Case of Aron Goldberger
Baltimore, MD; New Jersey; England and
Israel
If you have materials related to this case, or full
copies of the following newspaper articles or court decisions please forward
to the Awareness Center.
"Mrs. Esther Goldberger is the daughter of Rabbi Moses
Eisemann, who is well known in American Orthodox Jewish circles. Under the
terms of the 1980 marriage, Mr. Goldberger was to be a religious scholar
and, following custom, the Eisemann family and the Orthodox community would
support the couple and their family, according to court records."
If you or anyone you know were sexually victimized by Aron Goldberger and are looking for resources, please feel free to contact The Awareness Center and or your local rape crisis center.
FYI:
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:
-
Family Feud: The local, and
international, Orthodox Jewish community is buzzing about a controversial
child abduction and abuse case against a Torah scholar.
(10/02/1992)
-
A family's nightmare touches 3 continents
(10/15/1992)
-
Goldberger v. Goldberger
(05/28/1993)
-
Talmudic scholar rejects abuse
case plea bargain (06/08/1993)
-
Scholar in molestation case receives
probation (01/11/1994)
-
Milestones From
5753 (09/10/1994)
-
What steps have been taken to protect Aron Goldberger's present
community?
(12/22/2004)
Other Related Cases:
-
Case of Rabbi Eliezer Eisgrau
-
Case of Moshe
Eisemann - Ner Israel, Baltimore, MD
- Case of Moshe Eisemann - Yeshiva of Vineland, NJ
Family Feud: The local, and international, Orthodox Jewish community is buzzing
about a controversial child abduction and abuse case against a Torah scholar.
By Alan H. Feiler
Baltimore Jewish Times - October 23, 1992, Vol. 207;
No. 9; Pg. 21,
A family's nightmare touches 3
continents
by Jay Apperson, Staff Writer
The Baltimore Sun - October 15, 1992
Allegations of child-snatching and molestation are
not unheard of in custody fights. So why have Orthodox Jewish leaders in
three states and on three continents become so deeply involved in the case
of Goldberger vs. Goldberger, a husband-wife battle being played out in Baltimore
courtrooms?
The answer, in one sense, is simple: Both husband and
wife have roots in a New Jersey town that is home to the world's largest
rabbinical college. And they lived in Israel and England before moving into
Baltimore's close-knit Orthodox Jewish community.
But the reasons go deeper than that. Goldberger vs.
Goldberger has aroused passions in Jewish communities from Northwest Baltimore
to Jerusalem because it apparently violates two fundamental principles of
Orthodox Jewish law. The law forbids one Jew from participating in the jailing
of another and discourages Jews from airing disputes in public courts. That's
what a Beth Din, or rabbinical court, is for.
In this bitter family conflict, Mr. Goldberger has
been indicted on charges of kidnapping and molesting his children. He has
countered with charges that his wife, who has pressed the case against him,
is mentally ill.
"It's hard for anyone to know what was going on behind
closed doors,'' said Eliyohu Krohn, speaking about the case before a recent
prayer service at Congregation Machzekai Torah off Park Heights Avenue. Still,
he said, ``There was no reason for anyone to take it out on the street. That's
the pain here.''
Before Aron and (wife) Goldberger began trading public
accusations their arranged marriage was as traditional as any within the
Orthodox Jewish community.
Mrs. Goldberger is the daughter of Rabbi Moses Eisemann (Vineland, NJ),
who is well known in American Orthodox Jewish circles. Under the terms of
the 1980 marriage, Mr. Goldberger was to be a religious scholar and, following
custom, the Eisemann family and the Orthodox community would support the
couple and their family, according to court records.
"She was and is a beautiful woman and I fell in love
with her immediately,'' Mr. Goldberger wrote in 1990, when he still held
out hope for a reconciliation.
The couple had two girls while living in New Jersey
and three boys after moving to Jerusalem in 1983, court records show. With
the couple expecting a sixth child in 1989, pediatricians examining the boys,
ages 5, 4 and 2, discovered evidence of physical abuse and reported it to
social service workers, said Mrs. Goldberger's lawyer, Susan Carol
Elgin.
Mr. Goldberger, however, maintains that he is innocent
and that it was members of the Eisemann family who called Social Services
in October 1989, making public an allegation that he and others believe should
have been kept within the Jewish community.
A month later, Mr. Goldberger and four of the children,
including the boys, moved back to Israel. Although he says he left with his
wife's blessing, he was later indicted on kidnapping charges.
Mrs. Goldberger paid private investigators to track
her husband and children, who passed through Belgium and eventually landed
in London. Word of case spreads
After Mrs. Goldberger moved to England, a Beth Din
there gave her custody of the children in July 1990 and directed Mr. Goldberger
to give his wife a divorce under Jewish law, an order he ignored. By then,
the wife had filed for a civil divorce in Baltimore courts. The husband responded
by seeking visitation rights and saying his wife was mentally ill.
Word of the case traveled in Orthodox circles, with
the wife producing affidavits from rabbis and former classmates of Mr. Goldberger
in New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Israel and Baltimore to back her claim
that he used his religion as an excuse to avoid work.
"He strikes me as a stubborn and obstinate fanatic,''
Rabbi Yisroel Reznitsky, executive director of the Torah Institute of Baltimore,
wrote in one affidavit. ``I have never known him to do an 'honest day's labor'
and am not sure about his true religiosity which he purports.''
Claims that Mr. Goldberger is a religious fraud are "ill-founded,'' said William T. Kerr, who represents him in the civil
proceedings. ``I don't mean to say he's not capable of being manipulative,
but I think in his mind his pursuit of religiosity is genuine.''
As word of the dispute spread, leaders in Baltimore's
Orthodox community began taking sides. Last year, more than 20 rabbis signed
a petition, hung in Baltimore synagogues, questioning the sincerity of Mr.
Goldberger's religious beliefs.
