It sounds like the mom is Jewish and the father is not. If so, then the children are Jews and belong in Israel. All the more so since the father demonstrated so little commitment to the relationship and to the family that he never bothered to marry the mother. This should serve as a lesson not only to Jews who intermarry, but also to gentiles who marry Jews. Like Tevia tells Chava in Fiddler on the Roof, "A bird may love a fish, but where will they make a home?"

As children they belong first and foremost with their parents, not to some religious ideal. Also, in Sweden marriage is not very important. You have plenty of couples who have gone for years without marrying, despite having children.

I dont know that jews were "muslims" and kidnap children because they belong to us? This should serve as a warning.. what kind of warning? Thats jews are a discusting people? Do you want the antisemites to be right? And by the way as an israeli from sweden, swedes are nice and commited. They are in fact a million more honest and nice than israelis.

is a deadly matter normally practiced by the mother. Although I do not know the details beyond what the article states, it sounds like PAS and, if it is, it should be stopped by the Courts and the children should be sent back to Sweden to reside with their father. If the mother sincerely loves her children (which is questionable in cases of PAS), she, too, will return to Sweden. At any rate, it appears that the mother has already undertaken to damage her childrens' lives and this kind of behaviour on her part merits grounds to penalize her.

Debbie you need help. A mother who is not open to her partner and kidnapped children can't have the moral high ground. As for fiddler on the roof, best keep it in the past and move on.

that his children are Jewish, and might be far more comfortable growing up in Israel than they would be in Israel and Jew-hating Sweden? He should not discount that. Particularly in light of the increasingly hostile and vociferous Moslem and Arab population in Sweden. Surely he wants what is best for his Jewish children.

married a foreigner (Canadian) and had two children (twin boy and girl). Her husband wanted to move to New Zealand and Karen refused because she did not want to leave the female support group she had to be a stranger and outside in another country. She would also lose her teacher's pension if she left her job before a certain number of years. Her husband does not fit into America very well, but for Karen's sake he decided to stay since she could not face the emotional challenge of living in a foreign country. Perhaps if the father of the two children in the article would consider the emotional limitations of his wife and her need to be with or near her mother and female support group of friends, he would stay in Israel. Being a military dependent as a child and for decades as a wife, I know how hard it is to fit into new communities and other countries and cultures. But I chose that lifestyle to be a campfollower as difficult as that was. This woman in the article does not have that kind of courage or strength and the Bible says the strong should bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please themselves. The common law husband is stronger than the wife in this situation so he should be her infirmity of weakness in not being able to handle living in Sweden.

There are so many American children whose fathers have kidnapped them and taken them to live in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghnistan, Morocco and other Arab and Islamic States that the Hague Fourth Convention had to be ratified and there is an entire section at the United States Department of State that deals exclusively with child abductions -- roughly 90% of all such cases involve American mothers and Arab and Islamic fathers. Movies have been made about it. I think you should temper your zeal with a little bit of reality. The parents are not married. The children were born to a Jewish mother; that makes them Jewish. What kind of a life can these children expect in anti-Israel and increasingly Islamic Sweden?

Have you actually visited Sweden or are you only going by reports in Israeli media? In any case, your point is irrelevant - that would be something two parents would discuss together rather than one parent running off with the children by herself.

to see if the mother is indeed brainwashing them against their father. Whatever their 'marital status,' he's their father and has the right to be in their lives. Some kind of an agreement has to be worked out for the benefit of the children. And if the mother is such a terrible person that she is, indeed, brainwashing them against their father, she should not have legal custody of them.

Yes, I have actually visited Sweden. Quite a bit, a lot of it work-related. That said, I think you will find that the Swedes are extremely worried about the rapid increase in Islamic and Arab populations in Sweden -- and their refusal to integrate into Swedish society. To wit: http://sheikyermami.com/2008/12/24/violent-muslim-riots-in-sweden-spread-to-stockholm/ http://blogg.visir.is/logicsociety/2008/03/14/muslim-rape-wave-in-sweden/ Let me know if you would like to read more about the subject; I shall provide you with additional links. The mother did not, as you characterize it "run off." She is not married to the children's father, and she is free to leave with her Jewish children at any time. Similarly, the children's father is free to visit his Jewish children in Israel at any time.

Good to know you were not talking out of your hat, that you have been there. Tell me - did you feel threatened? Did you see any riots? The problem in Sweden is more about disenfranchised youth than radical Islam though, and has little if anything to do with Jews. The situation is similar to that of France - large concrete suburbs with few ethnic Swedes, poor education and no opportunity to integrate. The problem is both of self-selection and government policy. As for the mother being " free to leave with her Jewish children at any time", that is simply not true. Assuming they were born in Sweden (the article calls Sweden "home", but it is hard to tell) they have shared custody and she can not single-handedly move without his approval. She is not allowed to deny his father access to his kids, according the article. According to the law, she is free to move to Israel but not free to bring the children with her without his consent.

