« More Movies For My Movie Collection | Main | The Ninth Skeptic's Circle »

May 26, 2005

Protests Against "From Madness To Mutiny"

Update: One of my commenters, Richard Sharpe, gave me the link to Part I of "Still Waiting For Sherry". It's here. It is an Acrobat file.

---

I posted an advanced press release for the new book "From Madness To Mutiny" on my blog back in January. One of the authors of that book is Dr. Amy Neustein. Neustein has claimed for years that her ex-husband had sexually abused her daughter. Neustein lost custody and all contact with her daughter many years ago. Now, her daughter (or, as the link below says, someone purporting to be her daughter) and others connected to her father are speaking out against her mother and the publication of this book. Here is a link to an article detailing all those issues that appeared in Jewish Voice and Opinion. I don't have Part I. It's an Acrobat file.

"Still Waiting for Sherry - Part II"

This second article was printed by The Jewish Press. I don't have a link for it.

From The Jewish Press 5/27/2005

Silent No Longer

The Other Side Of Abuse Allegations

by Sherry Orbach

Editor's Note: In recent months The Jewish Press published two articles by Amy Neustein - the first a feature piece in the Family Matters section, the second an op-ed column - in which she recounted her longstanding allegations that her ex-husband abused their daughter. Ms. Neustein's daughter, Sherry Orbach, requested this opportunity to respond.

Although I have not seen my mother, Amy Neustein, in sixteen years, I remember her clearly. She claims the reason she repeatedly accused my father in the media of sexually abusing me was to gain custody rather than fame. Yet when she did have custody of me - long before the legal battles began - I remember her voluntarily sending me off to live with my grandmother in upstate New York, after which I rarely saw her.

I remember, on one of my rare visits to my mother's house in Brooklyn, watching her softly stroking her hair with an antique silver brush as she gazed at herself in her bedroom mirror and wondered out loud whether she was pretty enough to be famous.

I remember my mother sitting with me on the plastic covered couch in my grandmother's country home at age five as if it were yesterday. We had been rehearsing for hours. She would begin by telling me a sordid - -and false-- story about my father, such as a detailed account about how he had molested me or about how he had thrown me violently against a wall. She then instructed me to repeat the story word for word until she was satisfied with my rendition. At the time, my father had indicated he would be filing for custody. My mother warned that if I did not tell these lies to the judge, I would be taken from my grandmother.

After my mother lost legal custody, I visited her once a week. During these visits, my mother used to tape-record me and pose me for pictures in order to gain material for her next media performance. I fought back in the only way I could. Once, I chased her around a table in an attempt to snatch her tape recorder.

For eighteen years (I am now 24); I was silent as my mother spun lie upon lie about my father and me. According to her story, she is the victim of a conspiracy involving my father, Brooklyn Family Court, federal and state appellate courts, the Legal Aid Society, the Brooklyn Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Ohel family services, and several leaders of the Jewish community. These co-conspirators, my mother insists, punished her for revealing that my father had sexually abused me by taking me away from her.

The truth, however, is that my father never sexually abused me, and that reporters and alleged victims' advocates who supported my mother chose to retell her lies without adequately checking the facts.

The reason my family and I did not seek media attention to counter my mother's allegations is that we wished to maintain our privacy. My family believed that my mother's publicity would fizzle out, and that it was best to avoid the media spotlight as much as possible so that I could live a normal life. But my mother has been relentless in her exploitation of me. Recently she embarked on another media tirade, and has published her false allegations in this paper and others.

The worst article I have yet to see this year contains my full name as well as photos of me as a child and as an adult, along with sickening and absurd lies about my father and me. Even if the allegations were true (which they are not), it is a widely accepted principle of journalistic responsibility - and of everyday morality - that it is wrong to invade the privacy of victims (alleged or actual) by publishing their full names and photographs. Kal u'chomer (how much more so) when the allegations are false. Such deceptive reporting is so damaging and hurtful that I feel I no longer have any choice but to break my silence.

