**3. Some relevant histories**

In 1990, on Yom Kippur – the most solemn day of the Jewish year – eight-year-old Yaakov Riegler was stabbed to death by his mother with a kitchen fork. The case attracted

What Went Wrong at Ohel Children's Home –

sexually abused at least two thirteen-year-old boys.

house. In light of these facts, the *Jewish Week* reported,

**3.1 Stefan Colmer** 

and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 195

The authors' years of investigation into abuses at Ohel confirm that the examples cited above define patterns that continue to inform Ohel's handling of child abuse allegations. The following three cases – all of which involve non-reporting of suspected child sexual abuse by the agency – typify the sort of problems our research has repeatedly uncovered.

The outrage of the Stefan Colmer case is that it might never have happened. Before Colmer was ever criminally charged with sexually abusing two boys – for which he ultimately served a jail sentence – he participated in an "offender's program" run by Ohel, a program supposedly intended to help protect the Orthodox community from further abuse from "offenders" like Colmer. Yet he abandoned the program prematurely in 2002, without having been successfully treated, simply because he had decided to get married and didn't want to inform his new wife that he was a pedophile. During the following years, he

The astonishing thing was that, from the time Colmer dropped out of its offenders' program until his arrest (in Israel) in 2007, Ohel did – nothing. It made no attempt to find out where Colmer was, or what he was doing, or whether he was spending any time alone with young boys. It never attempted to communicate with the Brooklyn religious school near which Colmer settled and from which, according to police sources, he lured potential victims to his

"Colmer's case raises several thorny questions: Should Ohel have agreed to treat Colmer, knowing that he had never been reported to the police? Is there a will on the part of the community and its institutions to reform reporting policies and practices to plug what appears to be a gaping hole in the reporting system, one that leaves children unprotected from men like Colmer? And, most pressing of all, who, in the end, should bear responsibility for what happened to the two innocent 13-year-old alleged victims

In our view, other questions might have been added: Why didn't Ohel have a fixed policy that would have triggered some sort of action in the event Colmer refused to complete an agreed-upon therapy program as an offender? How many other dropouts were there from Ohel's offenders' program, and what did the agency do about those? Couldn't a program whose ostensible purpose was to protect the community have included a provision, agreed to in advance by the offender, that violation of Ohel's rules would result in, say, a report to the police or (assuming no crime had yet been committed) appropriate notification to protect potentialvictims? The fact that Ohel has offered no answers to any of these questions

Avrohom Mondrowitz fled Brooklyn for Israel in late 1984, just as police were closing in for an arrest in what may be New York's worst-ever case of serial child sex abuse. Authorities believe that Mondrowitz – who was an administrator of a school for troubled youth, and a "child psychologist" (with a fake diploma) who "treated" children – sexually abused well over a hundred young boys, nearly all of them Orthodox Jews. He fled to Israel, which refused to extradite him. Justice continues to elude his victims, despite extraordinary efforts to renew the

case against him, in which one of the authors has figured centrally (Lesher, 2009).

of Colmer, whose lives will likely never be the same?" (Winston, 2009b).

suggests that the Colmer case, unfortunately, does not stand alone.

**3.2 Avrohom Mondrowitz** 

considerable public attention because, it turned out, Ohel – which was responsible for the boy's care at the time – had been clearly warned that the boy's mother was dangerously violent. Still, rabbis working with Ohel and the Jewish community overrode the admonitions of the city's child welfare administration to keep the child away from his abusive mother. Although this was not a case of child sexual abuse, it illustrates – as far too many sex abuse cases do – the power of rabbis working in concert with Ohel to override secular agency's authority to protect children.

In the wake of the boy's brutal killing, child welfare experts did not mince words in their criticism of Ohel. Clara Hemphill, writing for *New York Newsday*, reported that just weeks before the stabbing, Ohel had learned alarming facts about the boy's condition. However, "rather than call the State Central Registry in Albany – as required by law – officials said they called a Child Welfare Administration office in Manhattan which had nothing to do with the case. Ohel officials," according to Hemphill, "could not offer an explanation why they called the unit [in Manhattan] rather than the state hotline. Child welfare experts were astonished by the blunder"(Hemphill, 1990, p. 23).