Since they are not married i would think it would be problematic for the man to get his Children.Why didn't he even try to acclimate himself to Israel,at least try to.Also maybe the Mother feels uncomfortable in Sweden with all it's pro Arab views

He is not married to the mother of the children, and his claim that "children need a mom and a dad" is bogus, if he cares that much for her, why didn't he marry her? It's not like she is going to get together with him again after this. Parental alientation Syndrome is bad enough when a couple is divorced and each parent are fighting over the kids. This couple did not even have a "civil partnership" which means that Daddy is SOL.

You are both wrong. Swedish laws by default award shared custody, so long as the father is on the birth certificate. No marriage or civil partnership necessary - the mother does not have sole custody by default. The facts remain - the mother took the kept the children in Israel against his consent, whereas the previously agreed condition was for them to return to Sweden. As for why he didn't marry her - Swedes don't tend to place as much value in that institution as other, more religious, countries do. I know one Swedish couple that married after fifteen years together, already with two teenage kids. As such, it does not hold the same symbolism of faithfulness or dedication as you want to ascribe to it. Speculating about why they didn't get married is pointless though - the mother still kidnapped their children.

But the gene pool says the children are not Jewish the man carries the gene. My take would be it is better the children stay in Israel because I am partial. Sweden is ok but for the childrens sake Israel would be better for them. Let the guy visit but the children stay. Bickering don't help but makes it worse for the children and the man should do what is best for the children and that is to let them stay with the mother. This I believe is what the mother had in mind. Not selfishness....

I and my child have lived this storyand I have a couple of quotes for all you who believe this selfish, small minded and underhanded "mother" deserves her children. "Dad why does Mom do and say the things she does. Doesn't she know she hurts me?" Age 8. "Daddy when I ask Mom a question I know what the answer a good Mom should give, why does Mom always let me down and tell me something that hurts my feelings?" Age 10 and this last one is a quote for the father to remember. "Dad why can't I live with you. Your the only person who not only doesn't try to hurt my feelings, but the only member of my immediate family that tries to protect them" age 9. The court system usually tries to keep the mother with the child and as a judge here in Ohio once told a group of us "I don't care what you think of the mother or what she has done. You the father can get a job and pay child support and the mother can stay home and raise the children. " The court here tends to grant women absolute power in these cases and someof them live down to the old adage and allow it to corrupt them absolutly. My kid finially left her Mom at age 14, her Mom chased her through the house with a rolling pin and tried to brain her because the issue of wanting to see Dad came up again. To the Dad in this story a word of advice. Never give up trying to be a good Dad and see your kids. Keep your lips close to your teeth when it comes to the Mom and make sure your kids has reason to enjoy the time they spend with you. It just may be all you need to do to eventually win with the kids.

To me it seems as though the father left. That is a big deal and not kidnapping. They moved to Israel and he wanted to leave and did so. There seems to be more to this story. Why can't or won't the father stay? Why won't he accept visitation? You have a mother that's Israeli, who with her children's father moved to Israel and then the father left. Why is Israel less an option than Sweden? Why should the mother give up her home? Interfaith relationships are tricky enough, international ones apparently can have even deeper repercussions.

I worked directly in this field as a psychologist for many years in Canada. It makes no difference whether the couple were married or not. The father was, and still is, the father. He appears to be a very interested father. Some have maintained, incidentally, that the father should have married the mother. We do not know, however, whether either party, including the mother, wanted to marry the other partner. As far as parenting, however, it makes no difference in the eyes of a secular Court. The mother ran off to Israel and took their children with her. If true, it was a form of kidnapping; she denied his rights. It is a bogus to argue that the children are Jewish because the mother is Jewish. The children are the children of both parents. As noted, in cases of PAS, where the children are actually taught to be alienated against one of the parents (according to this article), research indicates that it is usually the mother who causes and subjects the children to the alienation. This is not just a matter of kidnapping children (no matter whether it is the mother or father who does the kidnapping) but rather the corrosive effect it has on the child, i.e., alienation from a formerly beneficial parent. It is a very damaging activity and the parent who engages in it should not benefit from its iniquitous effects -- in this case, the mother. In essence, PAS recognizes the rights of both parents to parent and the rights of each child to be parented by both parents. As noted, and I will repeat, research overwhelmingly indicates that the alienating parent is normally the mother, i.e., read "The Mad Mother Syndrome" or the seminal works of Dr. Richard Gardner, the psychiatrist who coined the phrase "PAS" . At any rate, whichever parent takes it upon him/herself to alienate the children against the other parent should be penalized in a court of law. I hope this clarifies the situation for the readers, at least from a psycho-legal perspective.