The petition, printed in Hebrew, reads in part: ``It
is also a commandment for each and everybody to distance him, and it is forbidden
to befriend him, and nobody should have any business with him at all, except
of those relatives after whom he has to mourn.''
 |
| Rabbi Tzvi Hershy Weinreb |
Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb of Congregation Shomrei Emunah
said he signed the petition because Mr. Goldberger reflected poorly on the
Jewish community. ``My own personal feeling is when the man was ordered to
do something by a rabbinical court and the Circuit Court, he should do so
or he'll have to face the consequences,'' the rabbi said.
Interest in the case extends half a world away. An
Oct. 2 article in the weekly newspaper In Jerusalem notes that Mrs. Goldberger's
father, Rabbi Eisemann, has incurred the wrath of some followers for taking
a family squabble to the secular courts -- and for allegedly reporting his
son-in-law to Baltimore Social Services workers.
``Wanted posters denouncing his action have been plastered
throughout'' religious neighborhoods in Jerusalem, the article states.
Menachem Friedman, professor of sociology at Bar Ilan
University in Jerusalem and an expert on the ultra-Orthodox, said the strong
feelings surrounding the issue can be traced to ancient times. In those days,
Jews kept their conflicts internal because going before a gentile court and
swearing before a non-Jewish god was to recognize a gentile sovereignty.
The most amazing reflection of the widespread interest
in the case, say the Baltimore lawyers in the custody fight, is the ability
of two people who do not hold jobs to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars
to continue their legal battles.
(wife) Goldberger, 31, finds raising six children to
be a full-time pursuit and apparently gets money for legal fees from her
family, said Ms. Elgin.
Mr. Kerr said Mr. Goldberger, also 31, cannot easily
find work because he has been ostracized in the Jewish community and because
his customs and appearance would make it difficult for him to find work
elsewhere. ``Aron has his black robes that he wears and they're all he owns.
He's not your average member of the community,'' Mr. Kerr said.
Mr. Kerr and other lawyers for Mr. Goldberger are paid
by his backers in England and New Jersey. It's money that could be better
spent, argue Mrs. Goldberger's attorney and a lawyer appointed by the court
to represent the six children.
``This man has raised over $150,000 in a year's time
-- for what?'' said Ms. Elgin. ``His children need therapy for what they've
gone through. He hasn't paid a dime for that. Yet he fights on. What's his
cause?''
Fund-raising efforts for Mr. Goldberger's legal efforts
are coordinated by Michael Rottenberg, a board member of Beth Medrash Govoha,
the Lakewood, N.J., rabbinical college. "Unjustifiably humiliated''
"I really felt he was unjustifiably humiliated to
the lowest level a human being can be,'' said Mr. Rottenberg, who said he
did not know Mr. Goldberger before he was asked by both sides to mediate
the dispute. He added, ``The children are not deprived. Whatever they had
before, they have now, even more.''
He said the Orthodox Jewish community was largely on
the wife's side when the matter first became known, but since then ``even
the people who think he may have done something wrong feel he should not
be in jail.''
Last month, Baltimore Circuit Judge Edward J. Angeletti
sentenced Mr. Goldberger to three years for contempt of court for ignoring
an order to pay more than $4,000 a month in child support. That sentence
was stayed after Mr. Goldberger's lawyers filed an appeal, but he was locked
up again when the child-abduction charges, which had been placed on the inactive
docket in 1991, were reactivated by a prosecutor. Mr. Goldberger spent three
weeks in jail before he was released on $50,000 bail -- just in time to observe
Rosh Hashana. His kidnapping trial is scheduled for Oct. 26.
Mr. Goldberger was indicted Oct. 1 on sexual abuse
charges, even as supporters in Baltimore and London negotiated with a rabbi
in New York to try to find a way to settle the matter. He surrendered at
the Baltimore police Central District last Thursday morning -- a day after
he observed Yom Kippur by praying at Congregation Machzekai Torah.
After spending most of three days behind bars, Mr.
Goldberger was released Saturday on $50,000 bail. He is scheduled to be arraigned
Oct. 22 on the sexual child abuse charges.
Doug Struck of the Jerusalem Bureau contributed to
this article.
Goldberger v.
Goldberger
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Filed: May 28, 1993.
ARON GOLDBERGER
v.
ESTHER GOLDBERGER
APPEAL FROM THE Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Edward J. Angeletti, JUDGE
Argued Before Wilner, C.J., Bishop, and Levitz (Dana M., Specially Assigned), JJ.
Levitz
Opinion by Levitz, J.
The odyssey of the young children of Aron and Esther Goldberger has led
them from Lakewood, New Jersey, to Israel, to Belgium and England, and
finally to Baltimore, Maryland. These children have been the subject of
the attention of various courts including: The High Court of Justice,
Family Division, London, England; the Ecclesiastical Court of the Chief
Rabbi of London (Beth Din); and, finally, the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City.
Prior to the trial of this matter before the Circuit Court, the parties
and their children had been examined and evaluated by ten physicians or
psychologists. When the trial began, Esther and Aron Goldberger were
fighting only about the custody of their children and related matters of
support and visitation. Allegations of sexual child abuse, kidnapping,
insanity and unfitness were made by one or the other of the parents.
Other extended family members were brought into the conflict and took an
active part in it. Since both parties are devout Orthodox Jews, noted
Rabbis in this country and in Europe and Israel were consulted by the
parties for advice, guidance and support.
After resolving the pre-trial motions, participating in pre-trial
conferences with the attorneys and the parties, and conducting a four
day trial, the Court divorced the parties and determined that Esther
Goldberger should be the custodian of the children: (NAME REMOVED), age
11; (NAME REMOVED), age 10; (NAME REMOVED), age 9; (NAME REMOVED), age 7, (NAME REMOVED), age 6; (NAME REMOVED), age 3. The Court further ordered that visitation with Mr.
Goldberger take place only under supervised conditions in the presence
of professionals. Further, in determining the issue of child support,
the Court found that Mr. Goldberger had impoverished himself voluntarily
and that his potential income was $60,000 per year. The Court ordered
him to pay $4,066.00 per month in child support for the six children.
