Case of Cantor Steven Joel Levin
(Steven Levin, Steve Levin, Steven J. Levin)
Los Angeles, CA
Cantor - Jewish Community Center in White Rock, Surrey, British Columbia, CA
Cantor - Har El, West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Former Cantor - Beth Israel Synagogue, Vancouver, British Columbia, CA
Former Cantor - Burquest Jewish Community Association, Coquitlam, BC, CA
Bachelor of Music - California State University, Northridge, California
Allegations were made against Cantor Steven Joel Levin of child molestation. There was also a seperate allegation of professional sexual misconduct by another party.
It is common knowledge in the Jewish Community of Vancouver regarding the controversy of the allegations of professional sexual misconduct. The end result was for Steven Levin's contract at Beth Israel Synagogue to be terminated. Like in many other cases there was a split in the membership, the community will never be the same.
Cantor Steven Joel Levin is currently employed by Burquest Jewish Community and the Jewish Community Center (JCC) of White Rock, BC.
Levin is currently a cantor in good standing in the Cantor's Assembly of North America. They have been aware of the allegations for over a year. Please feel free to contact them to request they hire an appropriate organization to conduct an investigation into the allegations made of childhood sexual abuse and also professional sexual misconduct.
Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.
Table of Contents:
2001
- Steven Joel Levin (plaintiff) v. (Name Removed) (defendant) (09/04/2001)
2005
- Background History: Hazzan Steven Levin (09/25/2005)
- Cantors Assembly of North America - Bylaws (09/25/2005)
- Letter from Cantor Assembly (11/04/2005)
- Letter was sent to community members in Vancouver, BC, Canada (11/2005)
- Citation: Levin v. Levin (08/11/2005)
- Call To Action: Cantor Assembly and Allegations of Professional Sexual Misconduct (11/10/2005)
- Think Before E-mailing (11/11/2005)
- From the Desk of Mark Gurvis (11/14/2005)
2007
- Changes for Har El (06//2007)
- Anonymous Letter Sent to the Cantor Assembly (11//14/2007)
- Steven Levin (07/10/2010)
2013
- Spiritual Leadership - White Rock South Surrey Jewish Community Centre (12/30/2013)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Background History: Hazzan Steven Levin
Hazzan Steven Levin was born in Los Angeles, California and moved to Vancouver in 1977. He has a Bachelor of Music from California State University, Northridge. He studied voice in California and New York and Hazzanut in Los Angeles. In 1994, he was appointed Cantor of Valley Beth Israel Congregation in North Hollywood, California, where he served prior to his move to Canada. He is currently a member of the Cantor's Assembly of North America
Cantors Assembly of North America - Bylaws
Jewish Theological Seminary
3080 Broadway Suite 603 New York, NY 10027
212-678-8834 email: CAOffice@aol.com
4.1 Continual Compliance to Standards
A member once elected must continue to meet enunciated standards for membership and comply with such standards of ethical, moral and professional conduct promulgated by the Executive Council.
4.2 Violations of Ethical, Moral and/or Professional Standards
When a member is accused of having violated standards of ethical, moral and/or professional conduct, such violation will be investigated by the Ethics Committee which will report its findings to the Executive Council.
4.2.1 All Charges involving ethical, moral and/or professional misconduct must be made in writing to the President of the Cantors Assembly.
4.2.2 Members accused of having violated standards of ethical, moral and/or professional conduct shall have the opportunity to defend themselves before the Ethics Committee and shall have the right to representation by legal or other counsel.
4.2.3 If disciplinary actions are deemed necessary, the Ethics Committee will make a recommendation to the Executive Council. If, in the judgment of the Executive Council, the charges have been substantiated, the Council, upon two-thirds vote, shall impose appropriate discipline or penalty, including "suspension" or "expulsion" from membership.
4.2.3 (1) "Suspension without prejudice" may be recommended by the Ethics Committee. A member suspended without prejudice may be reaccepted upon meeting the requirements for membership once again, and must apply for readmission by addressing a letter to the President stating the reasons for such request. The President will report to the Executive Council for approval or rejection of the request for readmission. A member who has been suspended without prejudice for longer than two years may be required to submit to the examination by the Membership Committee. Outstanding debts to the Cantors Assembly must be paid at the time of application for readmission to membership.
4.2.3 (2) The term "expulsion" shall apply to a member who has failed to comply with the standards of the calling of the Hazzan. A member who is "expelled" may apply for readmission not earlier than one year from the date of expulsion. Such a member shall follow the procedures for application for membership as set forth in Article III of these bylaws. In addition, such member shall address a letter to the President stating the reasons for such a request. A member who has been "expelled" for two years or less may be readmitted without examination. A member who has been "expelled" for longer than two years may be required to submit to examination by the Membership Committee. Outstanding debts to the Cantors Assembly must be paid at the time of application for readmission to membership.
4.2.3 (3) A member who wishes to temporarily leave the Assembly to pursue another career may ask for a "leave of absence." This member may be reaccepted upon meeting the requirements for membership once again, and must apply for readmission by addressing a letter to the President stating the reasons for such request. The President will report to the Executive Council for approval or rejection of the request for readmission. A member who has been "on leave" for longer than two years may be required to submit to examination by the Membership Committee. Outstanding debts to the Cantors Assembly must be paid at the time of application for readmission to membership.
Steven Joel Levin (plaintiff) v. (Name Removed) (defendant)
F991151
INDEXED AS: Indexed As: Levin v. (Name Removed)
British Columbia Supreme Court
Vancouver
JUDGES: McEwan, J.
2001 B.C.T.C. LEXIS 793; 2001 BCTC Uned 442
2001 BCSC 1239
JUDGMENT DATE: September 4, 2001
COUNSEL:
Counsel:
P. Daltrop, for the plaintiff;
D. Van Ginkel, for the defendant.
JUDGMENT:
[1] McEwan, J. [orally]: This is an application by the plaintiff for interim access to the child named (child's name removed), born (birthdate removed). Pursuant to earlier orders of this court, the arrangement is that the defendant has custody of this child and the plaintiff has access.
[2] The parties have in the past, pursuant to orders and other arrangements between themselves, had a regime where the plaintiff exercised some access, although clearly, from the tenor of the material before me, not as much as he would have liked.
[3] In the course of this ongoing matrimonial dispute, which largely centres on the parties' relationship with this child, a psychological assessment report was ordered under Section 15. That report became available in August of this year. It was prepared by Robert L. Colby, a registered psychologist, and runs for some 62 pages. It is, I think it is fair to say, a rather extensive review of the concerns each of these parties have with the other, and it ends with certain recommendations respecting access.
[4] The report is prepared against [*2] a background where, in recent times -- that is, back as far as September 2000 -- there have been concerns raised (it appears on the material, from disclosures the plaintiff alleges have been made to her by (child's name removed)) of physical and sexual abuse.
