« The Lubinsky-Lewin-Agriprocessors' PR Machine: Kosher Meat "Shortage" Turning Jews Into "Vegetarians" | Main | The President-Elect, Modern Orthodoxy, And Skin Color »

November 12, 2008

Dov Hikind Subpoenaed For Molestation Records – Experts: Hikind Is Obstructing Justice

There are three main points in all this.

1. As well meaning as Hikind may be, he's a rank amateur.
2. Hikind has information of what he says is hundreds of haredi pedophiles.
3. The Brooklyn DA doesn't care much about that information.

Points 1 and 3 are well-illustrated by this small section of the Jewish Week article:

…Hikind also faced new pressure this week over his effort — publicized on a recent edition of his radio show — to work with a chasidic man who has come to him acknowledging he has repeatedly molested children, and confesses to one incident as recently as two months ago. Hikind says he has gotten the man into therapy with a “top person in the field” and has declined to disclose his name or tell law enforcement authorities about what he knows.

On Tuesday, Marci Hamilton, a Yeshiva University law professor and national expert on child sexual abuse, said Hikind’s holding back of this information “is outrageous. At this point he’s engaged in obstruction of justice. Is there any indication that [the abuser] has taken anyone over state lines? It seems to me if local prosecutors won’t do it, the FBI should be called.”

A New York police department source with long experience in sex crimes said that even in cases where therapy might help repeat sex offenders, it is essential that the process be overseen through the legal system. Otherwise, she said, there is no way to ensure the offender’s continuing participation and no way to identify him so as to protect the public in case of relapse.

Bill Josephson, a senior partner at Fried Frank and Harris who served as a top lawyer to former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer also asked, “Why aren’t they convening a grand jury?” Given Hikind’s public acknowledgement that he has gathered a virtual mountain of first-hand testimony of sexual wrongdoing, “Why can’t you empanel a grand jury and then subpoena Dov? Josephson asked. “He can’t hide from [a criminal] subpoena. That’s a very powerful instrument.”

Asked if Hikind’s collection of evidence might move him to empanel a grand jury to investigate what is happening within the Orthodox community on this issue, a spokesperson for Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said only, “If Dov Hikind has evidence of wrongdoing or criminality, we are open to hear it. I can’t say we will empanel a grand jury.”…

Here is the entire article:

Hikind Subpoenaed On Sex-Abuse Information
by Hella Winston
Special To The Jewish Week


State Assembly member Dov Hikind was subpoenaed Monday to provide testimony and files he has compiled about rabbis and yeshiva employees who have allegedly sexually abused children under their charge, and rabbinic leaders who may have protected the abusers.

The Brooklyn Democrat says he has assembled detailed dossiers on “hundreds” of such cases. But he said he would “go to jail for 10 years” rather than reveal the names of the alleged victims, whom he has guaranteed anonymity.

Michael Dowd, the attorney who served the subpoena on behalf of several clients allegedly molested by their yeshiva teacher as children, said he was willing to keep the names of the alleged victims from becoming public. He is representing his clients in a civil suit against Yeshiva Torah Temimah in Flatbush and its longtime teacher, Yehuda Kolko, who was convicted of child endangerment last April.

“I’m willing to try to work with him in a way that protects the sources yet exposes the villains,” said Dowd of Hikind. “I am not at all seeking to do harm or impair his progress, but I have a responsibility to my clients.”

Hikind also faced new pressure this week over his effort — publicized on a recent edition of his radio show — to work with a chasidic man who has come to him acknowledging he has repeatedly molested children, and confesses to one incident as recently as two months ago. Hikind says he has gotten the man into therapy with a “top person in the field” and has declined to disclose his name or tell law enforcement authorities about what he knows.

On Tuesday, Marci Hamilton, a Yeshiva University law professor and national expert on child sexual abuse, said Hikind’s holding back of this information “is outrageous. At this point he’s engaged in obstruction of justice. Is there any indication that [the abuser] has taken anyone over state lines? It seems to me if local prosecutors won’t do it, the FBI should be called.”

A New York police department source with long experience in sex crimes said that even in cases where therapy might help repeat sex offenders, it is essential that the process be overseen through the legal system. Otherwise, she said, there is no way to ensure the offender’s continuing participation and no way to identify him so as to protect the public in case of relapse.

Bill Josephson, a senior partner at Fried Frank and Harris who served as a top lawyer to former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer also asked, “Why aren’t they convening a grand jury?” Given Hikind’s public acknowledgement that he has gathered a virtual mountain of first-hand testimony of sexual wrongdoing, “Why can’t you empanel a grand jury and then subpoena Dov? Josephson asked. “He can’t hide from [a criminal] subpoena. That’s a very powerful instrument.”

Asked if Hikind’s collection of evidence might move him to empanel a grand jury to investigate what is happening within the Orthodox community on this issue, a spokesperson for Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said only, “If Dov Hikind has evidence of wrongdoing or criminality, we are open to hear it. I can’t say we will empanel a grand jury.”

Access by prosecutors to the most recent victim of Hikind’s self-confessed chasidic abuser might enable state authorities to prosecute him. If the victim is a minor, as the abuser’s past prey have been, he would fall within the state’s narrow statute of limitations for such criminal prosecution.
But Hikind said, “He has many victims. None of those will come forward. That’s part of the story.

“The therapists say that if you don’t stop one of these people they will have a hundred victims,” Hikind said. “Believe it. Just this guy started listing to us a lengthy list of his own victims from the past 10 years.”

The developments marked a new twist in Hikind’s campaign to get the Orthodox community to address a problem he has come to view as much more widespread than he ever imagined, one in which he says he is trying to do the right thing.

Last April, after the conviction of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko of Yeshiva Torah Temimah for child endangerment, Hikind began addressing the issue bluntly on his weekly call-in radio program. He invited members of the Orthodox community who had been molested as children to come to him with details about their experience and about rabbis, teachers or others in the community who were responsible.

Stunned by the massive response, the state lawmaker now says he has assembled testimony and information detailing at least 1,000 cases of childhood sexual abuse.

In the Rabbi Kolko case and others, victims who were ultimately willing to come forward publicly say that they told school administrators about what their teachers were doing to them but that the administrators did nothing, or even tried to keep them silent. Some report receiving threats and pressure when they do speak out or seek to go to the authorities.

In the ultra-traditional Orthodox community overall, there is a widely acknowledged taboo about going to secular authorities to prosecute such crimes. And in Brooklyn, some victims who have come forward complain that the D.A.’s office does not prosecute such cases vigorously. They cite Rabbi Kolko’s ultimate sentence.

Hynes negotiated a controversial plea bargain that reduced the felony sexual molestation charge to misdemeanor that did not require Rabbi Kolko to serve prison time or register as a sex offender.

At the same time, Hikind and other observers say the community’s own rabbinic leaders have failed to deal with the problem internally.

Many of his informants are now adults over the age of 23 — the state’s deadline for allowing criminal prosecution of a child sexual abuser and for most civil suits, as well. But even those who are not, says Hikind, are not willing to go to secular law enforcement authorities.

Some have criticized Hikind for making this determination on his own. In the Rabbi Kolko case, a determined detective produced victims willing to come forward by obtaining class lists of hundreds of students taught by Kolko over the years and going from door to door seeking victims who would work with her. Some who initially refused were, in the end, eager to testify.

