The writer does back-flips to avoid saying it simply: If you want visitation rights you can't force the child to violate his beliefs, which are given to him by his legal guardian. The court didn't order him to keep shabbat, just that if he's going to take him on shabbat he has to provide an environment for him that is suitable. That's not extreme, that's pretty damn reasonable. Consider what is missing from this article: Why did the father loose custody in the first place?

sure, this person has paperwork, legal documents, etc, but when it comes to the true beliefs of the heart of the person we have a problem in that the beliefs are not kosher jewish. it's exactly like i've known - outward appearances are not always indicative of the truth.

HOW TO DO THE KIDDUSH ? READING THIS ARTICLE I GOT AHEAD ACHE ;-*(

Maybe someone can explain it better than this journalist?

Hope this gets appealed to US Supreme Court. Dangerous - and Un-Constitutional - to allow US Courts to make any ruling regarding religion! No matter the religion - US Courts must obey US Constitution and make no law regarding religion. All US Citizens - no matter what faith - should be against this. It's a slippery slope.

Yet another ad hominem He has no clue about Judaism but the arrogant Christian poster deludes himself that he's an authority on Tora Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel Israeli Torah-reverer (& Orthodox Jew) Advocate for Logic as Hermeneutic Halakhic Authority Welcoming All Torah-reverers (Jews & non-Jews)

How about NO VISITATIONS on Shabbat, and when the kid visits on weekdays, he brings his own box lunch, prepared by his mom.

access to the child. it is obvious that the man knowingly married a orthodox Jewish women and consented to their child being raised as a Jew. This child is being accordingly and the father and his new wife have no right violating the child's religious rights by forcing to eat him pork and to violate Jewish religious commandments. Just imagine how you would feel if you were a devout Roman Catholic and if your previously non-religious Muslim ex and his new Muslim wife were to create a nice Muslimn environment for your Catholic child on his visits; feed your child lamb on a Good Friday and the rest of big fasts, take the kid to a mosque to give a nice prayer to Allah and teach him that the nice Prophet Issa was no son of God and that everything that he is being taught by Mom is a hogwash. Daddy and his wife need not lead a kosher life, but they have no right to impose their non-kosher lifestyle on their Jewish orthodox son. Daddy should loose visitation rights or have supervised visitations.

Basically, the court ruled that when Nelson Derbigney's son visits him he must be treated per his mother's (Nelson's ex-wife) wishes. That is, as an orthodox jew. So, he must be given kosher food, shabbat must be observed around him, etc. While it isn't necessarily a ruling I would agree with, that the couple "must live as haredim" is a bit of a sensationalist stretch.

An Orthodox Jewish woman will certainly not marry a non Jew !

...it is just a precondition to the visitation, which she may elect to not heed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the US constitution has no law of separation of "church and state," that was a term used by Jefferson in a church, paraphrasing the terminology of the pastor (and is not in the constitution). There is a constitutional law prohibiting congress from passing a law "in recognition of a certain church" - which meant that it may not dictate to a certain religious group what the rules of that religious group are. It cannot tell Catholics that the rosary must be recited daily by Catholic law, and it may not tell reconstructionist Jews that reconstructionist Judaism requires them to eat at least an egg size piece of edible food on Yom Kippur. This law in no way dictates the halachah for the specific group of Hasidim, but stipulates that maintaining rights to visitation are conditional on keeping the conventions of the group "whatever they are" in the home where the boy will be visiting as a family member.

Why does he have to visit on Shabbat?? And what's wrong with making sure that kosher food is available to the boy? But she and her husband should be able to eat what they want. They shouldn't have to change their lives - matter of fact they aren't supposed to keep kosher!

It's hard because as a Catholic she was not supposed to get married to someone who's divorced, unless his first wife cheated on him. A gray area of religion there. Also the eating habits are perhaps not completely like the original, because things have changed in the ways things are done. So also a gray area there. Cannot go into gray areas, without having problems.

Father converted (or possibly "converted") to Judaism before marrying, then divorced and reverted to his old faith - Catholicism. The child, who is under the (Orthodox Jewish) mother's custody, must thus be treated with full accordance of Orthodox Judaism by his non-Jewish father. Anything else is a violation of the child's beliefs, the mother's beliefs, and the mother's legal right as custodian. Should the father and his new wife wish to avoid changes to their lifestyle and personal beliefs, they can simply agree to drop unsupervised visitation altogether. They have, after all, already violated the faith the child is being raised on when they gave him non-Kosher food, something the father knew wasn't right. The rest of it is *their* choice, the father's and his wife's - their failure to respect the child's religious Jewish upbringing, their duty to be held to a strict standard of providing for the child's religious Jewish customs. This is not an involvement in their beliefs - it is a direct measure to prevent them from involving themselves in the child's religious customs, which they have previously failed to do. The alternative is for them to give up on unsupervised visitation.

they would learn the Catholic Catechism says SATURDAY is the SABBATH of the Bible and that the Catholic church merely CELEBRATES it on Sunday. What they forget to do is to tell the Catholics to keep the Sabbath of the Bible holy by not buying or selling food or wares on that day, etc. There is no difference between the Sabbath of the Jews and the Sabbath of the Bible described in the Catholic Catechism. But Catholics do no read their catechisms, it appears. But the Judge did, obviously. The Prophet Isaiah warns in chapters 65 and 66 that God will not protect swine eaters and those who eat unclean foods. That means a Moses diet that Rabbi Yeshua the Catholics call Jesus Christ followed is what should be eaten: KOSHER! See! No disagreement on those two issues between the Roman Catholics and the Jews IF THE BIBLE is followed by both. It is the Bible people don't want to follow and they pretend to be Catholic but are far from it. Harrah for the little boy who will get to honor the Sabbath of the Bible and eat Kosher foods at both homes! Smart judge.