Mr. Goldberger appeals. Interestingly, he does not directly allege that
the Chancellor erred in determining that it would be harmful to these
children to be in his custody. Nor does he challenge directly the
necessity for any visitation to be closely supervised. Instead, he
raises two questions in his appeal to this Court:
(1) Did the trial court err in attributing $60,000 earning potential to
Appellant, based solely upon the ability of others to raise funds to
finance his custody litigation?
(2) Whether the trial court's refusal to recuse itself was clearly
erroneous where trial court manifested clear prejudice to Appellant
prior to trial, or in the alternative, violated Appellant's rights to
due process of law?
Recusal
Were this Court to agree that the Chancellor abused his discretion in
not granting appellant's recusal motion made on the first day of trial,
the entire decision of the Chancellor would have to be set aside and a
new trial ordered. Accordingly, we shall address this issue first.
The Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that judges are impartial
participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified
is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not
qualified. Barry Jefferson El v. State, Md. (1993); citing Boyd v.
State, 321 Md. 69, 581 A.2d 1 (1990); Doering v. Fader, 316 Md. 351, 558 A.2d 733
(1989). A fair and impartial trial is a judicial process by which a
court hears before it decides; by which it conducts a dispassionate
inquiry and renders judgment only after receiving evidence. Spence v.
State, 296 Md. 416, 463 A.2d 808 (1983). Unquestionably,
cases involving innocent children who are caught up in ugly and divisive
disputes between their parents are some of the most difficult that
trial judges are called upon to decide. These cases sometimes require
extraordinary effort to remain dispassionate, particularly when it
becomes clear that a party has acted unreasonably to the detriment of
the children.
Recusal is a discretionary matter, and the judge's decision denying
recusal should not be overturned unless clearly wrong. Surratt v. Prince
George's County, 320 Md. 439, 578 A.2d 745 (1990); In re Turney, 311 Md. 246, 533 A.2d 916
(1987). In the case sub judice there is no question that it was up to
the trial judge to decide the recusal motion. No allegations of bias
derived from an extrajudicial source are alleged. Nor were there any
allegations of personal misconduct such as those alleged in the Surratt
or Turney cases.
The appellant argues that "the content of the pre-trial proceedings in
this case permanently tainted and polluted the remainder of the case."
Where the bias of a trial judge against a party is alleged as the basis
for recusal, the bias must have derived from a "personal," rather than
judicial source. Boyd v. State, 321 Md. 69, 581 A.2d 1
(1990). Where knowledge is acquired in a judicial setting, or an opinion
expressing bias is formed on the basis of information acquired from
evidence presented in the course of a judicial proceeding before that
judge, neither that knowledge nor that opinion qualifies as "personal."
Boyd v. State, at 77; Doering v. Fader, 316 Md. 351, 356, 558 A.2d 733, 736 (1989).
The trial judge's first contact with this case came in the first week of
March, 1992. Having just rotated into the domestic assignment,*fn1
the court noted that a four day trial was scheduled for this case to
begin the end of the month. The court reviewed the file and noted that
seven other judges of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (nearly 30%
of the Bench) had been involved in this case. To assure consistency, the
trial judge requested the Administrative Judge to assign the case to
one judge for all pending motions and trial. Based on that entirely
proper request, the case was assigned to the trial judge to handle all
further matters.
A pre-trial conference was scheduled on March 4, 1992. Subsequent
pre-trial conferences were held on March 5, 9, 11 and 13. It was at one
of the pre-trial conferences that the court was made aware of the fact
that appellant had failed to pay any child support in spite of agreeing
to pay same. He was $3,000 in arrears. Also, appellant had failed to pay
one-half of the fee of Dr. Lehne, the court-appointed mental health
expert, or one-half of the fee of counsel for the children. Also, the
court learned that appellant had avoided the effect of a previous court
order to surrender his passport to counsel by applying for a duplicate
passport, falsely claiming that the previous passport was lost.
At the first pre-trial conference, the court requested that the parties
submit a list of proposed witnesses and a summary of their testimony. At
the pre-trial conference of March 11, 1992, the court indicated that it
would not permit either side to call any of the numerous witnesses the
parties proposed because it appeared from the summaries that those
witnesses, other than the experts, could provide only anecdotal
information that would be of little assistance to the court. This ruling
was reversed on March 13, 1992. On that day, the court told the parties
at a chambers conference that each party would be permitted to call any
and all witnesses he or she desired and that no witnesses were being
precluded from testifying. Also at this conference, it was agreed that
the court-appointed experts, Dr. Gregory Lehne and Dr. P. Gayle
O'Callaghan, would be called by counsel for the children. At the trial,
which began on March 31, 1992, the court permitted the parties to call
the witnesses they desired.
Undeniably, some of the statements the trial judge made during the
various pre-trial conferences clearly revealed the court's displeasure
with the conduct of appellant. Also obvious is the fact that the trial
judge was attempting to encourage the parties to settle their dispute
for two compelling reasons: first, because the unanimous opinions of all
of the experts were that custody must be awarded to the appellee; and
second, because of the sensitive and potentially embarrassing nature of
likely trial testimony. Although experienced trial judges know the value
to the parties of settlements in domestic cases, the fact is that some
litigants need their day in court. That they are entitled to it cannot
be denied. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972).
Some of the comments of the trial judge regarding appellant were
injudicious. Statements regarding appellant's possible (but uncharged
and unadjudicated) perjury in his passport application and his
disqualification as a witness were unnecessarily harsh.*fn2 More egregious were the court's pre-trial comments indicating that no witnesses would be heard other than the parties.*fn3 The trial court's function is to hear witnesses. Spence v. State, 296 Md. 416, 463 A.2d 808
(1983). While appellant's failure to pay child support and fees of the
experts and counsel for his children, to which he had agreed, was
inexcusable, the court's threatening comments regarding leg irons and
handcuffs were improper.