[5] These complaints have been documented in the past and investigated by the Ministry on at least one occasion, to no effect. That is, no further investigation was undertaken. On the basis of a review of the material that was in hand, to the point at which the report was made, Mr. Colby made the following finding:
"Based on the results of this assessment, this psychologist cannot find that Mr. Levin presents risk to the well-being of (child's name removed). Review by the Ministry for Children and Families may address further such issues if there are further concerns."
[6] On the basis of that finding, among others, he has recommended that Mr. Levin have gradually increased overnight visitation with his son for one evening a week, accommodating one two-overnight period per month, with the objective that that sort of regime be standard by the time (child's name removed) enters grade one.
[7] The present status quo is that, as of some time in May of this year, the [*3] defendant has refused the plaintiff access, unsupervised, and he has seen very little of the child leading up to this court date.
[8] The defendant has filed material that suggests that there have been certain recent events -- that is, events since the filing of this report -- that cast a new light on matters and that would make it inappropriate that the recommendations of the report be implemented in any form with respect to the access until there is clarification.
[9] These events are apparently that, as she deposes in paragraph 12 of her affidavit:
"The case was referred to the Sexual Offence Squad of the Vancouver Police Department. In the second week of July, the police commenced an investigation into the plaintiff's access to (child's name removed) and advised both the Ministry officials and I that (child's name removed) should have no contact with the plaintiff. Detective-Constable Wilkinson has also advised me that I should cease offering any kind of access to the plaintiff and that it was not necessary for (child's name removed) to speak to his father on the phone if he did not want to do so."
[10] The affidavit filed by the defendant in this matter also includes a letter apparently from Detective-Constable [*4] Wilkinson, number 1605, dated August 21, 2001, addressed "to whom it may concern", the body of which is as follows:
"This is to advise that I am currently investigating an allegation (disclosure) made by (child's name removed) Levin regarding his father, Steven Levin. (child's name removed) has disclosed that his father has abused him during their visitations together. It is my recommendation that Steven Levin not have access to his son (child's name removed) while this investigation is ongoing."
[11] That is followed in the material by a letter dated August 20th, 2001, apparently by one Michelle Jacobs, a social worker, the body of which is as follows:
"We understand there is a criminal investigation in progress by the Vancouver Police regarding (child's name removed) Levin's safety. We agree with the police recommendation that visits between (child's name removed) Levin and his father, Steven Levin, be suspended until the police criminal investigation is concluded."
[12] The defendant, who has placed this material before the court, has not indicated, one way or the other, whether she is the source of these complaints or whether she has had any involvement in them. Her counsel is unable to enlighten the court on the matter either.
[13] I am left, [*5] then, with the situation where a father, who is apparently entitled to access, is being denied access on the basis of a concern about sexual and/or physical abuse, which is not in any way identified as to date, place, time or type or as to source.
[14] This specific concern arises after a report from a registered psychologist - on the matter of whether there should be access, among other things - has been received and has recommended that the child have access to his father. It occurs against a background of concerns going back, as I have said, to May of 2000, but which, when the material is viewed carefully, appear to record complaints rather than anything that has been significantly substantiated.
[15] It goes without saying, of course, that faced with the prospect of anything that might endanger or put a child at risk in the way of violence at the hands of an adult, or worse, of sexual violence, everything should be done to protect that child. The submission of the defendant is essentially that this court should not consider this matter at this time, but should adjourn it pending a completion of the police investigation, whatever it is about. There is no material, as I have [*6] said, before the court that suggests what the substance of the complaint is.
[16] The material before the court from both Detective-Constable Wilkinson and from the social worker I have quoted is, of course, hearsay in the form in which it has been tendered and could have been before the court in a form that the court could place more reliance on.
[17] Having said that, I think the material at least gives evidence of a concern which, while unsubstantiated, should give the court pause to ask itself whether further investigation should not be accommodated, given the apparent gravity of the type of charge that has been apparently made. Against that, however, I must balance, it seems to me, the basic principle that parents ought to have as much contact with their children as is good for them and to recognize that such complaints have been made already in this case and not been established, and that therefore there is, I think, significant ground, in the timing of the complaints and in the nature of the complaints, in the background of this case, that it is fair to say that the material fails to rise to the threshold of creating a realistic concern that there is actual danger to this [*7] child from his father. This was the conclusion of Mr. Colby on the basis of the material he had in hand, which included some of this complaint, and the present complaint is so inchoate, so amorphous, so poorly documented, that given the surrounding context in which it is made, I do not think it appropriate to give it significant weight.
[18] I am therefore prepared to grant Mr. Levin access, which is really a reinstatement of access that he has had in the past, in the following terms: he shall have access to (child's name removed) Levin from 9:30 every Tuesday morning until twelve o'clock noon every Wednesday and he shall have access from one o'clock every Saturday afternoon until eight o'clock every Saturday night, except on the first Saturday of each month, when he will have him from one o'clock Saturday afternoon until 9:30 Sunday morning.
[19] The pick-up shall be, as suggested, at the (Location Removed). The defendant shall deliver (child's name removed) to the store and the plaintiff shall bring him back. Neither party shall interfere with the other's access to or custody of (child's name removed) or attempt to direct the other as to how that will be exercised. The child [*8] shall be free and have unrestricted access to telephone the defendant when he is with the plaintiff. The plaintiff will facilitate such contact.
[20] There is a specific issue which has been raised by the defendant with respect to payment for play therapy. At the time this matter was before the court in January of this year, in front of Madam Justice Kirkpatrick, it appeared to Madam Justice Kirkpatrick that the need for play therapy had nearly come to an end, if I read her decision correctly.
[21] Mr. Colby has recommended, on the basis that he thinks that it is valuable, that the therapy continue. I think, because that recommendation has been made, that the plaintiff should do what he can to promote it, including, if possible - although I do not make it as an order in the circumstances of this case - that he attempt to become involved if that is what the program requires.
[22] With respect to payment, however, I do not think it is, on the evidence, the sort of activity that amounts to a necessity, and inasmuch as the parents disagree as to its ultimate value, I do not think the plaintiff should be required to pay for it, as sought by the defendant. There will therefore be [*9] no order with respect to that.
[23] There is a further application by the plaintiff to reduce the amount of spousal support that is being paid. That has been fixed at the amount of $ 2,200. This matter does not appear to be destined for court in the near future, so what is really being sought is an adjustment to an interim order pursuant to a direction by Madam Justice Kirkpatrick that the $ 2,200 order be reviewed.
[24] The point of the review was that she had directed, in reasonably firm terms, that the time had come for the defendant to attempt to find work. The defendant is hampered in this regard, as was recognized by Madam Justice Kirkpatrick, by a disability which probably prevents her from working full-time.