If some lawyer takes this to the US Supreme Court, I suspect that the lower court's ruling will be turned over so fast it'll make everybody's head spin.

according to the constitution they cannot be for or against anyones religion. and must consider the laws of that religion as sacred. the constitution is not designed as a pagan religious document. freedom of religion as long as you do not impose your religious standards, on others. i feel the court made the proper judgement, under the given conditions. for as long as the child is with them. or they must relinquish custody of the child. shalomcha vshalomech???,?...

i know the catholic people i was a catholic and none of them read the torah,none of them take care about the torah,catholic just go to a traditional celebration and they think that´s all,catholic as rabbi Jesus messiah said repeat and repeat the same words but they do not know what they are saying so i think the most ignorant religion about the torah is the catholic and the worst its leaders do not know to read because the holy day in the new testament is the saturday,rabbi Jesus messiah did not pray to statues or images,the catholic priest always speak about nonsense but the catholic priest never speak about the commadments,the catholic is a tradition of men but it is not the word of the lord,i see all my life the catholic priest is thinking about his material life and he does not matter what´s going on all around him,the catholic priest is not a messiah´s followers,the catholic religion is the opposite of Jesus because the messiah came as the word of the lord and rabbi Jesus was a servant of everyone and the catholic religion got a pope who believes he is god over the earth,he does not serve anyone and everyone serves him and he is just a mortal man as everyone,the catholic just say to pray for the poor,the sick and bla bla bla but they do not move a finger to do something for them and meanwhile they live a comfortable material life,i think the catholic religion uses Jesus for their own ego because the catholic religion speak about Jesus but they do never do the words of Jesus.

First of all, the judge isn't ordering this Catholic couple to live as Hasidic Jews because the court wouldn't find it necessary. What's being required of them is that they not violate the child's Orthodox Jewish upbringing which means he should be provided with kosher food and not be expected to violate the Sabbath. As long as this couple follows those rules, they can be as Catholic as the Pope for all the court would care.

I can sense the outrage of this journalist (Ms. Bitton?) at the restriction the couple face of not being able to feed the orthodox boy a leg of pork or other delicacies from the new wife's childhood. Worse, I think that they can't even indoctrinate him in their Catholic faith, aaaahhh, those orthodox Jews, what will they do to this world, eh, Rivka Bitton?

There is a a lesson to be learned here. Don't marry out. Then you won't have these problems, and lots of people do. I hear stoies like this one all the time. I wouldn't expect a parent not to teach their child their religion and I don't think it's a matter for US courts.

by the way, you renounced your nutzarim heresy no rabbi will accept as within the realm of normative judaism yet? if not (and i know the answer is NO), does any jewish religious authority recognize you as your self-designated 'paqid'? too bad for you.

Maybe that the woman BECAME orthodox after her divorce . You have to know that sometimes divorces brings hate from one or both sides , and that one , or both sides , try to annoy the other in every possible way . The mother can have became orthodox to distance herself more and more from her ex . When people divorce they should avoid to take measures that can harm their children . Here , i think , both sides act in the contrary way . The victim here is the child , and that's sad .

It's not only a problem when marrying "out" . It's a problem of divorced people , even if they are both Jewish . Sometimes they will do everything possible to "annoy" the other side . One , the woman who most probably became Orthodox after her divorce [ an Orthodox woman will NEVER marry a non Jew ] he , who kinowingly gave non kosher food to his son . And they did'nt look at the boy , who is the victim of this story

As is taught in the Christian Scriptures in the first Christian Council as described in the book of the Acts of the Envoys, chapter 15. They commanded the gentiles to follow the basic noahic moral laws, not eating blood or torn animals, etc. Later gentile Christians rejected these laws, and changed the Shabbat to the first day of the week, without any authority from the Christian Scriptures.

Jews are forbidden to marry outside of Judaism for ONE reason, the Torah. It is a matter of obedience and not keeping the DNA pure.

There is clear misrepresentation in your article. The couple does not have to live an orthodox lifestyle. As I understand it, the court ruled that they cannot feed the child non-kosher food, not can they have him break the sabbath rules. Divorce is confusing enough for a child without having to deal with 2 separate sets of rules. It is unfortunate, but it just might be in the child's interest to maintain consistency of daily living habits..

our bible is based on your scriptures- it does not mean we need 613 laws dictating what to eat and look at every day- the world has changed a bit in the past 2000 plus years in case you haven't noticed. Civil law has no place in the bedroom (and kitchens) of the people- . This case should teach people not to mix with orthodox and fanatic religious extremists who lost touch with the world. Does anyone really believe God CARES for unimportant things like this? You can observe all the laws and be a jerk- or not observe any and still be saintly and blessed.

Israel is good at keeping parts, or at least in virtual reality, but never ever the entire Torah as commanded. History looks like one big failure in this respect.