I do not hate my mother; I see her as troubled. Nor do I seek revenge. I am only speaking out to stop her, and her supporters who profess to care about me, from continuing to exploit and torment me. With no other recourse, my mother has tried to counter my denial of her allegations by claiming that I am being brainwashed and used by my father and other alleged members of the so-called conspiracy who "desperately fear public scrutiny and government inquiry"

Anyone who knows me well will vouch that I am independent-minded and not the weak character my mother makes me out to be. The only parent who tried to brainwash me is my mother. The only people who are using me to advance their own careers are my mother and her allies. I vividly remember my mother sitting me on the couch at age five and coaching me to lie about my father. These are my memories and not anyone else's.

I do not profess to know how typical my story is. I hope it is the exception and not the rule. However, the research involving allegations of child sexual abuse in court custody cases indicates that false allegations can occur in anywhere from 2 percent to 60 percent of such cases, and so it is far from an exact science. In these instances the accuser can often be the most vocal, the most sympathetic, and thus the most believable: But sometimes the real victim is the accused. And the one who pays the biggest price of all is the child. What I have learned from my case is that you can find "experts" to say anything, and that journalists are sometimes more interested in a good story and don't want to be confused by the facts.

The damage caused by the irresponsible reporting and advocacy of my mother and her supporters extends beyond my family. Not only have they stained the credibility of the victims' rights movement they claim to speak for, but they have diverted attention from the true needs of children in the family court and child welfare systems by misrepresenting what I, and similar children, required. What I did not require, contrary to my mother's claim, was for the family court to be opened to the media.

I, for one, owe my existence as a normal young adult to the family judges, Ohel foster care, and the Legal Aid Society attorney who helped me reunite with my father in the face of considerable opposition in the media.

Most of all, I am grateful to my father for the sacrifices he has made for me over the years.

Posted on May 26, 2005 at 08:15 AM | Permalink

Comments

I'm very proud of Trish for posting this article...

It gives the other side of the argument albeit of a participant who was far too young to remember much of what went on with any clarity and who has been living with the other side of the family in a continuing 'family feud' for almost two decades now with no contact from her mother...

One point which wasn't made in the article is that after Amy Neustein's father died, he left a rather large inheritance to her cutting out the rest of the family...At that time, her sister and brother-in-law offered to allow Amy to 'contact' her daughter, which was probably more of a way to open discussion on the possibility of sharing the inheritance, rather then any real attempt to resolve this mother/daughter conflict but they were promptly turned down (and correctly so) as Amy Neustein probably didn't want her daughter to be involved as a go-between on this issue...

This, I believe, is the origins of Family Feud Part II which still appears to be raging today...

Sad...

Posted by: NYMOM at May 26, 2005 9:26:16 AM

Part 1 is available at Waiting for Sherry

It's also a PDF.

Posted by: Richard Sharpe at May 26, 2005 2:33:30 PM

Thanks for part 1. I was looking for that but I wasn't sure where to find it.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 26, 2005 2:40:53 PM

>At that time, her sister and brother-in-law offered to allow Amy to 'contact' her daughter

Rubbish, what is NYMOM smoking? I know Sherry well; this is a very gut wrenching step that Sherry has taken. It is a sick thing to diminish what she is doing by throwing up a smoke screen.. If .

Posted by: Susan Green at May 26, 2005 4:53:46 PM

After reading this story last night, I Googled (among other things) Ozzy Orbach, and he has no record of disciplinary actions taken against his New York medical license. Doctors (and other licensed professionals) have had their licenses yanked for much less scandalous things.

I just couldn't imagine a physician who really did molest his daughter (and went through a public ordeal) being allowed to practice.

Say, anyone know if Eric Foretich still practices dentistry? THOSE allegations make more sense, if only because more than one person made them.

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at May 26, 2005 7:00:20 PM

"Rubbish..."

Well I got an email from her sister's husband telling me this...as he was very angry that his wife had been cut out from receiving anything after the death of her father...like he was surprised or something...he disrespected her father and her family for years and then thinks he's going to leave them money...

Right...