Hikind says he believes strongly that victims should go to law enforcement authorities and that he encourages them to do so. But given the reality of community reluctance, he says he will use the information he has amassed to go to rabbinic leaders and get them to deal with the situation internally. He hopes to secure their cooperation in establishing a communal registry that would list the names of teachers removed from schools due to abusive behavior.

But apparently recognizing that many schools are often reluctant to dismiss such teachers in the first place, Hikind has at times appeared to envision forming some sort of rabbinic panel with a more ambitious, quasi-judicial function.

“It’s sort of hard to investigate yourself,” Hikind admitted in an interview last September. “There’s got to be a system where trusted people, respected leaders, who are not directly a part of that particular organization examine everything. We have to make judgments. We do that all the time.”

Last August, Hikind threatened to reveal the names of abusers publicly if communal rabbinic leaders failed to act. This week, Hikind said it would take “another two months” to finish his “current phase.” He said that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) had recently allocated money for him to hire a staff person for the project.

Survivors for Justice, a new group of self-described childhood victims of sexual abuse in the New York Orthodox community and their advocates, dismissed the willingness and ability of rabbinic leaders to play the role Hikind envisions.

“We applaud Dov Hikind’s efforts, but we believe it is crucial that any information [he] has be brought directly to the police,” the group said in a statement. “It’s crucial in an effort to prevent sexual abuse from continuing that all perpetrators be brought to justice. We are dealing with sex offenders, and they need to be arrested, prosecuted and registered in order to protect our children.”

Dowd, who is representing alleged victims of Rabbi Kolko in their suit against him, the school and its administrator, said, “With all due respect to his intellect, skill and ability, [Hikind] can’t be the arbiter of what is useful to my case. The lawyers representing those who are abused are in the best position to do that. Therefore, I have to depose him, question him under oath.”

Dowd stressed, “I mean no harm. We are both pointed in the same direction.” He said he was willing to agree to “reasonable constraints” on his use of Hikind’s material. But he added: “I fully intend to use any information that proves the case.”

Hikind said he had turned Dowd’s subpoena over to “a lawyer for the Assembly” who will determine to what extent he is required to cooperate as a state legislator. But regardless of the lawyer’s determination, expected Wednesday, “Hell would have to freeze over for me to disclose any of the private things to anybody,” he said.

Some legal experts said that Hikind might find a successful argument against having to comply with Dowd’s subpoena by citing the state constitution’s speech and debate clause — a provision that grants privileges and immunities to lawmakers in connection with information they gather for the purpose of legislating. A few said he might also be able to resist the subpoena under the state’s shield law for journalists since he used his radio program to gather some of the information.

Hamilton, the Yeshiva University legal expert, was unfamiliar with the state constitutional provision. But under the federal constitution’s speech and debate clause, “The activity must be related to his role as a member of the state legislature,” she said. “Here, it is hard to argue he was engaged in a legislative issue, because he was restricting his interest to his own religious sect. In any event, speech and debate only goes to words, not to illegal acts.”

[Hat Tip: JWB.]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This should be reason enough to launch State & Federal investigations of Charles Hynes. It's surprising that he at least didn't use lawyer speak to deflect the reporter's question.

Shmarya:

I agree that based on how Mr. Hynes has handled (or mishandled) the Kolko and Mondrowitz cases that he will act on any evidence Mr. Hikind has only if forced to.

Sorry, for the overpost.

Step 1: Mandated Reporting
The key is that we must make those in the private education system and our rabonim (and other community leaders of similar authority) mandated reporters and accordingly they must be made to report allegations to the proper authorities, the police and child protection.

Step 2: Harsh Penalties
We must demand harsh penalties for both the failure to report and for the predators.

Step 3: Involve Police
Identify the predators and have them investigated and charged. Identify mandated reporters who fail to report and have them charged.

Step 4: Community Support
Have the community support the survivors and demand the harshest penalties possible for abusers and enablers.

Step 5: Publicity
Ensure the predators and enablers never have any role of authority or power in our community ever again.

No more dealing with the issue quietly. It protects and enables the wrong people, the abusers and their protectors.

If I were his attorney, I would argue that his evidence was gathered as part of his activities as a LEGISLATOR and as such, are exempt from judicial discovery as it would affect the ability of the legislature to function. I don't know if the argument would win, but think about it. Any legislative investigation may lead to discovering of crimes. But the legilature cannot be a branch of the judiciary.

--As well meaning as Hikind may be, he's a rank amateur.--

And who do you think is the expert? Mr. Failed Scotty? Hikind is definitely well meaning. He wouldn't have gotten ivolved in this if he wasn't as he has absolutely nothing to gain by being involved and stands to lose alot. He never claimed to be an expert in these issues and he is not playing that role. This issue needs the involvement of people with varying skills, including experts, of course, and politicians who can make things happen. Hikind doesn't claim to be an expert and claims he is acting in consultation with experts which is the right thing for him to do.

As far as whether he should or should not be disclosing this information, that is a tough call. Hikind agrees that his preference would be that the victims go directly to appropriate law enforcement or authorize him to share the information with law enforcement. The problem is that victims are often reluctant to do so and would not have disclosed this information to Hikind if he wouldn't have agreed to keep this information confidential. As far as this subpoena is concerned, make no mistake, Dowd's goal here is to benefit specific clients (who may very well deserve the money). His goal is not to look at the big picture and determine what is best for victims as a whole nor is it his job to consider what is best for the victims who Hikind is protecting. I'm not faulting him for that as it is his job to be an advocate, but lets keep everyone priorities in the right perspective.

Apart from the above, even assuming Hikind is absolutely doing the right thing, there is a separate question whether he is in technical violation of the law by not reporting the information to law enforcement and, if so, what should he do if there is a conflict between his legal and moral obligations.

As predicted,Hikind might have initially meant well,but his position,heart,& soul rests with the coverup rabbis & community.Too much at stake for him & the child predators & their advocates.I highly doubt Hikind is that concerned about the identities of the victims.Hikind is a attention seeker who was corrupted long ago,like Mandel,Pelcovitz,etc. to ultimately act based on the protection of the"good name of our Jewish community & people.& certainly our rabbinic leadership".These people have no clue what a victim is,what will occur to them,their pain & a lifetime of anguish. And,the evil rabbis,whether charedi,MO,or reform will once again rule the day.For if the truth in numbers was revealed the entire orthodox house of cards and too many(not all) of its rabbinic garbage would be in prison.

--The Brooklyn Democrat says he has assembled detailed dossiers on “hundreds” of such cases. But he said he would “go to jail for 10 years” rather than reveal the names of the alleged victims, whom he has guaranteed anonymity.--

Knowing Hikind, he absolutely would do that.

--“I’m willing to try to work with him in a way that protects the sources yet exposes the villains,” said Dowd of Hikind. “I am not at all seeking to do harm or impair his progress, but I have a responsibility to my clients.”--

Dowd has done an excellent job explaining why Hikind should be reluctant to cooperate with him. The operative word is that he is "willing to try" and that his responsibility, rightfully so, is to his clients. Hikind's responsibility is to the community at large and the victims he is protecting.

