of Israel, I feel responsible and unafraid to confront any topic, including the explosive issue of the judge accused of hitting his children.

I imagine that the following statement will be unpopular, but I will state it, nevertheless. I think it is high time that more people from within the legal system begin to express divergent opinions, even if they are unpopular.

In general, I am not against the right of parents to use some type of punishment to discipline their children. However, I am not in favor of violence against children as a method of education. We must find a middle road. In Israeli society today, thousands of parents are indicted every year. Children as young as five call the police to report their parents. A slap in the face can destroy an entire family. This state of affairs must end!

I am well aware of the issue of violence against children, but it’s time to stop, reorganize and rethink our values as a society. We have lost parental authority, crime in general is rampant; and the cycle is perpetuated because violence generates violence.

The problem is the balance between parents’ needs as educators and, with today’s endless limitations, the scarcity of educational tools. Society is creating a younger generation that has no respect for its elders and children are not prepared for adulthood because they have very few boundaries imposed upon them.

Parents are desperate for “peace” in the home, where they do not have to “confront” their children. This is frustrating because more and more children are learning that they can (or think they can) “get their own way,” only to grow up and find that real life is quite different. In addition to being unprepared and immature, many children are raised with parents giving in to their every whim, which causes them to live in denial and remain ignorant of real-life challenges.

The dimensions of this social disaster will be felt in the next generation. We are creating a society of competitors; not a society in search of excellence. We are deepening the gaps between the rich and the poor, the big cities and the peripheries; and we are still searching for high IQs instead of high EIQs (Emotional Intelligence Quotient). We will end up with a lot of geniuses who are incapable of marrying, or even socializing.

Below is a bill presented in 2000 by MK Rabbi Avraham Ravitz (1934-2009), who served in five governments (the 12th to the 16th). The bill was not approved, but still provides a very good solution to the problem of deterioration of parental authority.

שרותי משרד/הצעת חוק/1405ד

הכנסת החמש-עשרה

הצעת חוק חושך שבטו שונא בנו (התרת ענישה חינוכית), התש”ס-2000

דברי – הסבר

ילד אינו רכוש של הוריו, אך מוטלת עליהם חובה מוסרית ממדרגה ראשונה לחנכו.

אם במסגרת חינוכו נדרש להעניש את הילד ענישה הגובלת במכה שאינה מזיקה ולכן אינה בגדר “אלימות”, הרי שהדבר לא יחשב לפגיעה בחסר ישע, ויוכלו הורים להשתמש באמצעי זה מתוך מחשבה חינוכית ובמידה.

———————————

הוגשה ליו”ר הכנסת והסגנים

והונחה על שולחן הכנסת ביום

כ”ט באדר א’ התש”ס – 6.3.2000

Conclusion

At the very least, we must remain aware of the long-term dangers to our society as a result of the prevailing beliefs with regard to children’s rights. We have to remember that – before we demand a child’s right to eat – we are obligated to feed him!

As difficult as it sounds, a child’s right to express his opinion by refusing to obey his parents must end where his parents have the obligation to educate and prepare him for real life.

Edited by Freyda Abrams

freyda.abrams@gmail.com

When an Employer sends his employees to work at another’s premises he cannot evade all responsibility for the safety of his workers at the other’s premises. It is the employer’s duty to take reasonable precautions to avoid exposing his employees to unnecessary risks and thus preventing potential injury from occurring. What would be considered reasonable precautions depends on all the circumstances of the matter, and it changes the case of the incident.

This was the question posed to the Honorable Judge Mr. Achsan Knaan of the Nazareth Court (case 6630-06) and decided on October 14, 2012 as follows.

The Defendant:

A Personnel Company (“Chevrat Koach Adam”)

The Accident:

The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for bodily injuries caused in a work related accident where the plaintiff was sent to work at another premise (third party). The task was to unpack heavy wood stacks on the third floor of a concrete building which was under construction. The plaintiff was holding on to a concrete pillar when his hand suddenly slipped and he fell from the third floor suffering injury all over his body.

The Judge’s decision and rationale:

The Judge found the employer guilty of negligence, stating that: “A Personnel Company that sends its employees to other work locations is required to make sure that the workplace has proper safety measures in place.”

Even if the workplace where the employee is sent to work (at the third party’s premises) is not controlled by the employer but by someone else, from a practical aspect it’s still the employer’s duty to undertake reasonable precautions to protect the employee against the risks that he knew or should have known about the existence of potential danger.

The plaintiff was granted 160,000 shekels in compensation in addition to more than 40,000 in legal expenses.

A personal touch:

As you now understand, the reasonable person is requested not to “predict” the future but to understand that he is sending his employees to work in a different environment where he, the employer, has no direct control, therefore the only “control” he has is not to send the employee to work in a dangerous place.

Personally I have a very hard time with this conclusion. I think we are asking too much from the employer and we are not handing any responsibility to the employee who is the person on the premises and the best person to evaluate the situation and decide whether or not to report a potentially hazardous condition to his employer in order to make a mutual decision.

We are all responsible:

Israel is unfortunately at the top of the list regarding workplace accidents and mostly due to pure negligence of the parties involved and I am not only talking about the employer and the employee but the entire system that is supposed to monitor the safety of the employees at the workplace.

There are many laws and  regulations to safeguard the employees’ health and safety conditions. The problem is the poor implementation of the laws combined with almost nonexistent “preventive education” in the Israeli Society.

Conclusion:

It’s up to you to be careful, open your eyes and monitor the work conditions and your safety in order to be able to return home at the end of the day safe and sound to your family.