Children`s Rights II
Travesty of Law – The Ten Commandments: A True Case

Travesty of Law – The Ten Commandments: A True Case

The Smiths were what we call a "blended family" composed of a mother, a step-father and seven children from the mother. The couple had no mutual children.

Mrs. Smith, previously Mrs. Brown, was married to Mr. Brown for 15 years until they finally divorced after many years of conflicts. Mr. Brown was a very passive person who never saw education as important, never disciplined his children or gave them any sense of "boundaries". Mrs. Brown (Mrs. Smith today) took the same path in spite of the fact that she was more active in the house and she was a very warm and supportive mother.

In contrast to the Brown`s, Mr. Chaim Smith was a disciplinarian, very active, and saw himself as an educator. He came into a family where the rules were virtually a "suggestion" and could be bent or disregarded.

This kind of family is easy prey for the social services .This is what happened after one of the teenagers in the family "ran away" to his father after "not being able to accept any rules" as he later stated. The social workers were involved with the "dysfunctional" family, as they claimed, in a matter of days.

They were out to "save" the children from that "tyrant step father" as they saw Mr. Smith. Because the eldest son, a teenager, not only complained to them but also accused Mr. Smith of horrendous crimes such as oppressing and abusing the children in the family, among other complaints, the social services formally complained to the police, who now called the parents to the police station to investigate them. They went even farther by having all the children investigated by a special agent, "a child investigator".

If the case had ended here it would be understandable because when dealing with children`s safety and best interests an extra precaution is always welcome, at least to some extent. But what occurred here went beyond precaution as you will understand soon after reading the facts below.

The case ended up in court because the social workers asked the court to send the family for "psychological help and guidance" and have the children under "social services scrutiny". Mr. Smith refused this “help” and indicated that if this was to happen he would divorce Mrs. Smith, even though they loved each other.

The Honorable Judge of the family court decided in favor of the social services, stating that according to the psychiatric evaluation of the family and due to Mr. Smith’s "narcissistic" personality, combined with Mrs. Smith’s "weak personality", the children were indeed in danger. The family should seek psychological help immediately and the social services workers were to monitor the progress.

This may come as a surprise to you but it is a sad reality where Judges, based on dry evaluations and wrong perceptions, take over the rule of the family thinking they can do a better job.

The evaluation also stated the "extreme pressure the children were under" and the psychological state of minds of the parents "especially since the legal process had started". Mr. Smith decided to appeal after changing lawyers.

The first question the lawyer asked the judges was: "how is it possible not to be under tremendous pressure and even to break down completely when your future is in danger and you are being accused of all sorts of crimes?"

The second question was presented by the guardian (a lawyer the court appointed to be the "children`s voice"): Is there any relevance to the fact that six out of seven children are happy, do not want to move back to their biological father, are all doing very well in school, have friends and are very healthy?

After 18 months of court procedures, hundreds of valuable working hours wasted, more than $35,000 dollars in expenses, including lawyer`s fees and much pain, the appellate court decided unanimously to rescind the lower court decision and grant the family some partial compensation ($15,000 dollars).

The courts accepted almost every one of the Smith`s lawyer`s legal and practical arguments including the "ten commandments" acceptance. When the case started, Mr. Smith had handed the social workers a document he had recently drafted for the family, called "the family ten commandments". This document was one of the pieces of "strong evidence" presented against Mr. Smith as described by the social services to have "proved beyond doubt" what kind of a strict, cruel tyrant Mr. Smith was.

The explanation given for each one of these commandments presented to the Judges made it clear that Mr. Smith was a very responsible and loving step-father and even generous as he paid more than $12,000 dollars to dentists for the children (and for this reason and as recommended by the dentist, the sweets were to disappear from the house).

Even without special explanations everyone was (except for the social worker and the judge in the lower court) able to easily understand, identify and even adopt these rules.

I will let you judge for yourself.

The Ten Commandments of the Smith Family

1. Respect your father and your mother and also Chaim.
2. We are not your servants and we also deserve rest and help from you.
3. You can ask anything from us in a respectful manner. We do not need to ask you more than one time to do any task.
4. It is forbidden to ask anything by crying, in a hurtful way or by yelling.
5. In our home there is no hitting each other. We talk to each other with our mouths and not with our hands.
6. In our home we do not yell and do not speak with lack of respect.
7. In our home Ima (Mrs. Smith) is responsible and she decides (Chaim helps her).
8. When we are in the car we do not fight. We have to wear our seat belts before the car begins to move.
9. Do not disturb us when we are on the telephone, or when we are talking to another person.
10. Do not disturb us when we are sleeping and if our door is closed. Do not even knock!

Don`t you agree these are "harsh" commandments?

Sincerely,
 

Tzvi Szajnbrum, Attorney at Law