--On Tuesday, Marci Hamilton, a Yeshiva University law professor and national expert on child sexual abuse, said Hikind’s holding back of this information “is outrageous. At this point he’s engaged in obstruction of justice. Is there any indication that [the abuser] has taken anyone over state lines? It seems to me if local prosecutors won’t do it, the FBI should be called.”--

Hamilton is an idiot. There may be a technical violation of the law which may cause some problems for Hikind, but he is doing the right thing. This guy would not have spoken to Hikind without assurances that he will respect the confidentiality of that discussion. Sure, Hikind can turn around and report him to the police, but he will never get a perpetrator or victim to speak to him again. It may be illegal but it is by no means outrageous.

--A New York police department source with long experience in sex crimes said that even in cases where therapy might help repeat sex offenders, it is essential that the process be overseen through the legal system. Otherwise, she said, there is no way to ensure the offender’s continuing participation and no way to identify him so as to protect the public in case of relapse.--

Hikind agrees, but unfortunately that was not an option. He either had to agree to the confidentiality or not get the info.

--Bill Josephson, a senior partner at Fried Frank and Harris who served as a top lawyer to former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer also asked, “Why aren’t they convening a grand jury?” Given Hikind’s public acknowledgement that he has gathered a virtual mountain of first-hand testimony of sexual wrongdoing, “Why can’t you empanel a grand jury and then subpoena Dov? Josephson asked. “He can’t hide from [a criminal] subpoena. That’s a very powerful instrument.”--

Another idiot. Prosecutors have discretion in whether to enforce a technical criminal violation. Let Hamilton and Josephson focus on getting prosecturos to go after the real bad guys, not the good guys who may be in technical violation of some law. I didn't hear Josephson sounding off on prosecutors for not bringing criminal charges against his old boss even though he clearly violated the law and was not in the "moral right."

--“We applaud Dov Hikind’s efforts, but we believe it is crucial that any information [he] has be brought directly to the police,” the group said in a statement. “It’s crucial in an effort to prevent sexual abuse from continuing that all perpetrators be brought to justice. We are dealing with sex offenders, and they need to be arrested, prosecuted and registered in order to protect our children.”--

Another group of armchair critics who not only are not helping the situation, they are harming it as well. Everyone talks about how terrible the issue is but no one does anything useful. That is until Hikind came along. Now they want to sabatoge his activities too. They've been complaining all along that the DA's office has been ineffective. Hikind comes along and does something and now they yell at him for not going to the DA. Does this make sense to anyone?

--Dowd, who is representing alleged victims of Rabbi Kolko in their suit against him, the school and its administrator, said, “With all due respect to his intellect, skill and ability, [Hikind] can’t be the arbiter of what is useful to my case. The lawyers representing those who are abused are in the best position to do that.--

Hikind never said whether his information is useful or not. Regardless, he is not willing to provide it in order to protect the victims that spoke to him.

--“I mean no harm. We are both pointed in the same direction.”--

Bull shit. What he really means is that the harm is not his goal - it is just collateral damage to his case.

--Hamilton, the Yeshiva University legal expert, was unfamiliar with the state constitutional provision.--

Then what makes her a legal expert to sound off on this?

>Hikind also faced new
>pressure this week over his
>effort — publicized on a
>recent edition of his radio
>show — to work with a
>chasidic man who has come
>to him acknowledging he has
>repeatedly molested
>children, and confesses to
>one incident as recently as
>two months ago. Hikind says
>he has gotten the man into
>therapy with a “top person
>in the field” and has
>declined to disclose his
>name or tell law
>enforcement authorities
>about what he knows.
>
>On Tuesday, Marci Hamilton,
>a Yeshiva University law
>professor and national
>expert on child sexual
>abuse, said Hikind’s
>holding back of this
>information “is outrageous.
>At this point he’s engaged
>in obstruction of justice.
>Is there any indication
>that [the abuser] has taken
>anyone over state lines? It
>seems to me if local
>prosecutors won’t do it,
>the FBI should be called.”

IF accurate, he has overstepped any privilege under the NY "speech and debate clause" or as a journalist in this specific incident. It appears he has taken steps to ensure that evidence of a crime (admissions) never be reported to the authorities. Further, is this “top person in the field” a mandated reporter? Have they made the necessary report?

Further, as to the NY "speech and debate clause" I refer to this case (1 No. 165
In the Matter of Peter M. Rivera, et al.,
Appellants, v. Pedro Espada, Jr., Respondent, The Senate of the State of New York, &c., et al., Intervenors-Respondents, Terrence C. O'Connor, et al.,
Respondents., 2002 NY Int. 98, August 30, 2002): "The law is clear that the Speech or Debate Clause is not so broad as to protect "acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community [and] issuing newsletters and press releases" (People v Ohrenstein, , 77 NY2d 38, 54 [1990]; see also Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979])."

As to privilege as a journalist, I believe the above indicates that the line has been crossed at least in that incident.

Anon, are you a Hikind relative or staffer?

Marci Hamilton said nothing wrong in this case. Anyone has a right to request an investigation if there is a reasonable concern.

Hamilton happens to be an idiot for different reasons like her dogged opposition to eruvin and her assistance to Jewish anti-Semites in the Hamptons who are trying to sabotage one.

Ohel former employee,

What is your problem with Dr. Pelcovitz?

I understand that at a recent forum when David Mandel was promoting child abuse cover ups, Pelcovitz got up and refuted him.

The accused molesters that have multiple accusers and those that confessed to Hikind need to be reported immediately (as long as the SOL did not expire). Those that have single accusers need to be referred to an expert or a panel of experts. The one thing that we are overlooking is legislation. Dov supposedly is finally working and getting the legislation passed in the Assembly and Senate that would extend the SOL and mandate reporting, background checks and fingerprinting. Without the extension of the SOL, I would guess that more than half of these cases get thrown out anyway. What he could do with the "expired" cases is to start publicizing names, like he threatened to do on several occasions. It's time to speak up, Dov. The next child molested by one of these predators that you are protecting, is on your head. I know that you meant well when you undertook this daring project. You need to follow through and do what's right for the ENTIRE community.

Archie,

Read the latest wishy washy nonsense that Pelcovitz and Mandel put together on aish.com. All they do is think of ways to help the molesters, not put them away so that they no longer pose any danger. Mandel is a dangerous amateur that has zero background in psychology. Yet, he's constantly speaking and writing (as an "expert", see Harry Maryles' blog) about a subject that he obviously knows nothing about. Pelcovitz is his partner in crime and together they called for more coverups at the Baltimore massacre last February. Read more about it here:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/02/baltimore-rabbi.html

We have to realize who our friends are and who our enemies are in this war. Mandel and Pelcovitz are clearly on the other side of the fence. I do give Pelcovitz credit for his help in rescuing Isaac Hersh. As far as child sexual abuse, he needs to shut up.

Actually, at the Baltimore conference, Pelcovitz had already left when Mandel made his idiotic statement about not getting the police involved and going to the rabbis instead. Pelcovitz never refuted him. He was part of the whole "massacre" that night.

my problem with pelcovitz is he says one thing& then continues to give credibility to mandel--see the post Looking Into The Mind of a Pedophile, & read comments & on this blog's particular post & on Failedmessiah to learen mandels crimes.mandel's past.

http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

Moreover,Pelcovitz is a chicken shit,speaking up too little too late & always looking at his primary goal-keeping his fees for private practice & speaking tours.He needs to stay in the good graces of the powers that be or they could hurt some of his financial setup.Finally,Pelcovitz--what has he done to push ohel to get out front & show some leadership on their boy of old times...the rapist mondorowitz--much of it in the "TENT" of an ohel group home? And,will pelcovitz push ohel & his boy mandel to reveal other sexual staff related molestation that very well may have been going on? This is the time for him to show leadership & bravery & i hope,Dr. Pelcovitz,despite my words here,shows the side of himself that many correctly know to be a sense of decency--he is a good person,but he lost his way badly by befriending crooked,dishonest rabbis & organizations.He can redeem himself with strong actions & words not through this garbage he writes for mandel to look credible.

http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

As recent as nov. 12.2008--after pelcovitz" corrected" his co-author:

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Preventing_Child_Molestation.asp

Please report the mandel baltimore speech to NYC child services--ask them to judge if he breaks the law.