The Court of Appeals in Jefferson-El v. State, Md. (1993), recognized
that recusal may be required not only when the trial judge has an
actual personal bias against a party, but also when the trial judge
creates a situation in which it would appear that he could not, with
impartiality, preside at the subsequent trial. It is the appearance of
impropriety that requires the judge to be recused.
At the hearing on the recusal motion, heard at the beginning of the
first day of trial, the court commenced on the allegations made by
appellant regarding the court's personal animosity and misconduct. "I'm
kind of amused by that because the only thing I haven't been accused of
is prejudging the major issue before the court. The major issue before
the court is the best interest of these children."
In his concluding comments regarding the recusal motion, the trial judge stated,
The critical issue in the case is the best interest of the children and
Mr. Goldberger has not been denied a single right to present evidence on
that issue. And the court has not made a ruling on that issue because I
haven't heard the case. . . . Whatever the truth is, hopefully, it will
come out during the course of this hearing. The motion to recuse is
denied.
As we observed earlier, no complaint is made about the conduct of the
trial or the judge's demeanor during the trial. Nor does appellant
suggest that the evidence was in any way insufficient to sustain the
court's custody decision, or that the decision was based on anything
other than the evidence. The fact of the matter is that, in light of the
evidence presented, no reasonable fact finder could have resolved the
question of custody differently than the Chancellor did in this case.*fn4
All of the expert witnesses, including those consulted by appellant and
called by him to testify, agreed that appellant was a troubled man with
serious personality disorders. All experts, including those consulted
by appellant and the Court, agreed that it would be harmful to these
children if appellant were awarded their custody. We are not prepared to
say that, given the unique facts of this case, the Chancellor's refusal
to recuse himself constituted an abuse of discretion or prejudiced
appellant.
Child Support
In the case sub judice, the evidence revealed that appellant was 32
years old and healthy, with many years of higher education. It was
undisputed that appellant had earned no actual income, as he had never
worked at any income-producing vocation. Appellant planned his life to
be a permanent Torah/Talmudic student.*fn5
He was a student before he was married and before any of his children
were born. Appellant testified that he studies "for the sake of
studying, which is a positive commandment to study the Torah for the
sake of studying it." Further, appellant testified that it was his
intention to continue his life of study forever: ". . . I should
continue to study the rest of my life, to always be in studying . . ."
Throughout his life appellant has been supported by others, first, his
parents, thereafter, his father-in-law, and most recently, friends in
the Orthodox community. Nevertheless, appellant fathered six children
whom he has refused to support, arguing that he has no means to support
and never will have the means to provide support.*fn6
A life devoted to study is viewed by many in the Orthodox community as a true luxury that very few can enjoy.*fn7
Unfortunately for the appellant's children, permanent Torah/Talmudic
students must depend on the charity of others to provide the necessities
of life. Those who support a Torah student have no legal obligation to
continue such support in either duration or amount.
Nevertheless, through a network of family and Orthodox communities in
Europe and the United States, approximately $180,000 had been
contributed to appellant over a three year period to enable him to
pursue his custody claim. Approximately $3,000 of that sum was once used
to purge appellant of contempt for failing to pay child support.
Based on these facts, the court determined (1) that appellant had
voluntarily impoverished himself, and (2) that his potential income was
equivalent to the money that had been contributed by others to his
cause. It therefore regarded his income, for purposes of paying child
support as $60,000 per year and ordered that he pay $4,066 per month for
the support of his six children. Appellant challenges both the finding
of voluntary impoverishment and the calculation of potential income.
The obligation of parents to support their minor children has been
consistently upheld by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Middleton v.
Middleton, 329 Md. 627, 620 A.2d 1363, (1993), Carroll County v. Edelman, 320 Md. 150, 170, 577 A.2d 14, 23 (1990), Knill v. Knill, 306 Md. 527, 531, 510 A.2d 546, 548 (1986); Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 294 Md. 183, 193, 448 A.2d 353, 358 (1982); Kerr v. Kerr, 287 Md. 363, 367, 412 A.2d 1001, 1004 (1980); Brown v. Brown, 287 Md. 273, 281, 412 A.2d 396, 400 (1980); Rand v. Rand, 280 Md. 508, 510, 374 A.2d 900, 902 (1977); Speckler v. Speckler, 256 Md. 635, 637, 261 A.2d 466, 467; Johnson v. Johnson, 241 Md. 416, 419, 216 A.2d 914, 916 (1966); Bradford v. Futrell, 225 Md. 512, 518, 171 A.2d 493, 496 (1961); McCabe v. McCabe, 210 Md. 308, 314, 123 A.2d 447, 450 (1956); Kriedo v. Kriedo, 159 Md. 229, 231, 150 A 720, 721 (1930); Blades v. Szatai, 151 Md. 644, 647, 135 A 841, 842 (1927). In Carroll County v. Edelman, supra, the Court stated,
Parenthood is both a biological and a legal status. By nature and by
law, it confers rights and imposes duties. One of the most basic of
these is the obligation of the parent to support the child until the law
determines that he is able to care for himself . . . the duty of
parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle
of natural law; an obligation . . . laid on them not only by nature
herself, but by their own proper act, in bringing them into the world . .
.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the obligation of parents to support their children. In Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U.S. 340, 351, 23 S. Ct. 757,
761, 47 L.Ed. 1084, 1092 (1903), the Court stated, "At common law, a
father is bound to support his legitimate children and the obligation
continues during their minority . . ." See also Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 76, 25 S. Ct. 172, 175, 49 L.Ed. 390, 393 (1904); Audabon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575, 21 S. Ct. 735, 45 L.Ed. 1009 (1901).
The legislature of Maryland has made it a crime for parents to fail to
support their minor children. Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law ? 10-203 (1991).
As the Court of Appeals recently said in Middleton v. Middleton, supra,
this obligation to provide support is not perfunctory, to be performed
only at the voluntary pleasure or whimsical desire of the parent. Citing
Palmer v. State, 223 Md. 341, 351, 164 A.2d 467, 473 (1960).