[25] Madam Justice Kirkpatrick did, however, recommend that part-time work be sought, and to date it appears that nothing has been done in that regard. Certainly the material before the court does not, with any particularity, suggest there have been any significant attempts made to follow through on that suggestion.
[26] The defendant has said that, apart from the fact that there is that element of disability which Madam Justice Kirkpatrick recognized, she is so [*10] bound up in the activities of (child's name removed) that there really isn't time for her to seek employment. That, of course, is particularly so while she takes the position that Mr. Levin ought not to see the child at all, which casts the entire burden of (child's name removed)'s time on her.
[27] Madam Justice Kirkpatrick did allude to the fact that Mr. Levin could be available to assist with child care while she seeks employment. To date, of course, things have gone in quite the opposite direction, as I have said. He doesn't see the child because she has cut off access and she has not made attempts to gain employment.
[28] I think, while I do not wish to be precipitous in this matter, the time has come to signal, in perhaps stronger terms than Madam Justice Kirkpatrick did, that some effort should be made to obtain employment. I recognize that it is difficult to adjust to a lesser income stream if that happens suddenly, and so my order will be that the current level of spousal support continue through the year 2001, that in January of 2002 it will be reduced to (Amount Removed) for the months of January and February, then to (Amount Removed) in the months of March and April, then to (Amount Removed) in the months of May to June. [*11] Thereafter I direct that the spousal support remain at that level with liberty to either party, at that point to seek a review -- I should probably say, more properly, where I direct that on the instance of either party a review may be held to determine whether that is the appropriate level of spousal support. At that time, I would expect - or at any other time that an application is brought respecting spousal support in this matter within the rules set out for such applications - that the parties would attend with at least some material suggesting, for instance, on the defendant's part, what efforts had been made, what difficulties had been encountered and things of that nature. The court is, on the material before it, at a complete loss with respect to such matters.
[29] I have made the order respecting access on the basis that the material before me does not suggest a reasonable possibility of risk to this child at the hands of his father. If for some reason this order is at odds with material that could have been before the court but was not, or that becomes available, of course this court must hear it in the child's best interests. But as matters stand today, on the material [*12] before me, doing the best I can to make a responsible and fair judgment, access, as I have set out, appears to be the appropriate thing in the best interests of this child. Is there anything further?
[30] COUNSEL: My lord, two matters: the first is the commencement date for the beginning of the access.
[31] THE COURT: What do you suggest? I could use some help.
[32] COUNSEL: This Saturday, day-time.
[33] THE COURT: Is there anything particular about this Saturday?
[34] COUNSEL: It is the Saturday just before the beginning of the Jewish New Year, my lord, which begins -- no, that's wrong. I've got the dates mixed up. This Saturday --
[35] THE COURT: I think you need some remedial --
[36] COUNSEL: No, I should know that -- and I should know that. It isn't the Saturday before the Jewish New Year.
[37] THE COURT: All right.
[38] COUNSEL: This Saturday is what I propose -- not the overnight, but the day --
[39] THE COURT: The first of the day-time Saturdays?
[40] COUNSEL: Yes, and the first Saturday overnight would wait till the end of October. There should be some adjustment for this child.
[41] THE COURT: Yes?
[42] COUNSEL: I propose that with the first overnight [*13] starting a week today.
[43] THE COURT: All right, that's what I'll order and it may be included in the order.
[44] COUNSEL: And the only --
[45] COUNSEL: I'm sorry, could we get this straight? I'm not clear as to what the proposal is for the order.
[46] COUNSEL: I've suggested to your lordship this Saturday, being --
[47] THE COURT: Yes?
[48] COUNSEL: -- being the date -- the first access, being the day-time. I think your lordship stipulated from 1:00 p.m. Saturday to 8:00 p.m. Saturday
[49] THE COURT: 8:00 p.m. Saturday.
[50] COUNSEL: And I propose that that Saturday day-time start this Saturday.
[51] THE COURT: And it not be the first overnight period this time.
[52] COUNSEL: Yes.
[53] COUNSEL: Okay, and the first overnight would start --
[54] COUNSEL: The beginning of October, my lord.
[55] THE COURT: Beginning of October.
[56] COUNSEL: The first Tuesday night overnight would be next -- a week today.
[57] THE COURT: Well, just a moment -- yes, Tuesday and Wednesday overnight. I didn't give you the other two periods that you sought.
[58] COUNSEL: Yes.
[59] THE COURT: All right.
[60] COUNSEL: That's the first thing, and the other thing is, unless [*14] my friend has anything, there's the issue of costs of this application. Unless my friend has another point to raise before costs are dealt with?
[61] COUNSEL: Well, I do have another point, but go ahead on that point.
[62] THE COURT: Well, no, no, we'll do costs last. Is there something else about the order?
[63] COUNSEL: The issue of free and unrestricted access by telephone. That has been an issue in the material. Robert Colby says that Mr. Levin -- or he -- it's raised that there's some concern that Mr. Levin doesn't allow (child's name removed) to have use of the telephone.
[64] THE COURT: I've just told him to do it.
[65] COUNSEL: I understand that, so I'm suggesting that there be a specific time where there could be telephone access, so on Tuesday night he has access from -- or Tuesday, 9:30 a.m. until noon on Wednesday, so perhaps at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday night there could be telephone access, and --
[66] THE COURT: I would only make such an order if there were a problem with a general order, such as I've just given, that were identified later. It seems to me that that restricts people to be at a certain place at a certain time. I realize that there are cell phones now, but it's [*15] still a problem.
[67] COUNSEL: Mr. Levin has a cell phone.
[68] THE COURT: It's still -- I must say I expect people to be reasonable and sensible, and if they can't be reasonable and sensible about something like that, they can come back, but I'm making a general order.
[69] COUNSEL: There was one other matter before costs, my lord. I would ask that you direct (Name Removed), when she starts to earn an income, that she keep Mr. Levin apprised of what her income is, so that, as an example, if she starts to work on a three-quarter-time basis before July of next year, that she inform Mr. Levin of what her employment -- or how much she's earning. She doesn't have to tell him where she's working, but how much she's earning.
[70] THE COURT: All right.
[71] COUNSEL: As similarly, if there's a change in Mr. Levin's income, the same would apply to him.
[72] THE COURT: Each party will be directed, then, to notify the other of any changes in their incomes or employment status and in Ms. (Name removed), or (Name removed)'s case, that would be that she would advise the plaintiff of any employment income she earned and any change after she begins to earn it, upward or downward, and, in his case, any [*16] changes in his status as well would be reported as they happen.
(SUBMISSIONS RE COSTS)
[73] THE COURT: If there's no anticipation that it'll be paid forthwith, this was an application on which your client was substantially successful. Won't it be, in any event, accounted as a positive event in any final accounting?