He was also trying to claim that Amy Neustein could have seen her daughter at anytime she chose to and used that offer for contact as an example of when Amy Neustein turned down a visit...

Obviously him and his former brother-in-law (Amy Neustein's ex-husband) are very invested in making Amy Neustein look bad in every way possible and this was another example...

Sad really...

Posted by: NYMOM at May 26, 2005 7:17:19 PM

I can't believe this! A victim finally speaks up, yet NYMOM is concerned about Amy's dispute with her sister about their inheritance! HELLO! What in g-d's name does this have to do with Sherry? Is NYMOM implying that Sherry is eyeing for a portion of the inheritance? If not what is her point except to throw a red herring into this major development into a sad story that has been going on for 18 years. Perchance NYMOM is more concerned about Amy than the true victim Sherry? I think she is one of the, to quote Sherry, "irresponsible reporting and advocacy of my mother and her supporters".

Posted by: Susan Green at May 26, 2005 9:13:24 PM

"The damage caused by the irresponsible reporting and advocacy of my mother and her supporters extends beyond my family. Not only have they stained the credibility of the victims' rights movement they claim to speak for, but they have diverted attention from the true needs of children in the family court and child welfare systems by misrepresenting what I, and similar children, required. What I did not require, contrary to my mother's claim, was for the family court to be opened to the media.

I, for one, owe my existence as a normal young adult to the family judges, Ohel foster care, and the Legal Aid Society attorney who helped me reunite with my father in the face of considerable opposition in the media.

Most of all, I am grateful to my father for the sacrifices he has made for me over the years."

I just want to say not knowing any of your family personally except for a few emails from one member; that I'm happy to see that you appear to be doing well...and that you understand the concern of strangers in your situation was a well-meant attempt to ensure that a little girl was not being placed in an abusive situation...

I sincerely hope you can understand that...

Anyway good luck...hopefully this book situation will be settled and your family can finally achieve some peace...

Posted by: NYMOM at May 26, 2005 9:21:17 PM

"A victim finally speaks up, yet NYMOM is concerned about Amy's dispute with her sister about their inheritance! HELLO! What in g-d's name does this have to do with Sherry? Is NYMOM implying that Sherry is eyeing for a portion of the inheritance?"

No that's not what I was implying...if you or anyone thought that, you were wrong....

What I was saying is that it appeared to be another reason for dissention in a family that already had more then it's share of reasons to be estranged from one another...

I never meant I thought her daughter was looking for money from that...

I understand that Amy Neustein's daughter is a victim here. I'm just not entirely sure of who or what; since I do believe she was a little too young to really grasp the events going on in her life during the critical periods...

Also discrediting one or the other person here could have an impact on many other innocent victims of abuse...I do believe false accusations are ALWAYS a possibility but so are courts willing to overlook when victims do come forward as you can readily see in the Michael Jackson trial...so it's a vicious two-way street...

Posted by: NYMOM at May 26, 2005 9:39:15 PM

Part I talks about how the Orbachs want to squash publication of the book, which doesn't mention Neustein's case, her daughter (either anonymously or by name), or her husband at all. It's telling that they are going after a book that doesn't mention them or their case at all.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 27, 2005 11:43:03 AM

Well, actually, Part 1 says things like:


Almost 20 years ago, Dr Amy Neustein of Edgewater, now 47, lost custody of her daughter. ...

While no one denies that the reverse side of the coin exists and that some fathers have been falsely accused of abuse and suffer greatly as a result, Dr. Neustein has faught for two decades to publicize the truth about her daughter's case and others like it.

...

Now 24, Sherry Orbach is still estranged from her mother ...

So, Part 1 does most definitely mention the daughter by name, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me.

However, more than that, the issue here seems to be whether or not we can believe that the alleged letter from the daughter is correct.

We have the testimony of one person who has responded here that she knows the daughter and she implies, I believe, that the letter allegedly from the daughter is actually from the daughter.

That suggests to me that something deeply tragic has occurred, and I find it hard to understand how someone who was sexually abused by their father could defend him in that way.