In view of the above authorities, there can be no question that
appellant has a legal obligation to financially support his children
until they reach the age of legal majority. The more difficult question
is how to calculate the proper amount of that support. Fortunately, that
question has been answered by the Legislature of Maryland. Md. Code
Ann., Fam. Law ? 12-202(a)(1) (1991) states, "In any proceeding to
establish or modify child support, whether pendente lite or permanent,
the court shall use the child support guidelines set forth in this
subtitle." In order to use the guidelines as required by ? 12-202(a)(1),
it is necessary to calculate the income of the parents. "Income" is
defined in ? 12-201(b) of the Family Law Article as:
(1) actual income of a parent, if the parent is employed to full capacity; or
(2) potential income of a parent, if the parent is voluntarily impoverished.
The legislature's purpose in including potential income was to implement
state and federal policy of requiring adequate support by precluding
parents from avoiding their obligation by deliberately not earning what
they could earn. John O. v. Jane O., 90 Md. App. 406, 420 n.5, 601 A.2d 149, 156 n.5 (1992).
While the Code does not define the term "voluntarily impoverished," in
John O. v. Jane O., supra, we had occasion to address the meaning of
that term. We noted that neither the Legislature nor the Courts in
existing case law had defined what "voluntarily impoverished" meant. We
noted that no clear definition was found in any Maryland resource
materials. Accordingly, we looked to the dictionary definitions of the
words "voluntarily" and "impoverished." We noted that "voluntarily"
means "done by design or intention; proceeding from the free and
unrestrained will of the person; produced in or by act of choice. . . ."
"Impoverished" means "to make poor, reduce to poverty or to deprive . .
. of resources, etc."
The Court of Appeals has often stated that when construing a statute,
"the Court considers its language in its natural and ordinary
signification." Baltimore County v. White, 235 Md. 212, 217, 201 A.2d 358; 360 (1963); citing Height v. State, 225 Md. 251, 170 A.2d 212
(1961). Also, when language is plain and unambiguous it should be given
effect in accordance with the plain meaning of the words; there is no
need to look beyond the language of the statute. Koyce v. State Central
Collection Unit, 289 Md. 134, 140, 422 A.2d 1017, 1020 (1980); Lowenthal v. Rome, 294 Md. 277, 282, 449 A.2d 411, 413 (1982).
It is clear that the plain meaning rule does not require the courts to
read legislative enactments in rote fashion and in isolation. Further,
in construing the meaning of a statute the courts must look to the
legislative purpose in passing the enactment. Nevertheless, the Court of
Appeals has stated in a leading case on statutory construction,
Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 515, 525 A.2d 628,
633 (1987) that, "Sometimes the language in question will be so clearly
consistent with the apparent purpose (and not productive of any absurd
result) that further research will be unnecessary," citing Taylor v.
Dept. of Employment and Training, 308 Md. 468, 472, 520 A.2d 379, 381 (1987).
The issue of voluntary impoverishment most often arises in the context
of a parent who reduces his or her level of income to avoid paying
support by quitting, retiring or changing jobs. The intent of the parent
in those cases is often important in determining whether there has been
voluntary impoverishment. Was the job changed for the purpose of
avoiding the support obligation and, therefore, voluntary, or was it for
reasons beyond the control of the parent and thus involuntary?
In defining the term "voluntarily impoverished" in John O. v. Jane O., 90 Md. App. 406, 421, 601 A.2d 149,
156 (1992), we never intended to limit the obligation of a spouse who
is voluntarily impoverished for any reason, to pay child support. A
parent who chooses a life of poverty before having children and makes a
deliberate choice not to alter that status after having children is also
"voluntarily impoverished." Whether the voluntary impoverishment is for
the purpose of avoiding child support or because the parent simply has
chosen a frugal lifestyle for another reason, doesn't affect that
parent's obligation to the child. Although the parent can choose to live
in poverty, that parent cannot obligate the child to go without the
necessities of life. A parent who brings a child into this world must
support that child, if he has or reasonably could obtain, the means to
do so. Carroll County v. Edelman, 320 Md. 150, 577 A.2d 14
(1990). The law requires that parent to alter his or her previously
chosen lifestyle if necessary to enable the parent to meet his or her
support obligation.
Accordingly, we now hold that, for purposes of the child support
guidelines, a parent shall be considered "voluntarily impoverished"
whenever the parent has made the free and conscious choice, not
compelled by factors beyond his or her control, to render himself or
herself without adequate resources. To determine whether a parent has
freely been made poor or deprived of resources the trial court should
look to the factors enunciated in John O. v. Jane O., 90 Md. App. 406,
at 422:
1. his or her current physical condition;
2. his or her respective level of education;
3. the timing of any change in employment or financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings;
4. the relationship of the parties prior to the divorce proceedings;
5. his or her efforts to find and retain employment;
6. his or her efforts to secure retraining if that is needed;
7. whether he or she has ever withheld support;
8. his or her past work history;
9. the area in which the parties live and the status of the job market there; and
10. any other considerations presented by either party.
Based on a review of the evidence before the circuit court, there was no
error in finding that appellant was "voluntarily impoverished."
Once a court determines that a parent is voluntarily impoverished, the
court must then determine the amount of potential income to attribute to
that parent in order to calculate the support dictated by the
guidelines. Some of the factors the court should consider in determining
the amount of potential income include:
1. age
2. mental and physical condition
3. assets
4. educational background, special training or skills
5. prior earnings
6. efforts to find and retain employment
7. the status of the job market in the area where the parent lives
8. actual income from any source
9. any other factor bearing on the parent's ability to obtain funds for child support.
After the court determines the amount of potential income to attribute
to the parent, the court should calculate the amount of support by using
the standardized worksheet authorized in Family Law ? 12-203(a) and the
schedule listed in Family Law ? 12-204(e). Once the guideline support
figure is determined, the court must then determine whether the
presumptive correctness of the guideline support figure has been
overcome by evidence that application of the guidelines would be unjust
or inappropriate. Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law ? 12-202(a)(2) (1991).