(SUBMISSIONS RE COSTS)
[74] THE COURT: The concern I have about an order in any event of the cause at this particular moment is simply this: that, in part, my decision turns on, if there is a true concern, an insufficiency of evidence. There is the possibility, I suppose -- I'm not saying I make any finding of that, along those lines, but I did add a coda to the judgment, in any event, about if there's better evidence I expect it would come before the court. Do you know what I'm saying?
[75] COUNSEL: I have your point, my lord.
[76] THE COURT: It seems to me that the record should reflect that costs will be in any event of the cause in this application to the plaintiff, subject to any further ruling in the light of any events that may come afterwards by trial judge or the final arbiter of costs.
[77] COUNSEL: Thank you, my lord.
[78] THE COURT: You can spend [*17] an hour or two figuring out whether I had jurisdiction to say such a thing, but there you go.
[79] COUNSEL: I think we -- counsel know what you're getting at, my lord. Thank you.
[80] THE COURT: Anything further?
[81] COUNSEL: Thank you, my lord.
Letter From the Cantor Assembly
November 4, 2005
 |
| Click on image to enlarge |
_________________________________________________________________________________
Citation: Levin v. Levin
2001 BCSC 1239
Date: 20010904
Docket: F991151
Registry: Vancouver
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Oral Reasons for Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice McEwan
September 4, 2001
BETWEEN:
STEVEN JOEL LEVIN
PLAINTIFF
AND:
Name Removed aka
Name Removed
DEFENDANT
Counsel for Plaintiff: P. Daltrop
Counsel for Defendant: D. Van Ginkel
[1] THE COURT: This is an application by the plaintiff for interim access to the child named (Child's Name Removed), born February 24, 1997. Pursuant to earlier orders of this court, the arrangement is that the defendant has custody of this child and the plaintiff has access.
[2] The parties have in the past, pursuant to orders and other arrangements between themselves, had a regime where the plaintiff exercised some access, although clearly, from the tenor of the material before me, not as much as he would have liked.
[3] In the course of this ongoing matrimonial dispute, which largely centres on the parties' relationship with this child, a psychological assessment report was ordered under Section 15. That report became available in August of this year. It was prepared by Robert L. Colby, a registered psychologist, and runs for some 62 pages. It is, I think it is fair to say, a rather extensive review of the concerns each of these parties have with the other, and it ends with certain recommendations respecting access.
[4] The report is prepared against a background where, in recent times -- that is, back as far as September 2000 -- there have been concerns raised (it appears on the material, from disclosures the plaintiff alleges have been made to her by (Child's Name Removed)) of physical and sexual abuse.
[5] These complaints have been documented in the past and investigated by the Ministry on at least one occasion, to no effect. That is, no further investigation was undertaken. On the basis of a review of the material that was in hand, to the point at which the report was made, Mr. Colby made the following finding:
Based on the results of this assessment, this psychologist cannot find that Mr. Levin presents risk to the well-being of (Child's Name Removed). Review by the Ministry for Children and Families may address further such issues if there are further concerns.
[6] On the basis of that finding, among others, he has recommended that Mr. Levin have gradually increased overnight visitation with his son for one evening a week, accommodating one two-overnight period per month, with the objective that that sort of regime be standard by the time (Child's Name Removed) enters grade one.
[7] The present status quo is that, as of some time in May of this year, the defendant has refused the plaintiff access, unsupervised, and he has seen very little of the child leading up to this court date.
[8] The defendant has filed material that suggests that there have been certain recent events -- that is, events since the filing of this report -- that cast a new light on matters and that would make it inappropriate that the recommendations of the report be implemented in any form with respect to the access until there is clarification.
[9] These events are apparently that, as she deposes in paragraph 12 of her affidavit:
The case was referred to the Sexual Offence Squad of the Vancouver Police Department. In the second week of July, the police commenced an investigation into the plaintiff's access to (Child's Name Removed) and advised both the Ministry officials and I that (Child's Name Removed) should have no contact with the plaintiff. Detective-Constable Wilkinson has also advised me that I should cease offering any kind of access to the plaintiff and that it was not necessary for (Child's Name Removed) to speak to his father on the phone if he did not want to do so.
[10] The affidavit filed by the defendant in this matter also includes a letter apparently from Detective-Constable Wilkinson, number 1605, dated August 21, 2001, addressed "to whom it may concern", the body of which is as follows:
This is to advise that I am currently investigating an allegation (disclosure) made by (Child's Name Removed) Levin regarding his father, Steven Levin. (Child's Name Removed) has disclosed that his father has abused him during their visitations together. It is my recommendation that Steven Levin not have access to his son (Child's Name Removed) while this investigation is ongoing.
[11] That is followed in the material by a letter dated August 20th, 2001, apparently by one Michelle Jacobs, a social worker, the body of which is as follows:
We understand there is a criminal investigation in progress by the Vancouver Police regarding (Child's Name Removed) Levin's safety. We agree with the police recommendation that visits between (Child's Name Removed) Levin and his father, Steven Levin, be suspended until the police criminal investigation is concluded.
[12] The defendant, who has placed this material before the court, has not indicated, one way or the other, whether she is the source of these complaints or whether she has had any involvement in them. Her counsel is unable to enlighten the court on the matter either.
[13] I am left, then, with the situation where a father, who is apparently entitled to access, is being denied access on the basis of a concern about sexual and/or physical abuse, which is not in any way identified as to date, place, time or type or as to source.
[14] This specific concern arises after a report from a registered psychologist - on the matter of whether there should be access, among other things - has been received and has recommended that the child have access to his father. It occurs against a background of concerns going back, as I have said, to May of 2000, but which, when the material is viewed carefully, appear to record complaints rather than anything that has been significantly substantiated.
[15] It goes without saying, of course, that faced with the prospect of anything that might endanger or put a child at risk in the way of violence at the hands of an adult, or worse, of sexual violence, everything should be done to protect that child. The submission of the defendant is essentially that this court should not consider this matter at this time, but should adjourn it pending a completion of the police investigation, whatever it is about. There is no material, as I have said, before the court that suggests what the substance of the complaint is.
[16] The material before the court from both Detective-Constable Wilkinson and from the social worker I have quoted is, of course, hearsay in the form in which it has been tendered and could have been before the court in a form that the court could place more reliance on.
[17] Having said that, I think the material at least gives evidence of a concern which, while unsubstantiated, should give the court pause to ask itself whether further investigation should not be accommodated, given the apparent gravity of the type of charge that has been apparently made. Against that, however, I must balance, it seems to me, the basic principle that parents ought to have as much contact with their children as is good for them and to recognize that such complaints have been made already in this case and not been established, and that therefore there is, I think, significant ground, in the timing of the complaints and in the nature of the complaints, in the background of this case, that it is fair to say that the material fails to rise to the threshold of creating a realistic concern that there is actual danger to this child from his father. This was the conclusion of Mr. Colby on the basis of the material he had in hand, which included some of this complaint, and the present complaint is so inchoate, so amorphous, so poorly documented, that given the surrounding context in which it is made, I do not think it appropriate to give it significant weight.