Notice how Hikind and Hynes's political affiliations are not mentioned. Scumbaggery is bipartisan.

--Anon, are you a Hikind relative or staffer?--

I'm not a relative of Hikind nor have I ever been a Hikind staffer. I also often disagree with his positions. However, I recognize him as one of the few really devoted politicians we have so, whether I agree with him or not, he deserves our respect. I'm also not in a position to judge how good of a job he is doing on this issue. But he is the one guy who is actually doing something on a large scale so it ticks me off when all the arm chair critics and academics crawl out from under their rocks to criticize him and denigrate what he is doing for the community. As I've indicated before, this is a lose-lose situation for Hikind. There is no way he will benefit from this and he can only lose. So whatever he is doing is driven by a true desire to do the right thing and step up to the plate when everyone else is unwilling to do so. That includes you, me, Shmarya, all the other commenters on this blog, academics and other arm chair critics. If they want to provide constructive criticism that is fine, but let them do so respectfully. What is outrageous is not his actions, but the know it all do nothings who are yelling for a grand jury to be convened for the one guy who is doing something. If Hamilton and Josephson don't like the way Hikind is handling this, I'm sure Hikind would gladly allow them to take over.

btw, that was an interesting question coming from someone whose been criticizing Rubashkins for a long time on this blog before it finally slipped out that you hold a grudge against them.

Don't judge people here.anon,since you have no clue who you are speaking to or what they may or may not have done to fight this battle,some for decades.

I have no clue about hikind's intent--either way he was & is out of his league.He is clueless, went in wrong directions from the moment he got involved, & now is in a pickle over the mess he's in.

--Marci Hamilton said nothing wrong in this case. Anyone has a right to request an investigation if there is a reasonable concern.--

My objection is to Hamilton calling Hikind's actions outrageous. I doubt she would know what outrageous is from her ivory tower if it bit her in the nose.

Prof. Marci Hamilton hates everything frum.
She wrote a brief arguing that every eruv in the United States is unconstitutional. The brief was written on behalf of an organization which fears an influx of undesirable orthodox Jews into West Hampton Township.
The brief is patent factual and legal nonsense (although well written).

Dov Hikind may be entitled to some sought of legislative privilege. In any case, he is hardly obstructing justice since any of these victims are free to contact the police.

In addition, he is free to either ignore the subpoena or move to have it quashed. Although the latter is the better procedure, the former is routine in New York practice.

It is not, however, surprising that Shmarya quotes Hamilton. Birds of a feather stick together.

"interesting question coming from someone whose been criticizing Rubashkins for a long time on this blog before it finally slipped out that you hold a grudge against them"

I'm sorry Anon if I'm depriving you of the satisfaction you got from getting in a dig at me, but you are mistaken.

I did not start piling on Rubashkin immediately after the incident I had with them even though I had the opportunity here and on Yudelstake & UOJ. I only became outspoken against Agri when I became convinced of the kashrus & ethical violations.

And because Rubashkin's gang are so obnoxiously rude, I don't know that anyone who has ever dealt with them came away without bitter feelings. There would not be very many left who you could claim are neutral.

In any case, if Hikind is breaking the law, Marci Hamilton would be correct in this case that it is "outrageous". Hikind is also responsible if any child is molested due to his silence no matter how much good he has done.

As far as Marci Hamilton & eruvin, the anti-Semitic Jews in the Hamptons she is assisting have said publicly that they do not want Orthodox Jews moving in because eventually if there are enough of them, they will buy businesses on Main St that will be closed on Saturdays. They also complained that they moved from NYC, Great Neck & Lawrence to get away from them.

The pathetic racist group is led by ex-CEOs of congolmerates such as Macy's and Judith Lieber Design.

The shul has also been bombarded with hate mail that would make the Aryan Nations proud.

If mark schneier was your neighbor wouldn't you worry/ His bloated head may not fit through the door of his own shul. And,he caused all that trouble to get away from his old man,Pope Arthur Schneier.

Marc Schneier, who by the way doesn't get along with Pappa Arturo, has a lot of strange hang ups but the self-hating Jews are just using him as an excuse.

All You Need is Dov (apologies to Fab 4):

Dov, Dov, Dov.
Dov, Dov, Dov.
Dov, Dov, Dov.

There's no one you can sue that can't be "shrunk." [i.e. "Head-shrunk," analyzed]
No crook you can spring that can't be sprung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how pols play the game.
It's easy.

No one you can "Hynes" that can't be hid.
No one you can shave that can't be a Yid.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to win election time.
It's easy.

All you need is Dov.
All you need is Dov.
All you need is Dov, Dov.
Dov is all you need.

All you need is Dov.
All you need is Dov.
All you need is Dov, Dov.
Dov is all you need.

Nothing about cover-ups that isn't known.
Nothing about Omerta that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're qualified to be.
It's easy.

All you need is Dov.
All you need is Dov.
All you need is Dov, Dov.
Dov is all you need.

All you need is Dov (well-intentioned, now!)
All you need is Dov. (every blogger!)
All you need is Dov, Dov.
Dov is all you need (he trusts those who "lead").

Yee-hai!
Oy vey!
Kolko loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
Kolko loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

(Sorry, not my best).

YL,

I think Dov will use this as his theme song come next election.

A very important message from the mother of a victim at the hands of a Satmar mechanech:

Dear Friends,
Perhaps by now you've all seen the Jewish Week article describing Dov's subpoena by Attorney Dowd in re to the T/T case. Lest Dov become a MARTYR/HERO to the cause, I'd like to share with you my experience with him in reference to my son's (Joel Engelman) case.

To refresh your memories, Dov Hikind, on his radio program Motzei Shabbos, August 2nd, upon hearing from me Joel's story of molestation by his Menahel in Satmar at 8 1/2, the failed lie detector test of the Menahel, now Rebbi, and the subsequent firing of this pedophile (but only until Joel's statute of limitations ran out) then rehiring him in the summer as Menahel/Rebbi in Satmar Bungalows, declared loudly and vehemently "I PROMISE THIS REBBI WILL NOT BE BACK IN SEPTEMBER. IF I HAVE TO I WILL HOLD A PRESS CONVERENCE IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL".

Remember also the article in the Jewish Week: "Second Victim Comes Forward......." to Dov - the father of the 19 yr old victim of the same Rebbi, now publicly known as Avrohom Reichman, who came to Dov with his son's story of molestation by this same Rebbi?

Remember also Dov's eloquent speech to us at the conference on Sept 21st at Young Israel?