Brenda McGowan, a professor at Columbia University's School of Social Work and an expert in foster care, commented to *Newsday* that Ohel's decision to call the unrelated Manhattan office, rather than the State Central Registry, was "insane" (Hemphill, 1990, p. 23). McGowan's was not a lone voice. Many child advocates and experts on foster care were just as astonished. What must not be forgotten is that Ohel is not an obscure institution working far from state authorities. Rather, it is a state licensed foster care agency with a multimillion dollar annual budget, much of which comes from New York and federal money. (In fact, Ohel pulls in even more government money than its budget reveals. For example, in fiscal year 2010 alone Ohel was awarded \$900,000 in federal "earmarks" – that is, extra disbursements approved by individual Congressmen – approved by the laterdisgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner, who in turn had received a substantial campaign contribution from Ohel's Executive Director, David Mandel.)

Yet the non-reporting in the Riegler was far from anomalous. Health care professionals connected with Ohel have stated openly that notwithstanding state law which mandates abuse reports to state authorities by such professionals, they – as observant Orthodox Jews – will not make such reports without first consulting a rabbi. For example, Dr. Susan Schulman, a Brooklyn pediatrician and a member of Ohel's Advisory Board, openly declared – in a recorded lecture she herself circulated – that she always asked a rabbi before making a legally mandated report, even knowing that by doing this she risked prosecution (Fifield & Lesher, 1996). (Although Dr. Schulman's astounding statement has been publicized in print at least since 1996, Ohel chose to feature Dr. Schulman on a video it produced, ostensibly to promote "awareness" of child sexual abuse, as recently as 2009.)

Similar evidence of Ohel's position on child abuse reporting can be gleaned from the example of Rosalie Harman. Ms. Harman, a former senior-level supervisor for New York City's Child Welfare Administration (CWA), testified at a New York State legislative hearing chaired by Senator David A Paterson (who later became Governor of New York) that she knew of a CWA employee whose responsibilities included overseeing Ohel. According to Ms. Harman, once the CWA employee began to express her "suspicion of fiscal irregularities with that agency . . . and asked for someone from the state to come and review the practices of Ohel she was . . . stopped in her tracks" and "taken away from that team" that oversaw Ohel (Harman, 1993, pp. 34-35).

The authors' years of investigation into abuses at Ohel confirm that the examples cited above define patterns that continue to inform Ohel's handling of child abuse allegations. The following three cases – all of which involve non-reporting of suspected child sexual abuse by the agency – typify the sort of problems our research has repeatedly uncovered.

## **3.1 Stefan Colmer**

194 Sexual Abuse – Breaking the Silence

considerable public attention because, it turned out, Ohel – which was responsible for the boy's care at the time – had been clearly warned that the boy's mother was dangerously violent. Still, rabbis working with Ohel and the Jewish community overrode the admonitions of the city's child welfare administration to keep the child away from his abusive mother. Although this was not a case of child sexual abuse, it illustrates – as far too many sex abuse cases do – the power of rabbis working in concert with Ohel to override

In the wake of the boy's brutal killing, child welfare experts did not mince words in their criticism of Ohel. Clara Hemphill, writing for *New York Newsday*, reported that just weeks before the stabbing, Ohel had learned alarming facts about the boy's condition. However, "rather than call the State Central Registry in Albany – as required by law – officials said they called a Child Welfare Administration office in Manhattan which had nothing to do with the case. Ohel officials," according to Hemphill, "could not offer an explanation why they called the unit [in Manhattan] rather than the state hotline. Child welfare experts were

Brenda McGowan, a professor at Columbia University's School of Social Work and an expert in foster care, commented to *Newsday* that Ohel's decision to call the unrelated Manhattan office, rather than the State Central Registry, was "insane" (Hemphill, 1990, p. 23). McGowan's was not a lone voice. Many child advocates and experts on foster care were just as astonished. What must not be forgotten is that Ohel is not an obscure institution working far from state authorities. Rather, it is a state licensed foster care agency with a multimillion dollar annual budget, much of which comes from New York and federal money. (In fact, Ohel pulls in even more government money than its budget reveals. For example, in fiscal year 2010 alone Ohel was awarded \$900,000 in federal "earmarks" – that is, extra disbursements approved by individual Congressmen – approved by the laterdisgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner, who in turn had received a substantial campaign

Yet the non-reporting in the Riegler was far from anomalous. Health care professionals connected with Ohel have stated openly that notwithstanding state law which mandates abuse reports to state authorities by such professionals, they – as observant Orthodox Jews – will not make such reports without first consulting a rabbi. For example, Dr. Susan Schulman, a Brooklyn pediatrician and a member of Ohel's Advisory Board, openly declared – in a recorded lecture she herself circulated – that she always asked a rabbi before making a legally mandated report, even knowing that by doing this she risked prosecution (Fifield & Lesher, 1996). (Although Dr. Schulman's astounding statement has been publicized in print at least since 1996, Ohel chose to feature Dr. Schulman on a video it produced, ostensibly to promote "awareness" of child sexual abuse, as recently as 2009.)