[18] I am therefore prepared to grant Mr. Levin access, which is really a reinstatement of access that he has had in the past, in the following terms: he shall have access to (Child's Name Removed) Levin from 9:30 every Tuesday morning until twelve o'clock noon every Wednesday and he shall have access from one o'clock every Saturday afternoon until eight o'clock every Saturday night, except on the first Saturday of each month, when he will have him from one o'clock Saturday afternoon until 9:30 Sunday morning.
[19] The pick-up shall be, as suggested, at the Chapters Bookstore at the corner of Broadway and Granville Street. The defendant shall deliver (Child's Name Removed) to the store and the plaintiff shall bring him back. Neither party shall interfere with the other's access to or custody of (Child's Name Removed) or attempt to direct the other as to how that will be exercised. The child shall be free and have unrestricted access to telephone the defendant when he is with the plaintiff. The plaintiff will facilitate such contact.
[20] There is a specific issue which has been raised by the defendant with respect to payment for play therapy. At the time this matter was before the court in January of this year, in front of Madam Justice Kirkpatrick, it appeared to Madam Justice Kirkpatrick that the need for play therapy had nearly come to an end, if I read her decision correctly.
[21] Mr. Colby has recommended, on the basis that he thinks that it is valuable, that the therapy continue. I think, because that recommendation has been made, that the plaintiff should do what he can to promote it, including, if possible - although I do not make it as an order in the circumstances of this case - that he attempt to become involved if that is what the program requires.
[22] With respect to payment, however, I do not think it is, on the evidence, the sort of activity that amounts to a necessity, and inasmuch as the parents disagree as to its ultimate value, I do not think the plaintiff should be required to pay for it, as sought by the defendant. There will therefore be no order with respect to that.
[23] There is a further application by the plaintiff to reduce the amount of spousal support that is being paid. That has been fixed at the amount of $2,200. This matter does not appear to be destined for court in the near future, so what is really being sought is an adjustment to an interim order pursuant to a direction by Madam Justice Kirkpatrick that the $2,200 order be reviewed.
[24] The point of the review was that she had directed, in reasonably firm terms, that the time had come for the defendant to attempt to find work. The defendant is hampered in this regard, as was recognized by Madam Justice Kirkpatrick, by a disability which probably prevents her from working full-time.
[25] Madam Justice Kirkpatrick did, however, recommend that part-time work be sought, and to date it appears that nothing has been done in that regard. Certainly the material before the court does not, with any particularity, suggest there have been any significant attempts made to follow through on that suggestion.
[26] The defendant has said that, apart from the fact that there is that element of disability which Madam Justice Kirkpatrick recognized, she is so bound up in the activities of (Child's Name Removed) that there really isn't time for her to seek employment. That, of course, is particularly so while she takes the position that Mr. Levin ought not to see the child at all, which casts the entire burden of (Child's Name Removed)'s time on her.
[27] Madam Justice Kirkpatrick did allude to the fact that Mr. Levin could be available to assist with child care while she seeks employment. To date, of course, things have gone in quite the opposite direction, as I have said. He doesn't see the child because she has cut off access and she has not made attempts to gain employment.
[28] I think, while I do not wish to be precipitous in this matter, the time has come to signal, in perhaps stronger terms than Madam Justice Kirkpatrick did, that some effort should be made to obtain employment. I recognize that it is difficult to adjust to a lesser income stream if that happens suddenly, and so my order will be that the current level of spousal support continue through the year 2001, that in January of 2002 it will be reduced to $2,000 for the months of January and February, then to $1,800 in the months of March and April, then to $1,500 in the months of May to June. Thereafter I direct that the spousal support remain at that level with liberty to either party, at that point to seek a review -- I should probably say, more properly, where I direct that on the instance of either party a review may be held to determine whether that is the appropriate level of spousal support. At that time, I would expect - or at any other time that an application is brought respecting spousal support in this matter within the rules set out for such applications - that the parties would attend with at least some material suggesting, for instance, on the defendant's part, what efforts had been made, what difficulties had been encountered and things of that nature. The court is, on the material before it, at a complete loss with respect to such matters.
[29] I have made the order respecting access on the basis that the material before me does not suggest a reasonable possibility of risk to this child at the hands of his father. If for some reason this order is at odds with material that could have been before the court but was not, or that becomes available, of course this court must hear it in the child's best interests. But as matters stand today, on the material before me, doing the best I can to make a responsible and fair judgment, access, as I have set out, appears to be the appropriate thing in the best interests of this child. Is there anything further?
[30] COUNSEL: My lord, two matters: the first is the commencement date for the beginning of the access.
[31] THE COURT: What do you suggest? I could use some help.
[32] COUNSEL: This Saturday, day-time.
[33] THE COURT: Is there anything particular about this Saturday?
[34] COUNSEL: It is the Saturday just before the beginning of the Jewish New Year, my lord, which begins -- no, that's wrong. I've got the dates mixed up. This Saturday --
[35] THE COURT: I think you need some remedial --
[36] COUNSEL: No, I should know that -- and I should know that. It isn't the Saturday before the Jewish New Year.
[37] THE COURT: All right.
[38] COUNSEL: This Saturday is what I propose -- not the overnight, but the day --
[39] THE COURT: The first of the day-time Saturdays?
[40] COUNSEL: Yes, and the first Saturday overnight would wait till the end of October. There should be some adjustment for this child.
[41] THE COURT: Yes?
[42] COUNSEL: I propose that with the first overnight starting a week today.
[43] THE COURT: All right, that's what I'll order and it may be included in the order.
[44] COUNSEL: And the only --
[45] COUNSEL: I'm sorry, could we get this straight? I'm not clear as to what the proposal is for the order.
[46] COUNSEL: I've suggested to your lordship this Saturday, being --
[47] THE COURT: Yes?
[48] COUNSEL: -- being the date -- the first access, being the day-time. I think your lordship stipulated from 1:00 p.m. Saturday to 8:00 p.m. Saturday
[49] THE COURT: 8:00 p.m. Saturday.
[50] COUNSEL: And I propose that that Saturday day-time start this Saturday.
[51] THE COURT: And it not be the first overnight period this time.
[52] COUNSEL: Yes.
[53] COUNSEL: Okay, and the first overnight would start --
[54] COUNSEL: The beginning of October, my lord.
[55] THE COURT: Beginning of October.
[56] COUNSEL: The first Tuesday night overnight would be next -- a week today.
[57] THE COURT: Well, just a moment -- yes, Tuesday and Wednesday overnight. I didn't give you the other two periods that you sought.