However, it all hinges on the validity of this new piece of evidence.

Posted by: at May 27, 2005 1:50:12 PM

"However, it all hinges on the validity of this new piece of evidence."

What new piece of evidence are you referring to...as I don't think a 5 year olds recollection of a complicated series of events that happened almost 20 years ago is a 'new piece of evidence' as you call it...even the way she confused her stay at the Ellenville summer home with her normal place of residence was obviously a mistake produced by a 5 year's limited ability to understand what is going on around them...

I believe that SHE believes that what she said is true. My question is how much is the product of a young child's inability to accurately access what was actually happening around her, coupled with years of being denied any contact with her mother to even talk about any misconceptions.

Realistically speaking we might NEVER be able to arrive at the truth here...

Posted by: NYMOM at May 27, 2005 2:10:02 PM

Anonymous, I was referring to the book itself, which doesn't mention Sherry, the case, or the Orbachs. Nowhere in the book are they mentioned, yet they are going to great lengths to quash the book.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 27, 2005 3:21:54 PM

Sheelzebub,

I am sorry. I misread your statment. I now see that you were referring to the book as not mentioning the names of the Orbachs.

Posted by: Richard Sharpe at May 27, 2005 5:39:22 PM

Regarding Sherry Orbach's claims that Amy Neustein coached her into making false allegation of child sexual abuse, I remember my many conversations with Rebitzin Neustein, Sherry's grandmother, and in my IMO a paragon of truth, who said she walked in on Sherry's dad,Ozzie Orbach, and found him on the floor in the act of sex with his 3-year-old daughter, and where upon she chased him around the apartment with a broom. It wasn't Amy who started custody battle. It was Sherry's grandmother. Sherry spent the rest of her formative years with Ozzie. Is it not inconceivable that Sherry's perspective has been tainted with Ozzie's plausible deniabilty assertations over the past two decades?

Posted by: Vicki Pierce at May 28, 2005 6:53:31 PM

> Is it not inconceivable that Sherry's perspective has been tainted with Ozzie's plausible deniabilty assertations over the past two decades?

The denials came at the beginning not only now, that is why custody was awarded to the father. Are you so foolish as to believe that the courts would award custody to the father if the child was accusing the father of sexually abusing her? Come on! You are throwing up a smokescreen by implying that this is the first time after two decades that Sherry is recanting the charge of abuse.

Posted by: Susan Green at May 29, 2005 10:09:56 AM

OT: The spammer's gone. Good.

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at May 29, 2005 10:17:18 AM

There were two spammers, and they spammed my comments with close to 100 spams. The last time this happened someone spammed me with close to 300 spams. Typepad has taken care of all of it.

I was deleting the first spammers comments yesterday as they appeared. He figured it out and stopped. Good. I don't think it's an accident the spammers chose Memorial Day Weekend to do this crap. They probably figured bloggers wouldn't be online. I was lucky I checked my blog briefly and put a stop to it.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 29, 2005 10:38:38 AM

Susan Green: "Are you so foolish as to believe that the courts would award custody to the father if the child was accusing the father of sexually abusing her?"

Actually, it does happen. Men who abused their wives also sometimes get either sole or joint custody of their children. The father and his lawyer usually cite junk science like Parental Alienation Syndrome to claim the mother is making false allegations of abuse. They also claim that the child making accusations has been coached by the mother. False allegations actually are rare. They occur in only 2 - 8% of all allegations of abuse. I'm not talking about the Neustein/Orbach case in particular, but abuse cases in general.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 29, 2005 10:41:37 AM

Trish, that could be true. The problem here is that is a case where the abuse did not happen. To try to use this case as an example is doing a disservice to the efforts to fix the system. The system actually worked, not smoothly, not without its problems, but it did work. To quote Sherry "I, for one, owe my existence as a normal young adult to the family judges, Ohel foster care, and the Legal Aid Society attorney who helped me reunite with my father in the face of considerable opposition in the media".

