|
First
Amendment - Divorce Feud
By: Rebecca Riddick
Daily Business Review
March 15, 2007
 In
an unusual twist on a growing religious issue, a Boca Raton
psychiatrist who refused to grant his ex-wife a Jewish religious
divorce has filed suit to stop members of a local synagogue from
holding demonstrations in front of his office demanding that he give
her the divorce.
On Monday, Dr. David
Abisror filed a motion in Palm Beach Circuit Court seeking a
temporary injunction to prevent the group from the Boca
Raton
Synagogue from picketing. He
claims the
Melanie Kaminetsky
protesters have engaged in libelous and slanderous speech,
interfered with his business relationships and created a public
safety hazard.
 Abisror
and his ex-wife, Naomi Baruch, were married 12 years ago in
Hollywood. Two years later, they obtained a civil divorce. But,
according to Abisror’s motion, he refused to sign a "get"— a Jewish
divorce document — though he doesn’t say why. There are no children
from the marriage, and there were no outstanding financial issues,
according to their divorce documents.
Baruch has since moved to Israel. Without the get, she cannot date
or remarry, according to Orthodox Jewish law, which governs
marriages and divorces in Israel. Baruch enlisted Israel’s chief
rabbi, Shlomo Amar, in her quest to obtain a get. It was through his
efforts that the Boca Raton synagogue became involved.
Efrem Goldberg, rabbi of the Orthodox synagogue, said his group
planned to continue to conduct small protests of 10 to 15 people
this week in front of Abisror’s office.
Neither Abisror nor his attorney, Michael Brand of Cole Scott &
Kissane in Miami, returned calls for comment by deadline.
The synagogue’s attorney, Howard Dubosar of Dubosar & Dolnick in
Boca Raton, said "in essence, you have an injunction designed to
constrain the First Amendment rights of the synagogue."
First Amendment attorney Thomas R. Julin, a partner at Hunton &
Williams in Miami who is not involved in the case, said Abisror
faces an uphill legal battle to block the group from demonstrating
on public property. "Ordinarily courts will not enjoin protesters
who are simply making statements on public property," he said.
No recourse in U.S.
Battles over gets increasingly are taking place in civil courts in
the United States, including in South Florida. Observant Jewish
women must obtain a get from their husband to remarry and have
legitimate children, but sometimes their angry husbands refuse.
In Israel, the government can become involved in forcing the hand of
a man to sign a get. Husbands who refuse can lose their job and
various civil rights and even be sent to jail. In a famous case, a
man spent the last 35 years of his life in prison for refusing to
sign a get. His ex-wife remarried a month after his death, at age
65.
Most Jewish women in the
United States, however, have no recourse if their husband refuses to
sign a get. New York state passed a get law in the 1980s that
requires all obstacles to remarriage be removed before a civil
divorce is granted. A similar bill is proposed in Maryland.
In Florida, state Sen. David Aronberg, D-Greenacres, has sponsored
legislation that would do the same.
In lieu of legislation, religious women are turning to the civil
court system to find a remedy. Last month, a Dania Beach woman,
Karen Gruber-Colp, asked a judge to force her ex-husband to sign a
get. Broward Circuit Judge Jack Tuter ordered her ex to sign within
days.
Various Jewish women’s groups are working to convince rabbinical
authorities to adopt a solution to the problem so that individual
women no longer have to obtain a get from their husband.
Susan Aranoff, director of
Jewish women’s group Agunah International in New York City, said
that various solutions have been proposed over the past decades that
would either eliminate the need for women to obtain a get, or assign
the ability to sign the get to someone other than the husband. An
agunah is a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a Jewish
religious divorce.
But Aranoff acknowledged that the chances for reform are slim
because Orthodox religious leaders are patriarchal and view
husbands’ control as essential to the stability of marriage. "Have
you heard of a snowball in hell?" she quipped.
She said change will have to occur from the grass roots rather than
from Jewish religious leaders.
Precedent against Abisror
In the Abisror-Baruch case, Chief Rabbi Amar contacted a New
York-based group, Organization for the Resolution of the Agunot, to
help. That organization in turn contacted Boca Raton Synagogue for
help.
The synagogue has been staging the protests in order to get Abisror
to sign the get. Demonstrators have chanted, "Dr. Abisror, free your
wife," and "Dr. Abisror, give your wife a get." Display signs
carrying similar messages. The protesters have brandished chains to
symbolize Baruch’s status as a chained woman.
Goldberg said he tells his group not to go onto the property or into
the building, or even to park in the building’s parking lot. "We are
simply on the sidewalk," he said.
Abisror’s motion calls these actions harassment and coercion "rather
than communication for any educational or altruistic or
philanthropic purpose."
But Dubosar said none of the protesters’ statements constitute
slander or libel. He noted that nowhere in Abisror’s motion does it
specify what slanderous or libelous statements were said.
Julin noted that a 2004 5th District Court of Appeal ruling in
Animal Rights Foundation of Florida v. David Siegel and Westgate
Resorts could apply to this situation.
In that case, Julin represented the animal rights activists who were
protesting developer Siegel’s use of a live tiger to promote his
property. A trial court granted Siegel’s motion for temporary
injunction on the basis of tortious interference with Siegel’s
business.
The order restricted the number of people who could demonstrate and
their location, and blocked them from using bullhorns or shouting.
The lower court also prohibited what phrases could appear on signs.
The 5th DCA, however, overturned the injunction on the grounds that
it was a prior restraint on free speech and that as long as the
protesters did not create a safety hazard, they were free to protest
on public property. The court said blocking nonviolent political
protests to prevent tortious interference with business violates the
First Amendment.
The 5th DCA looked for evidence that the animal rights group was a
business competitor of Siegel’s or was promoting an economic
interest. When it found no evidence of either, the court looked
disfavorably on the tortious interference claim.
Abisror’s motion states that he filed for a temporary injunction
rather than sue for tortious business interference because it would
be difficult to measure the damage done by the protests to his
business relationships.
Dubosar called the Siegel case a roadmap for this case. Boca Raton
Synagogue falls into the same category as the animal rights
activists in that it is not a business competitor of Dr. Abisror’s,
nor is it promoting an economic interest. Its members simply are
trying to embarrass him into signing the get.
Julin said Abisror’s only real remedy is to sue for libel if he
believes the protesters are defaming him.
Dubosar said he plans to pursue a remedy under Florida statute
57.105, which awards attorney fees for baseless legal filings.
Protests in front of offices and homes of men who refuse to sign
gets are a measure of last resort, said Yehoshuavev Ross, of the
Organization for the Resolution of the Agunot.
But Aranoff contended that the solution to the problem isn’t to hold
public demonstrations like this. "By demonstrating, they are
affirming the husband’s power," she said. "The solution is to
disempower the husband. But the rabbis are very reluctant to do
that."
Rebecca Riddick can be reached at rriddick@alm.com or at (561)
820-2565.
Law Editor Harris Meyer provided additional reporting for this
article.
Web
Extras:
Dr. Abisror Lawsuit
Video:
Dr. Abisror won't give a GET
Protestors
outside Dr. Abisror's office
Melanie Kaminetsky photo by Tom Ervin
[Index to Articles]
|