Similar evidence of Ohel's position on child abuse reporting can be gleaned from the example of Rosalie Harman. Ms. Harman, a former senior-level supervisor for New York City's Child Welfare Administration (CWA), testified at a New York State legislative hearing chaired by Senator David A Paterson (who later became Governor of New York) that she knew of a CWA employee whose responsibilities included overseeing Ohel. According to Ms. Harman, once the CWA employee began to express her "suspicion of fiscal irregularities with that agency . . . and asked for someone from the state to come and review the practices of Ohel she was . . . stopped in her tracks" and "taken away from that

secular agency's authority to protect children.

astonished by the blunder"(Hemphill, 1990, p. 23).

contribution from Ohel's Executive Director, David Mandel.)

team" that oversaw Ohel (Harman, 1993, pp. 34-35).

The outrage of the Stefan Colmer case is that it might never have happened. Before Colmer was ever criminally charged with sexually abusing two boys – for which he ultimately served a jail sentence – he participated in an "offender's program" run by Ohel, a program supposedly intended to help protect the Orthodox community from further abuse from "offenders" like Colmer. Yet he abandoned the program prematurely in 2002, without having been successfully treated, simply because he had decided to get married and didn't want to inform his new wife that he was a pedophile. During the following years, he sexually abused at least two thirteen-year-old boys.

The astonishing thing was that, from the time Colmer dropped out of its offenders' program until his arrest (in Israel) in 2007, Ohel did – nothing. It made no attempt to find out where Colmer was, or what he was doing, or whether he was spending any time alone with young boys. It never attempted to communicate with the Brooklyn religious school near which Colmer settled and from which, according to police sources, he lured potential victims to his house. In light of these facts, the *Jewish Week* reported,

"Colmer's case raises several thorny questions: Should Ohel have agreed to treat Colmer, knowing that he had never been reported to the police? Is there a will on the part of the community and its institutions to reform reporting policies and practices to plug what appears to be a gaping hole in the reporting system, one that leaves children unprotected from men like Colmer? And, most pressing of all, who, in the end, should bear responsibility for what happened to the two innocent 13-year-old alleged victims of Colmer, whose lives will likely never be the same?" (Winston, 2009b).

In our view, other questions might have been added: Why didn't Ohel have a fixed policy that would have triggered some sort of action in the event Colmer refused to complete an agreed-upon therapy program as an offender? How many other dropouts were there from Ohel's offenders' program, and what did the agency do about those? Couldn't a program whose ostensible purpose was to protect the community have included a provision, agreed to in advance by the offender, that violation of Ohel's rules would result in, say, a report to the police or (assuming no crime had yet been committed) appropriate notification to protect potentialvictims? The fact that Ohel has offered no answers to any of these questions suggests that the Colmer case, unfortunately, does not stand alone.

#### **3.2 Avrohom Mondrowitz**

Avrohom Mondrowitz fled Brooklyn for Israel in late 1984, just as police were closing in for an arrest in what may be New York's worst-ever case of serial child sex abuse. Authorities believe that Mondrowitz – who was an administrator of a school for troubled youth, and a "child psychologist" (with a fake diploma) who "treated" children – sexually abused well over a hundred young boys, nearly all of them Orthodox Jews. He fled to Israel, which refused to extradite him. Justice continues to elude his victims, despite extraordinary efforts to renew the case against him, in which one of the authors has figured centrally (Lesher, 2009).

What Went Wrong at Ohel Children's Home –

qualms about keeping the confession a secret.