Unfortunately, the court below erred in determining that appellant's
potential income was $60,000 per year, based solely on the his ability
to raise funds to support and carry on this litigation. Although the
court may consider the ability of appellant to persuade others to
provide him with funds to pay child support in the future, the court
cannot assume this will occur merely because appellant has been able to
convince others to support this litigation up until now. The court needs
to hear testimony and make findings regarding the factors relating to
potential income previously enunciated. No such findings were made in
this case. After calculating the guidelines using appellant's realistic
potential income, the court must decide whether the presumptive
correctness of the guidelines has been overcome. Accordingly, this
matter must be remanded to the trial court for such determinations.
In conclusion, we leave undisturbed the trial court's decision granting
the parties a divorce, awarding custody of their six children to the
appellee, and establishing conditions for visitation. We vacate the
court's child support order and remand the matter to the trial court to
recalculate the appellant's child support obligation in light of this
opinion.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.
Disposition
Affirmed in part; vacated in part. Remanded for further proceedings.
Talmudic scholar rejects abuse case plea
bargain
Fall trial date set; new charges likely
The Baltimore Sun - June 8, 1993
Edition: FINAL, Section: NEWS, Page: 3B
By Jay Apperson
A custody battle that has aroused passions in Orthodox
Jewish communities from Northwest Baltimore to Jerusalem took yet another
turn yesterday when a self-described religious scholar charged with molesting
his children rejected a plea bargain that would have allowed him to avoid
jail.
``I have nothing to hide,'' Aron Goldberger said after
turning down an offer that the presiding judge described as one step from
an outright dismissal of kidnapping and child abuse charges. A Sept. 13 trial
date in Baltimore Circuit Court was set, and the prosecutor promptly said
he would likely file additional abuse charges against Mr. Goldberger.
The charges stem from a husband-wife battle being played
out in Maryland courtrooms but being followed by Jewish leaders in three
states as well as England and Israel.
Allegations of child-snatching and molestation are
not unheard of in custody fights. But as Michael Rottenberg, a board member
of a Lakewood, N.J., rabbinical college and one of Mr. Goldberger's key
supporters, noted yesterday, they are almost unheard of in an Orthodox Jewish
society that prefers to mediate its disputes internally and not in the secular
courts.
Also yesterday, Mr. Goldberger's lawyer, Assistant
Public Defender Patrick O'Guinn, filed a motion to allow into evidence polygraph
test results showing Mr. Goldberger was truthful when he denied sexually
abusing any of his sons.
Yesterday's actions came 10 days after a state Special
Appeals Court affirmed a Circuit Court order granting the couple a divorce
and giving custody of their six children to (wife) Goldberger.
In September 1992, Baltimore Circuit Judge Edward J.
Angeletti had ordered Mr. Goldberger to pay more than $4,000 a month in child
support. In the May 28 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals overturned the
support order, ruling that Judge Angeletti erred in calculating support payments
based on the amount Mr. Goldberger was able to raise for his legal
battles.
Mr. Goldberger has explained his never having held
a paying job by saying his marriage contract called for his family to be
supported by his in-laws and other members of the community while he was
a full-time Talmudic scholar.
In ordering the Circuit Court to determine a new amount
of support, the Appeals Court agreed Mr. Goldberger had ``voluntarily
impoverished'' himself despite his obligation to financially support his
children.
The opinion quoted from the musical "Fiddler on the
Roof,'' saying the fictional lead character Teveya recognizes that a life
of study is a luxury when he sings, "If I were a rich man, . . . Wouldn't
have to work hard, . . . I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men
seven hours every day.''
Mr. Goldberger, 33, had been scheduled to stand trial
for kidnapping and child abuse last week, but lawyers reported they were
close to reaching a plea agreement.
To an assault charge Mr. Goldberger would be allowed
to enter an ``Alford'' plea, in which a defendant acknowledges the existence
of sufficient evidence to convict and pleads guilty but is allowed to maintain
his innocence.
In return, he would have received probation before
judgment, meaning he would have no criminal record if he successfully completed
three years of probation, and other charges would have been dropped.
Given the weekend to ponder the offer, Mr. Goldberger
turned it down.
Afterward, prosecutor William Guiffre testily accused
Mr. Goldberger of ``playing games,'' an accusation seconded by Susan Carol
Elgin, lawyer for (wife) Goldberger.
Ms. Elgin said the offer had the endorsement of Mr.
Goldberger's former wife. ``As long as the children are protected, she has
no desire to see him in jail,'' Ms. Elgin said. ``We would like to see him
out, employed, furnishing some financial assistance to the children.''
Ms. Elgin said Mrs. Goldberger and the children live
in Baltimore and receive public assistance.
Scholar in molestation case receives
probation
By Jay Apperson, Staff Writer
January 11, 1994
Edition: FINAL, Section: NEWS, Page: 3B
A bitter domestic battle that has aroused passions
in Orthodox Jewish communities from Northwest Baltimore to Jerusalem moved
a step closer to resolution, as a self-proclaimed religious scholar charged
with molesting his children received probation before judgment for
assault.
Prosecutors dropped sexual child abuse charges against
Aron Goldberger when he pleaded guilty to assault last week in Baltimore
Circuit Court. Mr. Goldberger entered an Alford plea, in which a defendant
declines to plead guilty but concedes that the evidence is against him.
The conviction was struck when Judge Elsbeth L. Bothe
granted probation before judgment, prosecutor William J. Giuffre said.
Under the terms of his probation, Mr. Goldberger, 34,
cannot have any contact with his six children and must receive psychiatric
therapy, the prosecutor said.
Mr. Goldberger had been charged with sexually abusing
three of his sons, ranging in ages from 2 to 5, in 1989.
Mr. Giuffre said a major reason he agreed to the plea
bargain was that he feared that the children would be traumatized by testifying
against their father.