There are many friends, like myself, that have grown up and know Sherry and her father, stayed over their house over weekends that she has confided to. There is also her aunt, her mother's sister, and her three first cousins that have maintained a close relationship with Sherry.

People are painting a picture of Sherry living locked away in some dark basement with a perverted father. Sorry to disappoint them, Sherry was brought up by a caring father. She has attended the finest schools. She is attending a very prestigious Law School. She worked one summer for a US Senator, spent another summer in Bangladesh, last summer in South Africa, the list goes on.

She is a remarkable young woman that should be allowed to go on with her life. She is one of those people that will make important contributions to society - just let her!

Posted by: Susan Green at May 29, 2005 1:45:03 PM

Susan, I haven't taken a side on my blog regarding Sherry Orbach, Ozzie Orbach, and Amy Neustein. I had posted al link to the press release for book and to the notice about the Battered Women's Custody Conference for information purposes, and I thought it was relevant to post what had been published at Jewish Voice and Opinion and The Jewish Press. I thought everything was worth posting.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 29, 2005 2:09:19 PM

Trish, you are right, your comments have been fair and professional. I wish more of the mainstream press had your professionalism. I was addressing what I felt was the picture that some of the posters were painting of this special person and was trying to bring a personal touch to this story.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Susan Green at May 29, 2005 2:18:29 PM

Thanks so much, Susan. I tried to be fair and professional. I hope you have a pleasant Memorial Day weekend. My family certainly is.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 29, 2005 6:32:47 PM

Posters who wish to address the facts of the Neustein case
should read the article "Waiting for Sherry (Part I)," which
is linked from this site, as well as accounts such as the ones
I wrote for The Village Voice in October 1996 (with Adam
Fifield) and The Jewish Week in November 1996, before
hazarding guesses as to Sherry's past statements. The facts
have been clearly reported.

Sherry, then 6, DID report having been molested by her father.
She made the report to a CPS supervisor (who made a written
account of it) and to Dr. Anne Meltzer, one of New York's
leading experts on child sexual abuse. (And no knee-jerk
validator, either; you may remember her as Woody Allen's
expert in his custody case involving sex abuse issues.) Dr.
Meltzer stated in writing, and under oath, her "strong reason
to believe" Sherry had been abused by her "on more than one
occasion." Her statements followed Sherry's grandmother's report,
who stated (and later testified) that she had actually
witnessed such an act. Other mental health professionals
involved in the case also expressed their suspicions.

From that time until now, Sherry has never spoken up to
recant those statements. She has certainly had opportunities;
this case has been in the press repeatedly, and her comments
have been solicited on many occasions. Adam Fifield and I,
for instance, tried to communicate with Sherry when we wrote
our article in 1996 (when she was about 16), and I tried again
after the articles appeared in the Voice and The Jewish Week.
We interviewed Sherry's father and uncle (who styled himself
Sherry's spokesman): neither of them gave us a single comment
allegedly from Sherry, and she herself did not speak to us.
Nor did she come forward to criticize either story.

I have asked Susan Rosenbluth, publisher of The Jewish Voice
and Opinion (and co-writer of "Waiting for Sherry") and her
experience tallies with mine. She also tried to contact
Sherry and her father, leaving repeated phone messages. In
her case, neither the father nor Sherry would respond for the
article.

So, to anyone who believes that Sherry simply MUST have
denied the abuse incident all along -- the facts are
otherwise. Amy Neustein lost custody essentially because
a psychologist notorious for accused-abuser-friendly
attitudes, Arthur Green, argued that Amy's belief that her
daughter had been abused amounted to a "delusion." (As to the
extensive evidence supporting the charge, Green was tape
recorded saying that he would not consider it because the judge
had already told him no abuse had occurred, though how the
judge could have decided that, in the middle of trial, is a
pretty problem.) The poster who pointed to quack mental
health theories as the problem in cases like this was on
the mark.