[58] COUNSEL: Yes.
[59] THE COURT: All right.
[60] COUNSEL: That's the first thing, and the other thing is, unless my friend has anything, there's the issue of costs of this application. Unless my friend has another point to raise before costs are dealt with?
[61] COUNSEL: Well, I do have another point, but go ahead on that point.
[62] THE COURT: Well, no, no, we'll do costs last. Is there something else about the order?
[63] COUNSEL: The issue of free and unrestricted access by telephone. That has been an issue in the material. Robert Colby says that Mr. Levin -- or he -- it's raised that there's some concern that Mr. Levin doesn't allow (Child's Name Removed) to have use of the telephone.
[64] THE COURT: I've just told him to do it.
[65] COUNSEL: I understand that, so I'm suggesting that there be a specific time where there could be telephone access, so on Tuesday night he has access from -- or Tuesday, 9:30 a.m. until noon on Wednesday, so perhaps at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday night there could be telephone access, and --
[66] THE COURT: I would only make such an order if there were a problem with a general order, such as I've just given, that were identified later. It seems to me that that restricts people to be at a certain place at a certain time. I realize that there are cell phones now, but it's still a problem.
[67] COUNSEL: Mr. Levin has a cell phone.
[68] THE COURT: It's still -- I must say I expect people to be reasonable and sensible, and if they can't be reasonable and sensible about something like that, they can come back, but I'm making a general order.
[69] COUNSEL: There was one other matter before costs, my lord. I would ask that you direct (Name Removed), when she starts to earn an income, that she keep Mr. Levin apprised of what her income is, so that, as an example, if she starts to work on a three-quarter-time basis before July of next year, that she inform Mr. Levin of what her employment -- or how much she's earning. She doesn't have to tell him where she's working, but how much she's earning.
[70] THE COURT: All right.
[71] COUNSEL: As similarly, if there's a change in Mr. Levin's income, the same would apply to him.
[72] THE COURT: Each party will be directed, then, to notify the other of any changes in their incomes or employment status and in Ms. (Name Removed), or (Name Removed)'s case, that would be that she would advise the plaintiff of any employment income she earned and any change after she begins to earn it, upward or downward, and, in his case, any changes in his status as well would be reported as they happen.
(SUBMISSIONS RE COSTS)
[73] THE COURT: If there's no anticipation that it'll be paid forthwith, this was an application on which your client was substantially successful. Won't it be, in any event, accounted as a positive event in any final accounting?
(SUBMISSIONS RE COSTS)
[74] THE COURT: The concern I have about an order in any event of the cause at this particular moment is simply this: that, in part, my decision turns on, if there is a true concern, an insufficiency of evidence. There is the possibility, I suppose -- I'm not saying I make any finding of that, along those lines, but I did add a coda to the judgment, in any event, about if there's better evidence I expect it would come before the court. Do you know what I'm saying?
[75] COUNSEL: I have your point, my lord.
[76] THE COURT: It seems to me that the record should reflect that costs will be in any event of the cause in this application to the plaintiff, subject to any further ruling in the light of any events that may come afterwards by trial judge or the final arbiter of costs.
[77] COUNSEL: Thank you, my lord.
[78] THE COURT: You can spend an hour or two figuring out whether I had jurisdiction to say such a thing, but there you go.
[79] COUNSEL: I think we -- counsel know what you're getting at, my lord. Thank you.
[80] THE COURT: Anything further?
[81] COUNSEL: Thank you, my lord.
"T.M. McEwan, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice T.M. McEwan
Vancouver, B.C.
September 4, 2001
November 23, 2001 -- Corrigendum to the Oral Reasons for Judgment issued by Mr. Justice T.M. McEwan advising that there was a duplicate neutral citation number utilized for these Oral Reasons for Judgment.
The correct neutral citation should be: 2001 BCSC 1239.
A corrected first page is attached.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Letter was sent to community members in Vancouver, BC, Canada
February, 2006
Warning To Our Community
The purpose of this letter is to protect anyone else from being harmed.
It has come to our attention that Cantor Steven Joel Levin has been misrepresenting himself and his credentials. On his resume he had stated that he has a bachelor's degree in music. After checking his references we have learned that Steven Levin never completed his degree. The truth of the matter is that he does not even have a formal education as a cantor.
Over the last few years there have been other types of allegations made against Cantor Steven Levin. The other allegations made against Levin include child sexual abuse and professional sexual misconduct. Beth Israel synagogue did their best to investigate the claims, which ended with them terminating the contract they had with him, due to his misrepresenting himself as a college graduate.
Do you think this man is a good role model for our children?
Do you think that a man who has egregiously violated the Ten Commandments should be singing prayers that teach us how to be moral and better?
There are two institutions in our community who are so desperate to have a cantor that they are willing to put their congregants and their congregant's children at risk of harm. These two institutions include:
1) JCC in White Rock
2) Burquest jewish Community association
We strongly believe a spiritual leader is a teacher, who should live by high moral standards. Steven Levin has failed. We strongly believe that he is not appropriate to be in the position to be setting an example to children or to anyone in our community at large.
After a few phone calls and putting the information together, we have learned that the two institutions hired Levin because "with his history and background, he will not be very expensive". Unfortunately, we believe they have made a horrible mistake. Can you imagine how expensive it will be for all of us, if he manipulates another person (adult or child) into having sexual relations with him?
Please contact the JCC, the Burquest Jewish Community Association, and the Cantor Assembly.
1) The JCC in White Rock, BC #32-3032 King George
Hwy Surrey, B.C.
Tel: 604-541-9995
info@wrssjcc.org
2) The Burquest Jewish Community Association 2860
Dewdney Trunk Road, Coquitlam, B.C.
604 552 7221
admin@burquest.org
You can also contact the cantor's assembly:
President: Steve Stoehr ssstoehr@aol.com (847) 498-4100
_________________________________________________________________________________
Call To Action: Cantor Assembly and Allegations of Professional Sexual Misconduct
The Awareness Center's Daily Newsletter - November 19, 2005
The Awareness Center, Inc. has been made aware of a situation in which a Cantor was fired from a synagogue last year. This Cantor remains a member in good standing of a professional Cantorial organization.
As we all know, Cantors do not have the education, training or experience in investigating allegations of sexual abuse, sexual assault, professional sexual misconduct, and or sexual harassment. For that reason The Awareness Center, Inc. has been asking the Cantor Assembly to hire an individual, organization or agency to conduct a professional investigation into the serious allegations.
Today The Awareness Center received a letter from the Cantor Assembly's attorney.
Please follow this link and read the letter, and then either call or write the President and Executive Vice President of the Cantor Assembly, and their legal representative.