If the man is the father of the children (easily proven with a DNA test), the same laws apply!!!!!!!!! Hello people we are almost in 2010

You didn't read the article closely enough: They never intended to stay in Israel permanently - it was, according to the father and the court, agreed that they would return to Sweden shortly. The mother then single-handedly changed that decision without receiving consent from the father. Similar questions can be asked the other way: Why should the father accept to leave his motherland? Why should he accept to just have visitation rights? Why is Sweden less of an option than Israel? The simple facts that can be inferred from the article: They had previously agreed to return to Sweden. The mother changed the decision without his consent, and then made contact between him and the children hard.

Nothing you have said changes the fact that children born of a Jewish mother are Jewish. Will the father raise them as Jews? Will the children be comfortable in Sweden? Absent any facts to support the allegations that the mother is actively brainwashing the children, or that she is unfit and incapable of raising the children in a wholesome and nurturing manner -- they ARE Jewish, and should be raised in a Jewish environment.

The children are Jewish under Jewish law. The genetic inheritance, by the way, is equally divided. Of the 46 chromosomes, 23 are contributed by each parent.

As a matter of fact, I did see rioting and I did feel frightened -- much to the consternation and embarrassment of my lovely Swedish hosts. Malmo is a fairly significant Swedish port, and port cities are mostly where my work takes me (I practice admiralty law). The article seems pretty clear that the four -- two parents and two children -- left Sweden voluntarily; the father made no effort to integrate himself into Israeli life and subsequently returned to Sweden. Presumably, the mother is as free to remain in Israel with her Jewish children as the children's father is to return to Sweden. But there is no doubt that all four left Sweden voluntarily.

Well, your perception of sweden is is totally idiotic. Jews have it extremly well in sweden, much better than in israel. But they are less jewish. If you want bad treatment go to israel, you must really want you children to be jewish otherwise I would recomend swedish jews (and they do) to stay in sweden. Israel is crasy, but well, jewish.

When a couple separates , it are the children who suffer mostly . Here it's not relevant at all that they are Jewish by Halachah . Maybe none of the parents looks at this and nobody should do it . They are the children of both parents , and if they love their children , they should do everything not to harm them . It's disgusting to separate children from the other parent .

that brought the Petach Tikva court to decide that the children must be returned to their father . Do you know it better ? No , you don't , you only read what is written here i presume . Who says that the mother is Jewish ? Who said that the father is not ? And it's not relevant at all if they are , it's possible , Jewish by Halachah because of their mother . They have TWO parents , don't forget it

sanguine about matters and read with acertain amount of objectivity. In this case, I am afraid that your biases are overwhelming your objectivity. The article indicates that the mother, after three years of planning, took the children and travelled to Israel with them. She then stayed in Israel and refused to return against what presumably was against the understanding of the father while the family was in Sweden. This would be considered "abduction". Of course, we have yet to hear from the mother and all the facts are not yet on the table. As to the pre-eminence of the children being "Jewish" because the mother being "Jewish" according to Jewish law, I think your consideration is unthinkingly absurd. Let's consider counter-examples: If a child were born of a Jewish mother and a Muslim father, why then both would argue, according to each parent's respective customs, that the child was Jewish or, in the father's case, Muslim. If a child were born of a Jewish mother and Native Canadian (prairie Blackfoot or Cree), both parents would argue, one that the child was Jewish, the other that the child was Blackfoot or Cree. The Blackfoot and Crees are at least as old as Jews, historically speaking. So why, in your mind, does the Jewishness of the Jewish mother take precedence? Unless I am missing something here, your thinking is fallacious. Also, according to the father, the children are feeling the (negative) effects of the separation caused by the mother and perhaps the alienation from the father, also caused by the mother. While I do not have all the facts at my disposal, it does appear to to fit the characteristics of Parental Alienation Syndrome. And while I normally appreciate your informative posts, Sarah, and the impassioned arguments which accompany them, you do not have to argue as a lawyer all the time. Sometimes, in fact, you are off-base and it's okay to humbly admit that you are wrong. You will accrue greater credibility that way than always fighting for a position you have already established. In the case as detailed, you not an expert as admiralty law and family law are world's apart.

Okay. I'll ask. How do you account for this? http://www.thelocal.se/17466/20090209/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/28/20031028-083517-4718r/ http://www.jafi.org.il/education/antisemitism/nf/a1.html http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-tossavainen-f05.htm http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/08/swedish-jews-join-idf-to-escape-anti-semitism.html I eagerly await your response.