I do not know why Sherry -- if indeed the author of the re-
cantation is Sherry -- has decided, for the first time, to
deny her former claims and insist she was never abused. It
is possible that she cannot remember the incidents from so
many years ago. It is also possible, as suggested in
"Waiting for Sherry: Part II" (linked from this site), that
people with influence on Sherry, who are worried about the
effect of the book Dr. Neustein has just co-written, have
pressed Sherry to make her public statement in an effort to
discredit the book. What I do know is that this statement
marks an abrupt departure from Sherry's original reports,
and that she might easily have prevented a good deal of press
coverage of her case (or at least drastically changed the
tenor of the reports) if she had made such a claim at any
time over a period of many years. It is also in sharp contrast
with the statements of her late grandmother (who gave
eyewitness testimony) and the statements of mental health
professionals and an expert evaluator who interviewed Sherry
at the time this case was before the courts. I note that the
new statement does not attempt to explain how Sherry's grandmother
"lied" or how Sherry herself managed to deceive the experts.

I also know -- and this seems to me the most important fact of
all -- that the new statement made in her name does not
address, let alone refute, any of the facts about the Neustein
case described in "Waiting for Sherry" or in prior press
accounts. Let anyone who doubts this review the articles, or
the statement of facts on the Neustein case I myself composed
some time ago (and which is available on line in connection
with a press release from N.O.W. New York State). My computer
skills aren't equal to placing a link to that summary here, but
if you run a Google search for "Amy Neustein" and "Michael
Lesher" in conjunction I'm sure you'll hit it.

Caveat lector.

By the way, full disclosure: I am the co-author, with Dr.
Neustein, of From Madness to Mutiny. I hope all of you
who are interested in the experiences of protective mothers
in family courts will want to read the book.

Michael Lesher

Posted by: Michael Lesher at May 30, 2005 11:05:30 AM

Thank you Michael Lesher...

Posted by: NYMOM at May 30, 2005 12:36:09 PM

I am not quite clear what the prir poster meant by "has decided, for the first time, to
deny her former claims and insist she was never abused". While the bulk of the custody battle occured when Sherry was 8-12 years old did the author expect Sherry to hold a press confrence? After custody was awarded to her father things were quieter from the publicity point of view. Yes there were flash-in-the-pan stories but they blew over quickly and her father decided not to tell Sherry about them so as not to aggrevate her. When Susan Rosenbluth's article came out, Sherry, now an adult of 24 and in Law School decides that she will not stand for the lies being told about her and decided to speak up. Is that so hard to follow?

As far as Sherry not responding to Susan Rosenbluth, she did respond. Susan decided not to include Sherry's response in her follow-up article.

Her response follows -

--------------------------------------------------------

From: "Sherry Orbach"
To: susan@jewishvoiceandopinion.com
Subject: potential lawsuit
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:45:18 -0800


To: Rachel Bluth and Susan Rosenbluth

From: Sherry Orbach

Re: Potential Lawsuit

I have recently read your article entitled “A 20-Year-Old Custody Battle…” I am taken aback by the number and ferocity of the lies in the article. The article is the worst case of unethical reporting I have ever seen. The bottom line is that my father never sexually abused me. It is upon this false foundation that my mother has built her web of lies and gross distortions about both me and my father. I am also disturbed that you did not bother to contact me before invading my privacy when a simple Google search of “sherry orbach” would have led you to my email address at Columbia Law School. Even if you were unsure as to whether I was Amy’s daughter, it would not have been difficult to contact me to find out, rather than assume I was the person you mentioned from Hoboken.

I am currently consulting with lawyers and professors at Columbia Law School about bringing a civil action against you.

To minimize your liability, take the article off your website and cease further reporting on this issue.

My uncle mentioned that I was considering writing a response letter. Contrary to your suggestion, nobody asked me to write the letter. Why would anyone have to ask when you have not only published lies against my father, whom I love very much, but when your lies regarding my own conduct are profoundly humiliating?

I am writing the letter, but since I do not trust you to print my letter in its unadulterated form, I will send it to another publication. In this letter, I may also highlight your blatant disregard of principles of ethical journalism, such as the well known axiom that journalists should “diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”[1]

Sincerely,

Sherry Orbach

PS: I am CCing friends on this email so that I will have witnesses if you distort my words, or if you print parts of this email without the printing the message in full.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists

Posted by: Susan Green at May 30, 2005 1:41:14 PM

Only three points made in response to my prior posting deserve
comment.

