Posted on 09/19/2014 5:41:14 AM PDT by patlin
An American-Israeli woman is fighting for her daughter’s right to leave Israel after her ex-husband filed a case in the Rabbinical Court on September 4 demanding visitation rights. The child in question, a 13-year-old named Inbar, or Amber Hope Layman, cannot leave Israel during the legal proceedings, and her mother promises to “raise hell” in order to bring her home.
The mother, Danielle Layman, currently lives in Kansas and is married to an American, Jeremy Layman. She left Shahar Abecassis, Inbar’s father, in 2003. Danielle Layman said Shahar was abusive and made threats on Inbar’s life, and that she had filed a restraining order against him. She added that, in the intervening years, Abecassis had no contact with Inbar and did not pay court-ordered child support, an amount that has added up to around $20,000.
“This story is happening again and again in Muslim countries. It’s like that Sally Fields movie ‘Not Without My Daughter,’” Danielle Layman said. “Except in that situation the Muslim courts were protecting the rights of a real father, but legally speaking, [Abecassis, the girl's father] has no standing whatsoever. We are dealing with a fanatical religious court. I’m not going to leave without my daughter, and I’m going to raise hell in the USA.”
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofisrael.com ...
(excerpt) When Abecassis, who had been convicted of domestic violence by a civil Israeli court and divorced from Amber’s mother, saw the picture of his biological child in Israel, he filed a complaint with the Rabbinic Court in Ashdod, claiming that his daughter had been “kidnapped and taken to America.”
Legally, however, Abecassis is no longer the Amber’s father. According to adoption papers issued by a US court and obtained by Israel Today, Jeremy Layman, who married Amber’s mother, is now her legal father and guardian.
At least that’s what an American District Court determined, and it is a view shared by the Ministry of Interior in Israel, which removed Abecassis’ name from Amber’s Israeli ID and listed Jeremy Layman as her father. Even Amber’s American and Israeli passports register Jeremy as her father.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24925/Default.aspx
__________________________________________________
As well as the Morning Sun, Pittsburg, Ks "Scammon family stranded abroad"
(excerpt)The 13-year-old daughter of a Southeast Kansas family may not leave Israel after a religious court ruling.
Members of the Layman family are caught between differing rulings from a State of Israel agency and a Jewish court over the custody of their daughter, Amber Hope Layman.
Danielle Layman claims that Abecassis Shahar, Amber Hope's biological father, was previously convicted in Israel of threatening to kill his biological daughter and that he was "abusive." Because of this, Layman said, Shahar's custody rights were stripped. http://www.morningsun.net/article/20140909/NEWS/140909824/2135/NEWS
Amber is the adopted daughter of Active duty US Soldier Jeremy Layman who is currently stationed in Afghanistan and not scheduled to return home until July 2015. This is an absolute outrage! Is Israel a Democracy or a Theocracy? Which is it because they cannot have it both ways.
His parental rights were terminated in an adoption case (TPR-adopt or termination of parental rights and adoption) because of abandonment and failure to pay child support. He had notice and did not enter into the case which he could easily have done from Israel by retaining a Kansas attorney.
That simple. The dude is no longer her legal dad. He has no rights whatsoever. Israel has an obligation to recognize the judicial decisions of the courts of the child’s home state. I have no doubt this will get straightened out and encourage the mother to calm down.
The article is written entirely from the ex-wife’s view.
The dad is only asking for visitation. Whatever convoluted laws man can invent, the fact remains that this man is the girl’s biological father regardless of the fact that US courts allowed the mom’s new husband to adopt, based on mom’s testimony alone, that the dad was not involved.
Nowhere does the article state that the dad was served notice of the adoption.
Also, nowhere does the article state that the dad was convicted of domestic violence. It merely states that the mom obtained a restraining order against him, which are handed out like candy.
This may not be as “cut and dry” as the author would have us believe.
It would be irresponsible for us to jump to conclusions this “journalist” intends for us to conclude, without knowing all the facts of the case. I do not know.
I just know that there are a lot of important, unanswered questions, not the least of which is: “why fight so hard to keep your daughter from seeing her biological father when the girl is going to be an adult in one year or so and can do what she wants?”
What part of the child is not the legal daughter of an American soldier do you not understand?
What part of you should have read ALL the articles links I posted so to get the entire story do you not understand?
What part of both the Israel govt & the US govt recognize the child as no longer legally bound to the biological father do you not understand?
Hmmm! American courts favor woman. Woman goes to Israel to taunt the father a second time? Goes around comes around.
Woman goes to Israel to taunt the father? Where do you get that? Does not the woman have a right to visit her family in her place of birth where the family still lives? Would you say these words about an Christian American-Arab woman whose child was being detained in an Islamic country by their religious court?
One important lesson to be learned here is that you take a huge risk whenever you take a child to another country in a case like this. You've got parental custody issues at stake, different legal systems, etc. This is exacerbated in a country where the civil government has ceded its authority to a religious court in any matters.
I hope it works out for everyone, but to be honest I have no idea what the hell "works out" means in a case like this.
I would. Any Christian mother who brings her child to an Islamic country where a non-custodial father lives is a lunatic.
Get off it, your blatant antisemitism is showing.
Did YOU read the articles? She wasn’t even ready to go home yet, firstly, and secondly the case is set for October 8. Big deal. If someone files a case with a court, the court just can’t ignore it. The court has to inquire, the mother has to provide certified copies of the relevant court documents she rages about.
I have every confidence in Israel’s courts and their ability to figure it out.
Yes, he had notice of the adoption else the Kansas court could not have gone forward.
No, at this point he is not the legal dad and has no rights whatsoever.
The BIG difference is that Islamic countries do not hide the fact that they are indeed Theocracies, however, Israel boasts that it is a Democracy when underneath the facade, it is not.
No, American courts favor joint custody. However, the American court in this case was not ruling on a divorce case, but a termination of parental rights/adoption case, some of th elements of which are 1) the bio-dad has notice and 2) the abandonment of the child in the absence of his consent to the adoption.
You wouldn’t believe the calls we field with loving fathers -sarc- wanting to voluntarily terminate their rights so they don’t have to pay child support.
Israel is an Islamic country now?
Personally, this sounds more and more like a freak show all around. I sure won't be losing any sleep over it.
Of course not. Did you even read the chain of posts that led up to my comment?
I agree with you that none of us should go to any Islamic country with our children.
And that is exactly why the Constitution, our founding document, as well as the original SC opinions of the 14th Amendment, neither allows for dual citizenship. The founding fathers as well as the following generations, all the way through the civil war, rejected the concept of dual citizenship. But alas, we got it via fiat law thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court decision in the 1890's who used British feudal law rather than adhering to American law the same court had just upheld less than 10 yrs prior to the fateful decision and by the same SC Justice no less who's bank account profited greatly from the unconstitutional decision he made.
For practical purposes, dual citizenship only becomes an issue when one of two things happens: (1) the person tries to conduct themselves as a citizen of both countries (traveling with multiple passports, voting in both countries, serving in the armed forces of both countries, etc.); and (2) the person gets involved in a legal process where his or her citizenship is an important legal consideration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.