Deb Tambor, Shulem Deen, and Us…

The tragic and untimely death of Deb Tambor this week brought to the fore a painful and troubling issue, well-articulated in a  Tablet magazine article written by Shulem Deen, another ex-Skver Chassid who like Deb Tambor was estranged from his own children.

Deb was raised as Skver Chassid in New Square NY, near Monsey. She married, had two children, and then drifted from the Chassidic lifestyle and chose a different way of life. The couple divorced, her husband got custody of the kids, and she had limitations and challenges with visitations. This stressed her out, she became depressed and seemingly took her life because of the loss of contact with her children. I do not know all the details of her upbringing, their marriage and divorce, and her recent death, which are all important – but that is the basic gist of the story.

The matter of her non-Chassidic friends being blocked by (some in) the Skver community from attending her funeral, while certainly not as sad as her death itself, added salt to an already very deep wound.

Obviously virtually no divorce is easy on parents or the children, and the added religious barriers and conflict makes it much more complicated. Personally, without knowing the particulars (which are crucial), and without passing judgment on an entire community, I feel that that the insularity, intensity and extreme protectionism of this ultra-Chassidic sect is quite extreme. I, too, am ultra-Orthodox, and Chassidic, albeit of a very different sect and community. While I understand some of where they are coming from, I can not agree or accept their positions on this issue and treatment of Deb and Schulem (based, of course, on the details presented).

My point here is not to agree with or defend how Deb Tambor or Shulem Deen were treated. I understand and empathize with their hardship and heartbreak, their frustration, pain and angst. It is possible as Shulem suggests that elected judges serving that community are reluctant to take a stand against the communal will. And I do not doubt that both Deb and Schulem have been subject to continued harassment and pressures. But there is an important legal custody issue that Schulem Dean missed in his well-written article, namely: Status Quo.

Family court judges usually seek the path of least disturbance to the child when awarding custody. Status quo is a quasi-objective standard, and therefore the parent who changes from the status quo is almost always at legal disadvantage. Suppose for example that the children attended a certain school for several years, supported by both parents, and now in the divorce proceedings one parent wants them changed to a different type of school, the burden of proof to make that change is on that parent. The default approach in most cases would keep the children in the original school.

This may seem unfair, and perhaps at times it may be. But  let’s also consider the other parent. This couple got married (supposedly) sharing certain values and dreams, and then one parent decided to change to a whole different path. The reader or observer may side with one way or life or the other, but that is of no consequence here. Drastic change from the existing status quo is given much weight in family court.

Usually when speaking at Friday Night Shabbat dinner, I try to steer clear of such painful, controversial and weight issues. Why am I sharing this story with college students?

I share this because of one extremely important lesson we can take from this story: Be thoughtful and careful about who you marry and choose to have children with. Think long-term, recognizing that critical differences such religious belief, values and observance may develop into majorly divisive issues, huge sticking points later on in life, especially with children. Obviously, growth and change is continuous throughout life, but once you marry and have kids, you are in some ways stuck with that person – and their ways – for life! Even divorce can’t always change that.

I understand that in that certain ultra-Chassidic communities young people may have less choice in whom they marry. That was probably the case with both Deb and Shulem. And even in most other communities, where people do make such choices on their own, the reality remains that even with the most careful choices and best intentions, marital strife and divorce is still a possibility. Yet, let us lessen the risks by making careful, wise and long-term choices when seeking a spouse.

Let me end with a blessing. This week we read the story of Noah and the Flood. While their world was destroyed around them, Noah and his family were together on the Ark. May each of us have that blessing. No matter what happens in the world around us, may we be blessed to be together with our loved ones on the same boat, journeying and traveling together.

———-

Postscript:

Since I shared this on Friday Night, quite a few students have shared with me their personal experiences, many of which reflected this point in their own family lives. For some it was an opposite story (but same issue) when parents married originally secular or less observant and one parent chose to go back to his old family traditions or become more observant. For others it was non-religion related, more of when one parent chooses a very different lifestyle than the marriage began with… and so on.

On one hand I felt uncomfortable bringing up a sensitive and emotionally charged issue, but from the student feedback it appears that it meant a lot to people and was food for thought.

I also heard back from Shulem Deen, author of the above-mentioned article. He insists that change in the status quo has little or nothing to do with the estrangement from his children. He also shared some of the efforts he took on his end to try and mitigate changes so that his own children could be comfortable with his visitation time etc. He insisted that I speak to people going through it before commenting.

A few quick notes:

I am no expert on these matters, and while I’ve seen quite a bit (unfortunately) in several different community-types, I am not privy or aware to what goes on in the more insular Chassidic sects where his issue was, as was Deb Tambor’s. In addition, there’s a big difference between awarding custody and making court-approved long-term choices for children in divorce proceedings (where status-quo often can play an important role) and limitations on weekly (or however arranged) visitation times.

Kids need to know and connect with both parents, and parents ought to have access to their children. As long as parents are mindful and respectful to the extent possible, do not undermine or negate basic needs and requirements of the other, and try to do what’s best for the kids – at minimum visitation certainly ought to be encouraged for the best benefit of the children. Also remember, in Shulem’s case, he did not lose connection with his children in family court, but due to estrangement coming from his ex’s family and communal pressures etc.

Toward this end, in situations where “traveling on the same boat” is no longer possible, let me add this blessing: May each parent strive to build the best “boat” possible for their kids, without torpedoing and undermining the other parents “boat”.

Is my point above (status quo) still valid? I think so. There are always exceptions, and communities or families that may take it to unhealthy extremes. And it may not apply in the issues that Shulem is addressing. But like it or not, it works both ways. Like Shulem wrote me: having two parents is also a status-quo. It remains a legal issue, a reality, and something to think about as we plan our futures with others.