The charges stemmed from a husband-wife battle played
out in Maryland courtrooms but followed by Jewish leaders in three states
as well as in England and Israel.
In May, a state Special Appeals Court affirmed a Circuit
Court order granting the couple a divorce and giving custody of their six
children to their mother, (wife) Goldberger.
Ms. Goldberger's lawyer, Susan Carol Elgin, said that
her client is still seeking child support payments from Mr. Goldberger, who
she says has made no such payments.
Mr. Goldberger has said that he has not made child
support payments because he does not have a paying job.
Mr. Goldberger said that his marriage contract called
for his family to be supported by his in-laws and other members of the community
while he was a full-time Talmudic scholar.
Allegations of molestation are not unheard of in custody
fights.
But as Michael Rottenberg, a board member of a Lakewood,
N.J., rabbinical college and one of Mr. Goldberger's key supporters, has
noted, they are almost unheard of in an Orthodox Jewish society that prefers
to mediate its disputes internally and not in the secular courts.
Milestones From 5753:
A look back at the politics, quotes, good deeds
and not-so-good deeds that made it a year to remember.
By Arthur J. Magida
Baltimore Jewish Times - September 10, 1993, Vol. 213;
No. 2; Pg. 64,1093BJLR 025 000078
What steps have been taken to
protect Aron Goldberger's present community?
Protocols - November 22, 2004
http://protocols.blogspot.com/
What steps have been taken to protect Aron Goldberger's
present community?
The answer is not to shift the problem. Not to use batei din. Not to fight
clergy mandated reporting laws.
The answer is support:
-
Requiring laws to report suspicions of abuse.
-
Respecting such laws.
-
Allowing professionals trained in investigate such
cases to investigate such cases without interference.
-
Co-operating with the police and child family
services.
-
Supporting jailtime for our sexual predators instead
of a plane ticket to Israel or probation.
Family Feud: The local, and international, Orthodox
Jewish community is buzzing about a controversial child abduction and abuse
case against a Torah scholar.
by Alan H. Feiler, Baltimore Jewish Times. Baltimore:
Oct 23, 1992.Vol.207, Issue 9; p. 21
The local, and international, Orthodox Jewish community
is buzzing about a controversial child abduction and abuse case against a
Torah scholar.
Baltimore's observant Jewish community is still reeling
from the dizzying charges and political intrigues resulting from a bitter
child custody, abduction and sexual abuse case being played out in local
courts.
"I think you could easily write a novel about this,"
said one member of the Orthodox community. "There are so many twists and
turns in the context of this passion play. Everybody just went overboard.
I've never seen anything this extensive."
The case of Goldberger vs. Goldberger is being closely
watched on several levels: the disintegration of a prominent family; the
inability of the insular observant community to deal with its problems without
allowing them to spill over to the secular world; the involvement of various
factions of world Orthodox Jewry; and rivalries between old and new guards
of Baltimore's observant community.
The case centers around Aron and (Name Removed) Goldberger,
who married in August 1980, have six children and lived in Israel from 1983
to 1988. Mrs. Goldberger is the daughter of Rabbi Moshe Eisemann, a leader
of the Beth Medrash Govoha Yeshivah in Lakewood, N.J., the world's largest
rabbinical college. Aron Goldberger, 33, is a Torah scholar from Monsey,
N.Y., who is well-connected with Rabbi Shlomo Auerbach, one of Israel's
ultra-Orthodox leaders.
According to court records and local Orthodox Jews
familiar with the case, the couple's pre-arranged marriage stipulated that
Mrs. Goldberger's family promised that Mr. Goldberger would be financially
supported to study Torah indefinitely in a kollel, or graduate program, in
yeshivahs in the United States and Israel.
Details on what led to their breakup appear sketchy
-- with both sides claiming the other spouse was mentally unstable -- but
it seems that while staying with Mrs. Goldberger's sister in Baltimore in
November 1989, (Name Removed) Goldberger decided to part ways with her husband,
Aron. Some say that Mrs. Goldberger's reluctance to move back to Israel --
her husband's desire -- was the final bone of contention.
She left a farewell note for him saying she was taking
their youngest son and asked that their four other children be left with
her sister or with Mr. Goldberger's cousins who live in Baltimore. Mr. Goldberger
searched for his wife for a week and on instructions from his rabbinical
mentor, a rabbi in Belgium, decided to take his children to Israel. Pointing
out that Mrs. Goldberger, by her own accounts, moved six times between November
1989 and July 1990, attorneys for Mr. Goldberger claim he was unable to know
where to return the children to her.
Only a month earlier, while the Goldbergers were expecting
their sixth child, court records show Mrs. Goldberger's sister noticed
"inappropriate behavioral responses" from their three young sons. She had
a local pediatrician examine the boys. The pediatrician found evidence of
sexual abuse.
After consulting with a local Beit Din, or Orthodox
rabbinical court, the pediatrician was advised to report his findings to
the Maryland Department of Social Services. Mr. Goldberger was scheduled
to be arraigned on child abuse charges Oct. 22 at Baltimore City Felony
Arraignment Court. His attorney, Phillip G. Dantes, said Mr. Goldberger
"vehemently" denies the child abduction and sexual abuse allegations.
When Mr. Goldberger returned to Israel with four of
his children, he said he had received his wife's blessings, as well as his
rabbi's. But he was later indicted on abduction charges that are scheduled
to be heard Oct. 26 in Baltimore City Criminal Court.
What is unique in this case is the attention it has
received in Orthodox circles around the world and the large sums of money
that have been raised for legal fees on behalf of a couple with no
income.
Mr. Goldberger has been imprisoned and bailed out of
jail twice by supporters from around the world who have allegedly contributed
over $150,000 for the Torah scholar's legal fees and other expenses.
Mrs. Goldberger and her family reportedly have paid
$70,000 of their $100,000 bill for legal and psychiatric fees.