First, I did not write that Sherry did not respond after
"Waiting for Sherry (Part I)" was printed. I wrote that she
did not respond to Ms. Rosenbluth's calls FOR the article,
which is why she was not quoted anywhere in Part I. Susan
Rosenbluth has shared with me a later e-mail from the same
author in which the author insists that her letter is NOT to
be printed. In fact, even the e-mail reproduced above
indicates that "Sherry" wanted it printed somewhere else,
if at all. The e-mail does not explain why Ms. Rosenbluth's
efforts to reach Sherry by phone before the article was
published were ignored.

Second, anyone who takes the trouble to read "Waiting for
Sherry: Part II" will see that Sherry's e-mails to Ms.
Rosenbluth after the first article appeared ARE discussed
in considerable detail in that article, contrary to what has
been claimed here.

Third, a letter appeared in The Jewish Week in response to my
column about the Neustein case in November 1996, signed by
one Alana Sher, who identified herself as a friend and
classmate of Sherry's. Ms. Sher claimed that Sherry HAD seen
my column and was upset by it. I wrote to Ms. Sher, and to
Sherry, asking what it was Sherry objected to in the column.
I received no response.

Thus, the claim made by a poster that Sherry knew nothing
of press accounts written after she was in her father's
custody cannot be true, unless Alana Sher was lying. (How the
poster could know what Sherry knew or didn't know over so
many years, or what her motives for silence might have been,
is beyond me.) And Sherry was 16 at the time -- certainly
old enough to speak for herself.

So the facts remain: Sherry DID report having been abused by
her father, both before and after she was removed from her
mother. (And perhaps much later, too: a nurse at Brookdale
Hospital, where Sherry was being treated for anorexia when
she was 8, noted that Sherry had told her father, "You got me
into this. If you don't get me out of here, I'm going to tell
everything.") She DID NOT contradict her reports, the
statements and testimony of her grandmother, or the expert
reports from Dr. Meltzer and others, until The Jewish Voice
and Opinion mentioned the forthcoming book by Amy and me
earlier this year (a book that never names Sherry or her
father). She HAS NEVER before responded to calls or questions
from reporters, despite many prior opportunities. She still
has not contradicted any of the factual claims made in any
recent article. She has not explained away the testimony
and expert reports suggesting the abuse reports were
well founded. And she has insisted on sending all of her
denunciations by e-mail; she refused to be interviewed by,
or even to meet, Susan Rosenbluth, who seems to have been
very eager to meet Sherry.

Is it merely coincidence that Amy's critics seem to have
copies of certain e-mails purportedly from Sherry, while
they do not know (or do not share) many pertinent facts
of her case?

In any event, it should be pretty clear who is interested
in the facts of the case and who is interested in
disseminating half-truths and innuendo.

Michael Lesher

Posted by: Michael Lesher at May 30, 2005 6:29:54 PM

So now Sherry is no longer the victim, but guilty in the conspiracy.

Sigh!

Posted by: Susan Green at May 30, 2005 10:47:45 PM

I think you all should be ashamed of yourself for engaging in a public debate over the merits of a private family dispute. I only hope that you are so lucky as to shield your own families from such hurtful behavior and that this becomes the last comment on this blog.

Posted by: Elizabeth at Jun 5, 2005 12:54:28 AM

It might have been if you had kept your nose out of it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Jun 5, 2005 11:36:42 AM

Last I heard courts of equity are public record.
The public has a right to know and form educated opinions.
Had Ozzie Orbach not tried and won custody, no one would
have ever known about this case. Sad truth, fit mothers are losing custody of their children in droves. It's a couragous reporter and publisher who dare to cover these stories.
In Atlanta, with the exception of Creative Loafing, The Gwinnett Daily Post and The Champion, editors of most news outlets, refuse coverage.
If I were a woman facing a custody battle with an abusive
husband, I'd want to know.