We ask that everyone tries to help educate these individuals of the importance of hiring an organization that has the education and experience to conduct the official investigation. We also ask that you help explain to them the ramifications of allowing an individual who might have violated halacha (Jewish Law) and the Cantor Assembly's own code of ethics remain a member in good standing.
Below you will find contact information, and also a section of the Cantor Assembly's Bylaws that address the process for termination.
Contact:
Cantor Stephen Stoehr - President
(847) 498-4100
Cantor Stephen Stein - Executive Vice President
(330) 864-2105
Herbert S. Garten - Attorney at Law
(410) 539-2800
Think before e-mailing
Jewish Independent - November 22, 2005. Page 22
 |
| Click on image to enlarge |
From the Desk of Mark Gurvis
Executive Director, Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver
FRIDAY, 11 Tishrei 5766 October 14, 2005
In the Spirit of Yom Kippur
I was not going to send a message this week. The short weeks due to the High Holidays make it difficult to keep to the weekly schedule. But as I sat in Yom Kippur services and listened to a rabbi speak about hurtful speech and the power that words have to cause harm and damage to people, I realized that I had to share what is on my mind.
In the hours before Yom Kippur and in the hours since an email message titled "Warning on Steven Levin" has been circulated to many members of our community attacking Cantor Levin in a particularly vicious way. Several people have been in touch with me about this message to express their concern and dismay that such a hurtful and disgraceful message would be distributed in this kind of way. The emails have been sent from a variety of false addresses. As far as I know, no one knows who is sending them, or how they have gotten hold of people's email addresses.
I won't comment on the content of the message. It is frankly beside the point. Whatever issues anyone may have with a member of our community, whether they are an employee of one of our community institutions, or simply a private member of our community, launching an anonymous attack in such a vicious way is about as counter to the spirit of Yom Kippur as any act I can imagine.
I remember participating some years ago in a family education program at our synagogue in Cleveland about the High Holidays, and having our children squeeze toothpaste out of a tube. Of course, once the toothpaste is out, it is impossible to put back in. So, too, with gossip, slander, and other forms of hurtful speech – once they have been spread it is impossible to pull them back. And as wonderful a tool as email can be, as I have personally found through my weekly message, we have before us a terrible example of the ways in which this tool can also be used.
I don't know who has initiated these messages. I can only hope, as I know many others in our community do, that the messages will stop. Whatever issues or concerns have prompted them, this is not the way.
Shabbat shalom.
Changes for Har El
The search for a new "cantor' and ED begins
By Kyle Berger
June, 2007
Congregation Har El in West Vancouver has recently announced a few changes to various leadership positions both on and off the bimah. http://www.harel.org/
After several years as the congregation's lay *cantor*, Hebrew school teacher and tutor, Naomi Taussig has decided that, with a young family, she is unable to expand her cantorial duties.
In a recent letter to the congregation, Rabbi Shmuel Birnham shared the story of how Taussig's voice captured his attention three-and-a-half years ago.
"Naomi came up to me a few days before Shemini Atzeret and asked me if I needed any help during the upcoming holy days," he wrote. "I said, 'Well, since you asked, do you think you could learn the prayer for rain coming up on Shemini Atzeret?'
"Shemini Atzeret arrived and she led such a powerful and beautiful Musaf service, including the Geshem prayer, that Bram Solloway and I both said to each other: 'She's got to lead our High Holy days next year!' "
Taussig was soon hired to be the lay *cantor* for the shul's High Holy Day services, which eventually turned into regular Shabbat appearances.
"Naomi touched many with her voice and her passion," Birnham wrote. "With her amazing musical memory and moving voice and presence, she led many a service on Shabbos.
"By her third year at Har El, Naomi had taken us to a new level in our services and we obviously wanted to continue to go higher," the rabbi continued. "At the very same time, understandably, as we wanted and needed more of her, she wanted and needed more time with her [family]."
*Cantor* Steve *Levin* has agreed to join Har El part-time for Shabbat duties this summer as the congregation works on longer-term plans for cantorial leadership.
"We look forward to *Cantor* *Levin's* experience, expertise and deep knowledge of Jewish music to augment our services," Birnham said.
A special Shabbat of appreciation will take place Saturday, June 23 to recognize Taussig's contributions to the shul.
Har El and executive director Neil Loomer have also mutually agreed to part ways as of June 30.
The synagogue's executive committee is currently in the process of searching for a replacement to lead the business side of its community.
*Kyle Berger*/ is a freelance journalist and graphic designer living in Richmond
Anonymous Letter Sent to the Cantor Assembly
November 13, 2007
To: Joseph Gole, President Cantors Assembly
Jack Chomsky, Vice-President Cantors Assembly
Nancy Abramson, Vice-President Cantors Assembly
David Propis, Senior Vice-President
Stephen J. Stein, Executive Vice President Cantors Assembly *
Jeffrey Myers, Membership
Dear Sirs / Madam:
We think it is important that you be aware of who you are recommending as a Cantor and allowing to be a member of the Cantors Assembly. Steven Joel Levin has being accused by his own son of sexually abusing him. Steven Joel Levin defends himself by the fact that the court never persecuted him. The truth is that the court will dismiss most cases of allegations of sexual abuse by a parent. Their guidelines is that they are innocent until proven guilty and child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. The most common reaction from a parent who has abuse his own child is to "accuse the other parent of being crazy, vindictive and coaching the child" as a way of self-defense. Sadly, we all know how the system makes mistakes. They can either condemned the innocent or free the guilty.
Here are some facts about Steven Joel Levin that we strongly suggest you investigate and could help you to reconsider his membership and avoid liability:
A report on Steven Levin's son dated June the 26^th , 2002 done by Dr. Hallady, pediatrician, and the director of child protection service unit at B.C. Children's Hospital were Dr Hallady concludes /"that the findings seen last week would be consistent with anal trauma having occurred. There was no infection detected. I was shown the drawings that he did by my social worker, Jenny Ireland, and my nurse. I am concerned about these. As well, I feel that the police and the ministry should be informed of the drawings /(The drawings made by the child, one of them shows his father, Steven Levin, repeatedly hitting him over the head with a bat and the second one shows his father with an erection and the child with his bum.
All of this can be corroborated. You can also corroborate that Steven Levin has taken his ex wife and mother of his child, more than thirty times to court since their divorce, five years ago. In all, he was always the plaintiff and she was the defendant. All for minor matters. What kind of man takes the mother of his child that many times to court? What kind of cleric? A man who has no compassion, a man who is self-centered, a very disturbed man. Do you really want to act as the church has with their clerics by pretending the victimizers were the victims and vice versa?