Dov was also privy to the new discovery of a molestation incident with this same Rebbi last year - repeat, last year - not 13 years ago. At the conference I gave some of you the details of of an 8 yr old boy whom Reichman found standing in the school hallway because his "English" teacher had punished him. Reichman took the child into an unoccupied room (not an empty classroom, an unused room) placed the child on his lap, removed the child's belt and gave him 2 slaps with the belt. When this boy found out at the beginning of Sept that Reichman would be his Rebbi for the new zman (after Succos) he began crying and begging his mother and told her how he feared Reichman. Immediately the mother called the school, and at first they were horrifed, then called her back to say her son would not have to be in Reichman's class. She insisted that Reichman was unfit to be any child's Rebbi, but they would not agree, saying only that they were having meetings........

In view of all of the above, on Oct 6th Dov Hikind met with 2 representatives of Satmar: David Niederman and Shulem Deutsch. It was everyone's understanding that Dov would let Satmar know in no uncertain terms that Reichman must leave - children were at terrible risk from this sneaky, insiduous pedophile even now.

To my shock and horror, Dov came away from the meeting completely neutralized! Nay, not neutral - he is actually helping Satmar cover up and keep Reichman in the system! He said to me "Well, I know Niederman for 25 years......(I guess they need each other politically) .....need I say more?????

So no, Dov Hikind is no hero! In my book he is an accomplice, because at the very least, if he was not successful in getting Satmar to remove Reichman, it was his great responsibility to innocent children, to have let the parents, who are being kept in the dark by the school, know that Reichman is a great danger to all children in the school, even those not in his classroom as was the 8 year old made to stand in the hallway. Instead Dov helps Satmar cover up for the school!

As fellow participants in the conference, I ask you, can we just ignore this outrageous cover-up by one who represents himself as the champion of the cause?

This is about "Lo Saamod al Dam Reiacha". The plain and simple truth is that Reichman is a real and known danger to the children, and all adults, especially those committed to protecting them, cannot stand idly by and do nothing. Hikind knows how real the danger is, but he's given in to the machinations of Satmar who want to keep Reichman in the system at all costs. When did Dov sell his soul to the devil? This was a test for him - it was the first Moissed he met with - he had the most damning information - and he simply folded. Because he's buddies with Niederman for 25 years? We cannot just sit idly by and wait - or we are all as guilty as the people we condemn.

Respectully yours,
Pearl Englman

--In any case, if Hikind is breaking the law, Marci Hamilton would be correct in this case that it is "outrageous". Hikind is also responsible if any child is molested due to his silence no matter how much good he has done.--

Is he? He has two alternatives, (i) agree to respect confidence which means he might be able to address part of the problem or (ii) announce that he will go directly to the police or the DA which means that in all likelihood people will not come to him and he likely will be able to do very little to address the problem. If he select Option I then, yes it is possible that he will be in a situation where he could have done something to prevent a future molestation but didn't. However, if he choses Option 2 then it is likely that he will never be in the position to prevent that particular molestation and also will be prevented from helping others that he could have helped under Option 1. He's got a moral dilemma. If Option 1 is also a violation of the law, it adds to the dilemma and makes it more difficult to choose Option 1, but I don't think it is dispositive. If you were in a position of being able to prevent a child from being molested but it would require you to violate some law, would you do so? If you did choose to violate the law, would I be right in calling your actions outrageous and publicly calling on the DA to prosecute you?

Note that I am only referring to Hamilton's statement. As far as Josephson is concerned, until he publicly calls for the convening of a grand jury to indict his former boss, he is nothing but a hypocritical fraud.

Incidentally, in quoting Mr. Josephson, it seems like Ms. Winston got two things wrong. First of all, the name of the firm is not Fried Frank and Harris, it is Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (yes - its a mouthfull). Secondly, it seems that Mr. Josephson is not a partner at this firm, let alone a senior partner. He is a former partner. My question is if Ms. Winston couldn't even get some basic facts right where all that was necessary to verify this information is about 30 second on the internet, how do we trust the rest of the facts she writes about which may be more difficult to verify?

Incidentally, in quoting Mr. Josephson, it seems like Ms. Winston got two things wrong. First of all, the name of the firm is not Fried Frank and Harris, it is Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (yes - its a mouthfull). Secondly, it seems that Mr. Josephson is not a partner at this firm, let alone a senior partner. He is a former partner.

My, aren't we getting petty now. Also, follow the rules of the blog and choose a name for yourself.

--My, aren't we getting petty now. Also, follow the rules of the blog and choose a name for yourself.--

My name on this blog is Anon. Shmarya can verify that I consistently post under that name. Do you not like that name?

And yes, we are getting petty. If I weren't so petty, I would instead question why in an article about a public figure engaging in certain activities that are so easily defended and, arguably, are laudable, all she was able to find was two experts who are quite outspoken in their criticism of Hikind. By her own admission, one of her "experts" was unfamiliar with the state constitutional provision she was writing about. Her other "expert" seems to be a corporate law specialist.

anon,

the law is clear...in the case of child molestation, there is no such thing as confidentiality, when it comes to a mandated reporter.

dov is an idiot...so he has a dossier of names and incidents...so what?

without evidence, none of those on the list will ever be prosecuted...without evidence there is no way to keep those individuals away from children.

he is not a great man...he is a blithering idiot

and if he wants to go to prison, then i think the state of new york should oblige him as an example of what happens when an individual thinks that he knows more than the law.

Incidentally, in quoting Mr. Josephson, it seems like Ms. Winston got two things wrong. First of all, the name of the firm is not Fried Frank and Harris, it is Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (yes - its a mouthfull).

Really?

Let's see what the firm's website says:
"At Fried Frank, diversity is a standard principle."Yes, Anon is not only being petty – he's being VERY petty.

The Aish article spoken about up above has lots of good information in it yet has a somewhat strange slant. It begins with the first things being that the pedophiles are sick and can't help it. It goes on to talk about how they won't go to therapy because they are afraid of retribution. I think the reality is they don't want to be arrested and face possible prison time.

There is also a problem with the statistic of offenders being mostly male. The article states "95 percent are male." According to more recent research crimes committed by women are rarely reported, let alone arrested or charged with the crimes. From working in the field for almost 25 years, I personally believe it's an even 50-50 split of the percentage male and female sex offenders (See below you will find several links that will provide you with more information about female sex offenders).

The article closes with information 'about the perp.' The last item talks about the need to send sex offender to the police -- almost as if that is an afterthought.

I personal feel this article should have started off discussing the need to report all alleged sex crimes to the police. It's sad to say that Mandel, Pelcovitz and Schulman do not focus on the fact that child molestation is a heinous crime and should be looked upon as one. Those who have been sexually victimized are crime victims.

We all must be asking if Mandel, Pelcovitz and Schulman would be writing an article about an assailant who robbed a victim at gunpoint or a victim of an attempted murder -- would they be so kind when writing about the offender? It's time we stop sugar coating the reality when talking about those who commit sex crimes.


-----------------------
Articles on Female Offenders:
http://theawarenesscenter.org/femalesexoffenders.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2004/offenders.html
http://www.insideprison.com/all-reported-cases-of-female-sex-offenders.asp
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/female-sex-offenders.html

Secondly, it seems that Mr. Josephson is not a partner at this firm, let alone a senior partner. He is a former partner.

No. Again Anon is wrong.

Josephson is a retired partner.

So, Anon's 'mistakes' found in that article turn out to be:
1. referring to the firm by a colloquial name the firm itself uses on its own website, and,

2. leaving out the word "retired" in Josephson's bio.Yup. Real cause for concern there – not.

--Josephson is a retired partner.--

And would you care to explain the difference between a retired partner and a former partner?