The domestic fight is now pending before the Maryland
Court of Special Appeals, and Mrs. Goldberger's lawyers claim she and her
six children are living on public assistance. Mr. Goldberger is unemployed
and living with a relative in Baltimore.
According to court records, Mr. Goldberger moved the
children around from Israel to France, Belgium and England, sometimes staying
with some of Mrs. Goldberger's relatives. With the help of private investigators,
Mrs. Goldberger tracked down her husband and children in London in the summer
of 1990. She and her husband asked a Beit Din there to rule on a divorce
and child custody case.
In November 1990, the London Beit Din gave Mrs. Goldberger
custody of the children, and ruled that her husband must give his wife a
get, or Jewish divorce, and only visit the children while under supervision.
The Beit Din also ruled that Mrs. Goldberger did not have to move with her
children to Israel, as her husband insisted. Mr. Goldberger refused to adhere
to the rulings of the Beit Din.
In December 1990, according to court records, Mr.
Goldberger and some of his friends were arrested by British police when they
allegedly broke into a London house where his wife and children were staying
and tried to re-kidnap his offspring. They were held in custody until his
wife and children returned to the United States a few days later.
 |
| Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer |
After Mrs. Goldberger and their children returned to
Baltimore, to be followed by her husband, the family approached a Beit Din
here consisting of rabbis Yaakov Hopfer of Shearith Israel, Moshe Heinemann
of Agudath Israel and Tzvi Hersh Weinreb of Shomrei Emunah.
According to Rabbi Weinreb, the Baltimore Beit Din
supported the findings of the London Bet Din. He said that when Mr. Goldberger
still refused to comply with the rulings of the Beit Dins, the Baltimore
group passed around a notice in August 1991 declaring him "persona non grata"
in local synagogues, meaning that he was not welcome to worship in Orthodox
congregations. Six months ago, when Mr. Goldberger finally agreed to comply
with the rulings, Rabbi Weinreb said most of the 20 rabbis who originally
signed the document removed their names.
While many Orthodox Jews in the community view the
document as a cherim, or excommunication, Rabbi Weinreb said it is only a
demonstration of unity among rabbis to "shun" a tainted member of the community.
Rabbi Weinreb said this is the first "shunning" that he has been involved
in since coming to Baltimore a number of years ago.
"A lot of disputes of this kind are better handled
at a community level," he said. "We're in a better position to determine
the truth."
But some Orthodox Jews here are highly critical of
the Baltimore and London Beit Din decisions, claiming that charges against
Mr. Goldberger were trumped up by his wife and family to gain custody of
the children. And in the Beit Din documents they say rabbis forbade members
of the religious community from housing, feeding, transporting or employing
Mr. Goldberger, thereby making it impossible for him to live in a manner
suitable for an observant Jew.
In September, Baltimore Circuit Judge Edward J. Angeletti,
who has described Mr. Goldberger in the past as "duplicitous and very devious,"
sentenced him to three years in prison for contempt of court for ignoring
orders to pay over $4,000 a month in child support. The sentence was stayed
after Mr. Goldberger's attorneys filed an appeal.
But prior to Rosh Hashanah, Mr. Goldberger spent three
weeks in jail on child abduction charges until his supporters were able to
post $5,000 of his $50,000 bail. He was also indicted on Oct. 1 on child
sexual abuse charges and imprisoned the day after Yom Kippur, spending three
days in jail until he was released on $50,000 bail.
While opinions vary on the case, some local Orthodox
Jews condemn Mr. Goldberger's jailing and believe powers outside of Baltimore
are "out to get him."
Many people in the community are also upset that the
case is now in State courts. For one thing, they say, it violates a Jewish
law forbidding one Jew from participating in the jailing of another. "When
I saw this bearded man in shackles from head to foot, I was more convinced
than ever that he shouldn't be in jail," said a member of the community with
legal expertise.
This source believes the Goldberger case has become
part of a power struggle between several of the newer Orthodox rabbis in
town who maintain strong ties with the Lakewood yeshivah, and rabbis here
aligned with Baltimore's Ner Israel Rabbinical College, which by comparison
is more liberal in that, for example, it allows its students to attend secular
college.
Some of the Lakewood-affiliated rabbis are said to
be sympathetic to Mrs. Goldberger in the dispute out of respect for her father,
a leading scholar at the Lakewood yeshiva.
Mr. Goldberger's supporters say they want a trial to
expose some of the "dirty tricks" that have been used to pressure him into
complying with the rabbinical, and court, rulings.
They also say Mrs. Goldberger's side is scrambling
to get the State to drop charges now that the matter has become an international
crisis, with posters of Rabbi Eisemann in yeshivahs in Israel and the United
States charging that he took the issue outside of the Jewish community.
But Susan C. Elgin, Mrs. Goldberger's attorney, said
it was Mr. Goldberger's filing of an emergency motion for unsupervised visitation
rights of his children in circuit court in early 1991 that brought the case
to the secular world. And while noting that the case is now a State matter
that cannot be dropped by the family, she said it has been Mr. Goldberger's
refusal to pay any child support that has led to his recent problems with
the law.
"Mr. Goldberger, by his own psychiatric report, has
a personality disorder," Ms. Elgin said. "The people supporting him are doing
him no favor. He needs help."
Mr. Goldberger alleges that his wife suffers from mental
illness and sever depression.
Some observers suggest that this case, however unique,
is indicative of potential problems that can result from arranged marriages
where the husband and wife do not know each other well, compounded by the
longstanding tradition of having the wife's family agree to support the husband's
scholarship. Large families and little income can lead to conflict, experts
note.
But for now, the focus is on bringing this particular
case to resolution.
Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, Rosh Yeshiva (dean) of the local
Ner Israel Rabbinical College, blames the case's entrance into secular courts
to "partisanship" between factions in the Orthodox world.
"It's a disgrace to the community and people involved
in the case that it's anywhere but in the rabbinical courts," he said. "Obviously
both sides are wrong. But the whole thing should have been settled justly
in the Beit Din. What we have to do now is try to find some peace for these
people."
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