Jewish children, like children everywhere, are the victims of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Yet, we fool ourselves into thinking, "it can't happen to us." While recent reports in the media have made public that we are not free of this curse, most of the cases in our families, schools, and institutions go unreported or are hushed up and, hence, true statistics are unavailable. This denial has many sources: the incredulity that such ugly behavior can exist among our people always so proud of our exemplary home-life; the fear that it will bring Jews into disrepute; the apprehension that the child victim will have his/her reputation tarnished; and so on. But such a posture by the community remains inexcusable because we thereby shirk our responsibility to our children, denying the victims of abuse the safe haven of a caring and nurturing home and school, and preventing them from growing up with the physical and psychological security they need and deserve. It is for this sin of omission that our entire community must give din vi-heshbon, a complete and unequivocal reckoning. And it is to protect the bodies and souls of our innocent children that we must speak out and act.
What obligations does Jewish law impose upon us in order to protect our children from actual or potential abusers? May we inform civil authorities? Are there problems of lashon hara or hillul Hashem?
How for does our obligation of pikuach nefesh in responding to physical abuse extend? The Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a, bases its requirement to save someone under attack upon two verses: "And thou shalt restore him to himself (Deut. 22:2), which dictates personal intervention, and "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Lev. 19:16), which directs one even to hire others to accomplish the goal. In codifying this low in Hilkhot Rotseiach 1: 14 Rambam derives the obligation from only one verse.' He writes, Anyone who can save (someone's life) and does not do so transgresses, "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." Similarly, if one sees his brother drowning in the sea, accosted by robbers, or attacked by wild animals and can save him personally or can hire others to save him, and does not save him, or he heard non-Jews or informers plotting evil or attempting to entrap another and he does not inform him...transgresses 'Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.'
Thus, according to Rambam, both the personal and delegated responsibility enjoined by the "neighbor's blood" obligation require the same aggressive, full pursuit of the goal or saving the victim. Lo ta'amod requires a person to exhaust all means in order to effect the saving of the individual.14 This can be accomplished personally, by reporting the matter to the authorities, or by hiring others to accomplish the rescue. However, until the victim has been fully extricated from the dangerous predicament the obligation still obtains.
One who has information to report and fails to do so is in violation of the "neighbor's blood" obligation,15 and of "if he does not utter it then he shall bear his iniquity" (Lev. 5:1).16 While in monetary affairs the witness can wait until summoned, in other matters the witness must come forward voluntarily17 in order to "destroy the evil from your midst." 18
Despite the permissibility generated by the need to prevent future injury, Hafetz Hayyim prohibits the revelation of any information that would cause harm to the accused that is not based on bonafide evidence worthy of a court of Iaw.31 This prevents an innocent person from becoming the victim of false accusations and slander.32 This restriction severely hinders the revelation of instances of child abuse where the only confirmation of the abuse is the statements of minors whose veracity is unreliable, as they are generally considered as unfit witnesses,33 or circumstantial physical evidence. However, because confidential reports to agencies responsible for investigating such allegations will not harm a person's reputation and because the testimony of children, supported by significant suspicions, may be acceptable testimony,34 this restriction does not prevent the proper prosecution of abusers or endanger the well being of children. In addition, when physical and mental pikuach nefesh is involved, one must, after careful deliberation and consideration of the evidence and its consequences, reveal serious suspicions.
Thus, in cases of child abuse, where, after careful evaluation of the evidence it is believed that abuse has occurred, there is no prohibition of rehilut-- even outside of the judiciary process. On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to inform others so as to protect them and their families from possible harm. Hafetz Hayyim, rejecting the possible objections of those who would deem this an unwarranted leniency, states that withholding such information is tantamount to withholding testimony in a court of law and is prohibited by "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy brother" (Lev. 19:16).35 This obligation to reveal this information holds: even outside of court proceedings;36 even if the informer is the sole source of information; even if the statement is based solely upon hearsay; and even if the abuser promises not to harm anyone else if there is concern that he cannot be trusted.37
Keep in mind:
1) The child knows more than 85% of the offenders, it may be a father, uncle, brother, grandfather, stepfather, neighbor, family, friend, or the baby sitter. Typically child sexual abuse will occur repeatedly within a long-term relationship, because the offender abuses his position of power.
More than half of abusers were the child's biological parent; 53.6 percent of abusers were male. - Nearly 90 percent of convicted sex offenders knew or were related to the victim. Only about 2 percent of sexual assaults involve strangers. The vast majority of crimes are committed by persons who are known and trusted, such as family members, friends, neighbors or babysitters.
Prosecuting attorney Robin Webb-Lakey said it is important to listen to children. She said that after being assaulted they might only say something vague, such as "He was mean to me" or "He hurt me." "They may believe that they told you and you didn't listen," she said.
*The Punishment*
61% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.
84% of all rapes in the United States and Canada are Date (Acquaintance) Rapes
A woman is 5 times more likely to be raped by someone she knows.
57% of all sexual assaults take place on dates or in the context of relationships
- If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.
- If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
- If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.
- If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Please contact:
The Awareness Center, Inc.
(International Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Steven Levin
All Voices - July 10, 2010
We think it is important that you be aware of who you are allowing to use your premises for his activities. Steven Joel Levin has being accused by his own son of sexually abusing him. Steven Joel Levin defends himself by the fact that the court never persecuted him. The truth is that the court will dismiss most cases of allegations of sexual abuse by a parent. Their guidelines are that they are innocent until proven guilty and child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. The most common reaction from a parent who has abuse his own child is to “accuse the other parent of being crazy, vindictive and coaching the child” as a way of self-defense. Sadly, we all know how the system makes mistakes. They can either condemned the innocent or free the guilty.
Here are some facts about Steven Joel Levin that we strongly suggest you investigate and could help you to reconsider his membership and avoid liability:
A report on Steven Levin’s son dated June 26, 2002 done by Dr. Hallady, pediatrician, and the director of child protection service unit at B.C. Children’s Hospital were Dr Hallady concludes /“that the findings seen last week would be consistent with anal trauma having occurred. There was no infection detected. I was shown the drawings that he did by my social worker, Jenny Ireland, and my nurse. I am concerned about these. As well, I feel that the police and the ministry should be informed of the drawings (The drawings made by the child, one of them shows his father, Steven Levin, repeatedly hitting him over the head with a bat and the second one shows his father with an erection and the child with his bum. “/
All of this can be corroborated. You can also corroborate that Steven Levin has taken his ex wife and mother of his child, more than thirty times to court since their divorce, seven years ago. In all, he was always the plaintiff and she was the defendant. All for minor matters. What kind of man takes the mother of his child that many times to court? What kind of cleric? A man who has no compassion, a man who is self-centered, a very disturbed man. Do you really want to act as the church has with their clerics by pretending the victimizers were the victims and vice versa?
As disturbing and painful as this matter is, allowing Steven Levin to use the honorable title of Hazzan and working as such will only damage our community.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Spiritual Leadership
White Rock South Surrey Jewish Community Centre - December 30, 2013
FAIR USE NOTICE
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." –– Margaret Mead
No comments:
Post a Comment