Are you are former Lubavitcher or a retired Lubavitcher?

Is it correct to say that you were formerly religious or is it more accurate to say that you have retired from religion?

A former partner may have left the firm for many reasons, some of them not good.

A retired partner served the firm until retirement.

--1. referring to the firm by a colloquial name the firm itself uses on its own website, and,--

I know that you sometimes find it difficult to read what you post about, but the firm calls itself, and it is commonly know as, "Fried Frank." Not "Fried Frank & Harris."

--A former partner may have left the firm for many reasons, some of them not good.

A retired partner served the firm until retirement.

Posted by: Shmarya | November 12, 2008 at 09:57 PM--

So what is it about the term "former partner" that you determined was wrong?

The point is, these are hardly important mistakes.

Very often mistakes like these creep in during editing, as editors try to pare down the word count and tighten sentences.

So what is it about the term "former partner" that you determined was wrong?

You are, as usual, either very dense or simply obnoxious.

Former partner can mean he was thrown out, that he resigned, that he left of his own accord, or that he left of the firm's accord.

Retired means the man retired.

--Former partner can mean he was thrown out, that he resigned, that he left of his own accord, or that he left of the firm's accord.

Retired means the man retired.--

As usual, you are ignoring the question. Former partner "may" include people who became former partners for various reasons but a retired partner is also a former partner. So again, what is it about my statement that he is a former partner that you found to be wrong.

Former partner "may" include people who became former partners for various reasons but a retired partner is also a former partner. So again, what is it about my statement that he is a former partner that you found to be wrong.

Sigh.

Because former partner allows for all the negative reasons for leaving, along with neutral reasons.

Retired means the man retired.

--The point is, these are hardly important mistakes.--

Of course they are not important. My question was whether that is indicative of a general lack of research and diligence? Of greater importance is the question why she would see fit to quote a corporate law expert on this topic? Or why a corporate law expert would seek to pontificate about this issue? Could Hikind's statements about Mr. Spitzer upon his resignation have anything to do with this?

--Very often mistakes like these creep in during editing, as editors try to pare down the word count and tighten sentences.--

Not sure how things work in your world, but in the real world the goal of "editing" is, among other things, to find and eliminate mistakes, not create more mistake.

--Sigh--

Okay, you have such a hard time admitting your errors, I'll drop this issue and won't try to get you to admit that you wrong.

Not sure how things work in your world, but in the real world the goal of "editing" is, among other things, to find and eliminate mistakes, not create more mistake.

I guess you just do not understand working under pressure of both deadlines and word counts.

I've had editors make similar mistakes with my pieces. Everyone I know in the business has, as well.

--and if he wants to go to prison, then i think the state of new york should oblige him as an example of what happens when an individual thinks that he knows more than the law.--

The state of New York should first deal with child molesters if they think they will do a better job than Hikind. When the state, or anyone else for that matter, finally steps up to the plate and does what it is supposed to be doing with regards to child molesters, then they can cart Hikind off to jail and throw away the key. Until then, let Hikind do his best. I don't know what he is doing or how many mistakes he is making but it is by leaps and bounds more than anyone else is doing.

--I've had editors make similar mistakes with my pieces. Everyone I know in the business has, as well.--

You mean the FailedMessiah editorial staff screw up from time to time?

You mean the FailedMessiah editorial staff screw up from time to time?

I wish I had a staff.

Obviously, I meant other publications.

--Obviously, I meant other publications.--

Duh. Obviously, I was being facetious.

I will not go in to the legal or moral issue if Dov should or should not disclose what he knows as required by law. That is besides the point.

The issue I would like to raise, that we must ask ourselves, is which political power players are behind this request, behind the scenes.

We all know the the DA did a horrible job in the Torah Temima Case and it was quite clear that the so called Ultra Orthodox Rabbi\'s with the highest political pull and corruption had succeeded in convincing the DA to make sure to trash the Torah Temima Case in to the garbage can by doing such a horrible on prosecution, to make sure no one gets any stiff sentence and not even a slap on the wrist.

So, we must ask ourselves, do we know who controls the DA?

Sure we know.

And we know their motives and effectiveness.

Next Question:

If this is so, then how is it possible and who is behind this, to try and get Dov Hikind to Talk?

Are the people behind this, not the very same political power brokers, who did such an effective job in Killing the Torah Temima Case?

Think about this:

We have Rabbi Nachum Rosenberg who is all to eager to Talk to the Law and he encourages everyone to Talk and says it is no Halachic Problem to do so.

Nachum Rosenberg cries out bitterly in his 4 part You-Tube video that the Law is not at all interested in investigating because the Rabbinical Political Power Brokers have full control of the law and it\'s Cover Up on the Sex Offenders in the frum community.

So ask yourself:

If the Law is really so very genuinely interested, in knowing all the can know, why are they going after someone who doesn\'t want to talk, and not going after someone who is willing to talk?

I believe that the motivation behind threatening Hikind, that he must talk, is not motivated at all, by any true desire to stop the Pedophiles, but on the contrary, it is motivated by the same Rabbinical Political Power Brokers who want Dov Hikind and Nachum Rosenberg to stop all the Tumult, they have caused.

How can they completely destroy Hikinds efforts and nachum Rosenbergs efforts, both of whom have made a such Black Eye to the frum community?

Here is how it is done:

The Best way to destroy Hikinds efforts is to Scare the entire Orthodox community that they dare never ever talk to Hikind, ever again, because Hikind may possibly be compelled to talk and you just never know when that may possibly happen.

Hikind is now History because regardless if Hikind ever talks or not, all the scared people, who have confided to Hikind, will now be to scared to ever get near him, ever again.

But Nachum Rosenberg wants to talk, so asking him to talk can\'t scare him nor those who choose to talk to him, knowing that he wants to talk, so what is the best way to stop someone like Nachum Rosenberg?

The only way they could try and stop Rosenberg was Attempted Murder described in the You-Tube video and by making sure to NOT ask him talk, so that he should get burnt out, frustrated and perhaps stop because he will be to exasperated, that the Law could care less about what he wants to disclose about Pedophiles in the Ultra Orthodox Community.

--Sure we know.

And we know their motives and effectiveness.--

I don't know so why don't you humor me and explain.

--Next Question:

If this is so, then how is it possible and who is behind this, to try and get Dov Hikind to Talk?

Are the people behind this, not the very same political power brokers, who did such an effective job in Killing the Torah Temima Case?--

No. If you would have read the article, you would see that subpoena relates to a civil case. It was initiated by Michael Dowd who is representing clients seeking to recover damages from TT. So it seems that it would be quite far fetched to accuse him of being on TT's side. I don't blame him for trying to get Hikind to go public. He has an obligation to do his best to further the interests of his specific clients. Whether it serves the greater good is a different question.

Anon,

You are right about the lawyers motives at least in part but:

1) The Lawyer should have limited his request to info related to Torah Temima case and I don\'t think he did.

2) The request is now being echoed by everyone else, outside the Lawyers involved, in the Torah Temima case.

As for your asking for the names of the Rabbis and Orthodox Political Power Brokers who control the DA, the names are well known and reported on this blog and on the awareness center site.

Do a google Search for this blog alone for and you will come up with 60 results.