Posted by: Elizabeth at June 5, 2005 12:54 AM

"I think you all should be ashamed of yourself for engaging in a public debate over the merits of a private family dispute. I only hope that you are so lucky as to shield your own families from such hurtful behavior and that this becomes the last comment on this blog.

Posted by: Vicki Pierce at Jul 13, 2005 4:06:44 PM

Dear Sherry,
Your grandmother Shirley adored you . Your mother loves you. I spoke with them several times before leaving NY. I know what it feels like to have the media and newspapers invade the privacy of my life and childrens' lives. I am sorry that you suffer.
In 1993 when my children and I were broken and maimed by family court, your grandmother often comforted me. I always wondered what became of you and I want to say that I have followed and admired your strides.
I have made plenty of mistakes with my boys, every mother does... but I know that your mother loves you endlessly.
Hashem didnt say love your parents he said honor them, that gives one solace.
But if you had been my daughter, I never would have given up, whatever it would take, even if it came accross wrong or misinterpreted or misunderstood.
Amy is your mother and she loves you

Posted by: Pam Unger at Jul 19, 2005 7:40:49 PM

Parents of Sexually Abused Children

1. If your child was sexually abused or you suspected your child was sexually abused, would you allow the news media to publish your child's name and or photograph in the newspaper?

2. If you lost custody of your child, would you allow the news media to publish your child's name and or photograph in any newspaper or allow it to be shown on the nightly news?

3. If your child is now over the age of 18, grew up without knowing you, because you lost custody of the child, would you publish your child's name in a newspaper, including a current photo of them?

4. Should your adult child have a right to privacy? Or should you have the right to force your adult child to become a "poster child" for others, even if it's going against their wishes?

All Jewish News Media groups need to be made aware of this link:
http://theawarenesscenter.org/newsmedia.html#United
Ethics of News Media in Covering Cases of Sexual Violence

Posted by: Jewish Survivors at Dec 8, 2005 7:52:39 PM

comments from my blog on this matter:

Anonymous said...

What mother in their right mind would publish their child's name in a paper in a case like this? Wouldn't you do what you could to protect them from any more harm?

If I lost custody of my child, I think I would wait until the child was of age and try to contact them directly. If the child refused, I would keep trying, yet never do anything to cause them shame or embarassment.


----
I would not under any of these circumstances, allow my child's name or photo to be used in the newspaper. If my child were over 18, then it would be his or her choice whether to have her name or photo published.

I might allow a newspaper to publish my child's name and photograph if I were searching for that child, unless the child was a victim of sexual abuse. I would not tie those two things together. I assume, in your case, that the non-custodial parent has lost contact with the child. Under that circumstance I might allow it, but I wouldn't mention particulars such as abuse in the child's life.
--------------

Anonymous said...

If a parent published a child's name and photograph, with the story of abuse, I would consider that parent as being exploitive. If you exploit a child, isn't that a form of child abuse?

--------------

Anonymous said...

Everyone, including children, is entitled to his or her privacy. To "out" someone against their will or until they're old enough to consent is definitely exploitative and abusive.
______________
Anonymous said...

Everyone, including children, is entitled to his or her privacy. Doing anything other than this is exploitative.

Adult children have the choice to make their own decisons. Most people would not want others to know that they have been sexually abuse.
_____________
I do think it's extremely wrong for any parent to publish their child's name when allegations of sexual abuse are involved. A parent who does this is abusive, and should have their rights to parent the child revoked immediately.

If the child is an adult, the child has a right to privacy. If a parent really loved the child more then they liked the attention, they would never violate the sacred rights of privacy of their child.

Posted by: Jewish Survivors at Dec 8, 2005 7:56:18 PM

"If the child is an adult, the child has a right to privacy. If a parent really loved the child more then they liked the attention, they would never violate the sacred rights of privacy of their child"


Exactly!

Thank you Rabbi.

Posted by: guest at Jan 4, 2006 7:21:08 PM