Do the same search on the public Internet on google for \"rabbis protecting pedophiles\" and you get more than 22 Thousand results

Specifically here:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/04/brooklyn-da-cha.html

\"The new disclosures are the latest in a series of often contradictory explanations Hynes’ office has offered over the last two weeks for the Kolko plea deal, which has attracted censure both in Brooklyn’s Orthodox community and from legal experts. A series of previous actions perceived by some as lenient towards prominent Orthodox institutions or individuals accused of wrongdoing have led to criticism — dismissed by Haynes — of his close relationship with the community’s leadership.\"

There is no mystery here at all, as to why all the cover up by the Orthodox Communities most influential Leadership.

Here is the ugly inside story:

Many of the Molesters including Rabbi Kolko, the Gabbai of the Rebbe of New Square and others have protected themselves by having first hand knowledge of how the Yeshivos Handled Government funding and alleged Money Laundering and more.

The information is damaging enough to totally shut down most Yeshivos and arrest many of the most prominent Jewish Yeshiva Administrators and the greatest Philanthropists who could be accused of Money Laundering and Tax Evasion and more.

Hundreds of Rebbe\'s and Rabbi\'s will end up in Jail, if they expose the Molesters because the Molesters have threatened the Rabbi\'s, Rebbe\'s and Adminstrators, that if they go down, they will take all of the community leaders down with them.

The Ultra Orthodox community leaders feel that they have no choice but to do the same, by lobbying and threatening elected officials that their campaign funding, and other political favors, which is often even funded, in \"not such kosher ways\", and their promised \"block Vote\" in exchange for \"political services rendered\", may also go public unless they let Rabbi Kolko and others like him, off the hook or not charge them with any crime, to begin with.

Finally, listen to Nochum Rosenberg\'s 4 part You Tube video series where he mentions not so \"discreetly\" that \"it\'s all about money\".

Nachum Rosenberg doesn\'t explain in the video what he means \"it\'s all about money\".

With the above explanation of exactly why \"it\'s all about money\", now you may begin to \"understand\", at least the tip of the iceberg and why and \"where the dog is buried\" as the expression is in Yiddish.

Here's the two video of the Baltimore conference. Pelcovitz basically introduced Mandel as an expert. He then left to catch a train back to New York. Pelcovitz is very much aware of the problems with Mandel, knows that Mandel's background is not in mental health nor law enforcement.

Ohel receives both state and federal funding but it appears is not compliant with the law of mandated reporting. Instead of reporting suspicions of child abuse and neglect to child protection -- Mandel is advocating to bring suspecions to rabbonum.

http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-david-mandel-mandated-reporter.html

Here is a link to the NY Mandated Reporting Law.

http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/publications/Pub1159text.asp

Summary Guide for MANDATED REPORTERS in New York State Pub. 1159

Adobe PDF Pub. 1159 (147k) Also available in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Arabic.

Certain professionals are required by law to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment to the New York State Central Register (SCR) of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. The law also assigns civil and criminal liability to those professionals who do not comply with their mandated reporter responsibilities.

This booklet provides mandated reporters with an overview of their obligations and some basic information about the New York State Child Protective Services System (CPS). For additional copies of this pamphlet or for further information about child abuse and maltreatment, visit our website at: http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us.
Who Are Mandated Reporters?

New York State recognizes certain professionals to be specially equipped to hold the important role of mandated reporter of child abuse or maltreatment. Those professionals include:

* Physician
* Registered physician's assistant
* Surgeon
* Medical examiner
* Coroner
* Dentist
* Dental hygienist
* Osteopath
* Optometrist
* Chiropractor
* Podiatrist
* Resident
* Intern
* Psychologist
* Registered nurse
* Social Worker
* Emergency medical technician
* Licensed creative arts therapist
* Licensed marriage and family therapist
* Licensed mental health counselor
* Licensed psychoanalyst
* Hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of persons
* Christian Science practitioner
* School official
* Social services worker
* Day care center worker
* Provider of Family or Group Family Day Care
* Any employee or volunteer in a residential care facility for children
* Any other child care or foster care worker
* Mental health professional
* Substance abuse counselor
* Alcoholism counselor
* Peace officer
* Police officer
* District attorney or assistant district attorney
* Investigator employed in the Office of the District Attorney
* Any other law enforcement official

The entire current list can be found in Section 413 of the New York Social Services Law, which can be accessed online through the New York State Legislature's website (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi). Click on Laws of New York to access Social Services Law.
When Am I Mandated to Report?

Mandated reporters are required to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment when, in their official or professional role, they are presented with a reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or maltreatment where a child, parent, or other person legally responsible for the child is before the mandated reporter when the mandated reporter is acting in his or her official or professional capacity. "Other person legally responsible" refers to a guardian, caretaker, or other person 18 years of age or older who is responsible for the care of the child. (See page 9 for more information on referrals to law enforcement officials.)
Professional Role

For example, a doctor examining a child in her practice who has a reasonable suspicion of abuse must report her concern. In contrast, the doctor who witnesses child abuse when riding her bike while off-duty is not mandated to report that abuse. The mandated reporter's legal responsibility to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment ceases when the mandated reporter stops practicing his/her profession. Of course, anyone may report any suspected abuse or maltreatment at any time, and is encouraged to do so.
Reasonable Cause to Suspect

Reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or maltreatment means that, based on your rational observations, professional training and experience, you have a suspicion that the parent or other person legally responsible for a child is responsible for harming that child or placing that child in imminent danger of harm. Your suspicion can be as simple as distrusting an explanation for an injury.
What Is Abuse and Maltreatment?
Abuse

Abuse encompasses the most serious harms committed against children. An abused child is one whose parent or other person legally responsible for his or her care inflicts serious physical injury upon the child, creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury, or commits a sex offense against the child. Abuse also includes situations where a parent or other person legally responsible knowingly allows someone else to inflict such harm on a child.
Maltreatment (including Neglect)

Maltreatment means that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired, or placed in imminent danger of impairment, by the failure of the child's parent or other person legally responsible to exercise a minimum degree of care by:

* failing to provide sufficient food, clothing, shelter, education; or
* failing to provide proper supervision, guardianship, or medical care (refers to all medical issues, including dental, optometric, or surgical care); or
* inflicting excessive corporal punishment, abandoning the child, or misusing alcohol or other drugs to the extent that the child was placed in imminent danger.

Poverty or other financial inability to provide the above is not maltreatment.

Note: The definitions of abuse and maltreatment are somewhat different for children in residential facilities operated or licensed by state agencies.
How Do I Recognize Child Abuse and Maltreatment?

The list that follows contains some common indicators of abuse or maltreatment. This list is not all-inclusive, and some abused or maltreated children may not show any of these symptoms.
Indicators of Physical Abuse can include:

* Injuries to the eyes or both sides of the head or body (accidental injuries typically only affect one side of the body);
* Frequent injuries of any kind (bruises, cuts and/or burns), especially if the child is unable to provide an adequate explanation of the cause. These may appear in distinctive patterns such as grab marks, human bite marks, cigarette burns, or impressions of other instruments;
* Destructive, aggressive, or disruptive behavior;
* Passive, withdrawn, or emotionless behavior; and
* Fear of going home or fear of parent(s).

Indicators of Sexual Abuse can include:

* Symptoms of sexually transmitted diseases;
* Injury to genital area;
* Difficulty and/or pain when sitting or walking;
* Sexually suggestive, inappropriate, or promiscuous behavior or verbalization;
* Expressing age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual relations; and
* Sexual victimization of other children.

Indicators of Maltreatment can include:

* Obvious malnourishment, listlessness, or fatigue;
* Stealing or begging for food;
* Lack of personal care - poor personal hygiene, torn and/or dirty clothes;
* Untreated need for glasses, dental care, or other medical attention;
* Frequent absence from or tardiness to school; and
* Child inappropriately left unattended or without supervision.

Where Do I Call to Make a Report?

As soon as you suspect abuse or maltreatment, you must report your concerns by telephone to the SCR. The SCR is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive your call. The timeliness of your call is vital to the timeliness of intervention by local Child Protective Services (CPS). You are not required to notify the parents or other persons legally responsible either before or after your call to the SCR. In fact, in some cases, alerting the parent may hinder the local Child Protective Services investigation and adversely affect its ability to assess the safety of the children. The telephone numbers are:

Mandated Reporter (800) 635-1522

Public Hotline (800) 342-3720

Two counties run child abuse hotlines that may be used instead of the SCR:

Onondaga County (315) 422-9701

Monroe County (585) 461-5690

Oral reports to any of the hotlines must be followed within 48 hours by a written report on Form LDSS-2221A to the local CPS. A copy of this mandated reporter form can be obtained by contacting your local CPS office, or by accessing the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) website at www.ocfs.state.ny.us and clicking on the "Forms" and "LDSS-2221A" links.
What Happens When I Call the SCR?

There may be times when you have very little information on which to base your suspicion of abuse or maltreatment, but this should not prevent you from calling the SCR. A trained specialist at the SCR will help to determine if the information you are providing can be registered as a report. The LDSS-2221A mandated reporter form can be used to help you organize the identifying or demographic information you have at your disposal.

Be sure to ask the SCR specialist for the "Call I.D." assigned to the report you have made.

If the SCR staff does not register the child abuse or maltreatment report, the reason for the decision should be clearly explained to you. You may also request to speak to a supervisor who can help make determinations in difficult or unusual cases.
Local CPS Role and Responsibilities

When a report is registered at the SCR, the local Department of Social Services is immediately notified for investigation and follow-up. A local Child Protective Services caseworker will initiate an investigation within 24 hours.

CPS intervention consists of an evaluation of the child and other children in the home, and the development of a plan to meet the needs of the child and family. If there is an immediate threat to the child's life or health, CPS may remove the child from the home.

Upon request, CPS may obtain from the mandated reporter those records which are essential to a full investigation of alleged child abuse and maltreatment for any report made by the mandated reporter. The mandated reporter must determine which records are essential to the full investigation and provide those records to CPS when requested to do so.

Within 60 days of initiating the investigation, CPS will determine whether the report is indicated or unfounded. Mandated reporters may ask to be informed of the outcome of the report.
Law Enforcement Referrals

If a call to the SCR provides information about an immediate threat to a child or a crime committed against a child, but the perpetrator is not a parent or other person legally responsible for the child, the SCR staff will make a Law Enforcement Referral (LER). The relevant information will be recorded and transmitted to the New York State Police Information Network or to the New York City Special Victims Liaison Unit for action. This is not a CPS report, and local CPS will not be involved.
What Protection or Liability Do I Have?
Source Confidentiality

The Social Services Law provides confidentiality for mandated reporters and all sources of child abuse and maltreatment reports. OCFS and local CPS are not permitted to release to the subject of the report any data that would identify the source of a report unless the source has given written permission to do so. Information regarding the source of the report may be shared with court officials, police, and district attorneys but only in certain circumstances.
Immunity from Liability

If a mandated reporter makes a report with earnest concern for the welfare of a child, he or she is immune from any criminal or civil liability that might result. This is referred to as making a report in "good faith."
Penalties for Failure to Report

Anyone who is mandated to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment - and fails to do so - could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor and subject to criminal penalties. Further, mandated reporters can be sued in a civil court for monetary damages for any harm caused by the mandated reporter's failure to make a report to the SCR.
Who Provides Training for Mandated Reporters?

The New York State Education Department (SED) Office of the Professions oversees the training requirements for mandated reporters. Some categories - including teachers, many medical professionals, and social workers - need this training as part of their licensing requirement. The training may be included in their formal education program

The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)is proud to be one of more than 200 providers authorized by the SED to offer mandated reporter training, and has developed a comprehensive curriculum with content customized to medical professionals, educators,law enforcement personnel, day care providers, and human services staff. OCFS has shared this well-received curriculum with other licensed providers of mandated reporter training, as well as colleges and universities across the state that provide educational programming in the fields covered by the mandated reporter statute.

OCFS also offers periodic satellite video-conferences, broadcast through the New York Network; a two-day Training for Trainers program; and is currently developing Web-based training.

OCFS provides extensive mandated reporter training through a contractual agreement with the Center for Development of Human Services (CDHS), part of the Research Foundation of SUNY, Buffalo State College. For more information, visit OCFS's Mandated Reporter Training Resource Center Website at www.bsc-cdhs.org/mr/. All training offered through OCFS is at no cost to the participant.
Conclusion

Protecting children and preventing child abuse and maltreatment does not begin or end with reporting. Efforts to prevent child abuse and maltreatment can only be effective when mandated reporters and other concerned citizens work together to improve the safety net in their communities.

To be most effective, your local CPS needs strong partnerships within your community. By getting to know the staff in your local CPS unit, you will gain a better understanding of how your local program is structured and CPS will better understand how to work more effectively with you.

By working together, we can better protect our vulnerable children.

Additional Mandated Reporter Information

New York State

Office of Children & Family Services
Capital View Office Park
52 Washington Street
Rensselaer, New York 12144

Visit our website at:
http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us

To report child abuse and neglect, call:
1-800-342-3720

For information on the Abandoned Infant Protection Act, call:
1-866-505-SAFE (7233)

For child care, foster care, and adoption information, call:
1-800-345-KIDS (5437)

For information about services for the blind, call:
1-866-871-3000
1-866-871-6000 TDD

Mandated Reporters Hotline for child abuse and maltreatment reports:
1-800-635-1522

"...promoting the well-being and safety of our children, families, and communities. ..."

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services will make this material available in large print or on audiotape upon request.

Pub. #1159 (Rev. 12/06)

Ask Charlie, what is he doing to protect your children from pedohiles in our school system.
http://www.charlesjhynes.com/forms/feedback

I'm so glad this issue is finally getting attention. I'm a 28 yr old boy that grew up in williamsburg that was raped and molested for years and had no one to talk to about it. These scum bags should be rotting in prison and shame on dov hikind If anyone shares the same story with me I would love to hear from you at joediangello@aol.com

Don't forget mes petites, the thugs that took a shot at the Rabbi can also take a bullet.

Children have a right to thrive. Dov is a coward.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

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

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!

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

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

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

Please Scroll Down Toward The Bottom Of This Page For More Search Options, For A List Of Recent Posts, And For Comments Rules

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

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

Recent Posts

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

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website. Please click the Donate button now to contribute.

Thank you for your generous support!

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

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

Comment Rules

  • 1. No anonymous comments.

    2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.

    3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.

    4. Do not sockpuppet.

    5. Try to argue using facts and logic.

    6. Do not lie.

    7. No name-calling, please.

    8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.

    ***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Older Posts Complete Archives

Search FailedMessiah

Lijit Search

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

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!

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

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

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

FailedMessiah.com in the Media

RSS Feed

Blog Widget by LinkWithin