**4. Solutions** 

**4.1 Federal mandate** 

42 U.S.C. § 5101 *et seq.*; 42 U.S.C. § 5116 *et seq.* 

systems.<sup>6</sup>

 6

and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 197

Ohel's only clear priority was self-protection: both victims charged that "Ohel swept the

This confirms the first theme mentioned above: Ohel acted to minimize the consequences suffered by the abuser (and thus, by the agency itself), while doing nothing to aid the victims. This would be bad enough; but in fact, it goes hand in hand with the second theme

"A former Ohel employee told The Post the boys' allegations were not taken seriously

"The owner of a Borough Park building where Adler, until recently, had been living told The Post that the former counselor – who married in December and moved to Jerusalem – admitted to her several years ago that he was a pedophile. She said his confession came after Ohel officials knocked on her door and told her to keep an eye on her children" (*Id.*) This is a singularly damning juxtaposition of facts. On the one hand, Ohel would do nothing for the victims because it assumed – why, we are not told – that the eleven-year-old accuser was a "liar." On the other hand, at the same time Ohel allegedly allowed young boys in its care to be raped at knifepoint, Ohel officials quietly warned the abuser's Orthodox Jewish landlord "to keep an eye on her children," which was all it took to elicit a "confession" from the abuser – though the Orthodox landlord, like the Ohel officials, apparently had no

This illustrates a kind of doublethink at work in Ohel that can only be explained as an intellectual method of protecting a culturally-ingrained set of priorities. Ohel's position cannot be described simply as refusing to believe young boys who reported abuse. In fact, the agency *did* believe them, or believed them at least enough of what they said to try to protect someone else's children. But the agency did this only when it could act without *publicly* acknowledging the reality of the victims' abuse and without forcing it to confront the abuser. What is at stake here is not simply ignorance. It is a systematic arranging of priorities so as to preserve the community homeostasis described above. Unfortunately, this

While the sort of fundamental rethinking of abuse issues that must take place if institutions like Ohel are to be truly reformed is likely years away, practical short-term strategies may still be suggested. This is particularly true because Ohel receives government money, which makes it accountable to state child welfare authorities, as well as to the federal government, as discussed below. The first major steps toward reforming the agency require little more

Some years ago, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) for the purpose of helping the states create and maintain more effective child welfare

The authors believe that this federal statute has the potential – so far,

approach has the effect of further victimizing children entrusted to its care.

than the political will to exert power already inherent in government authorities.

– that Ohel knew far more all along than it admitted – as duly reported by Montero:

or investigated by Ohel because Michael was thought to be a 'liar.' . . .

abuse 'under the rug' to avoid a legal battle that might ruin its reputation."

For our present purposes, the most important point is the fact that Mondrowitz obtained several of his victims from Ohel – and that the agency did nothing in response to their pleas for help (Lesher, 2009, p. 157). This allegation was made in print as long ago as 1999, when one of the police detectives who investigated the Mondrowitz case "told The [New York] Post that his 1984 investigation," while leading him to the conclusion that Mondrowitz had molested "hundreds of children – including some Ohel orphans," was stymied "when cops tried to question the agency." According to the detective, "They weren't cooperating. . . . 'Kids . . . had complained to Ohel and it was swept under the rug . . . [and] never reported.'"

Ohel officials have denied the detective's allegations. But one of the authors has personally interviewed one of Mondrowitz's other victims, who clearly remembers speaking, years ago, to an Ohel foster child who told him – and his parents – that he had reported Mondrowitz's abuse to Ohel officials, who had ignored him (Montero, 1999). The credibility of Ohel's denials in the Mondrowitz case may be gauged from the following case history.

### **3.3 Simcha Adler**

Two typical themes dominate the case of Simcha Adler, a camp counselor employed by Ohel who, according to his victims, repeatedly raped them at knifepoint. First, Ohel seems to have made every possible effort to minimize the offender's punishment and to silence the victims. Second, Ohel claimed not to know of any danger posed by the abuser when, in fact, evidence suggests it did know.

According to press reports, Adler repeatedly and violently abused his eleven-year-old victims at a summer camp where he was their counselor, and then continued to molest and rape them at Ohel, where both were foster children. Yet the boys' complaints to Ohel officials were ignored – for more than a year – "until a worker caught [Adler] straddling Michael," as Douglas Montero reported in the *New York Post*.

Amazingly, although Ohel officials knew the abuse had been severe and chronic, it stood by silently as Adler plea-bargained for a sentence that did not involve even a single day of jail time. Still more amazingly, the plea bargain was concluded less than two months after his arrest.

Despite charges of sodomy and sexual abuse that could have resulted in a sentence of more than twenty years in prison, court records reveal that Adler's punishment was minimal: five years' probation and psychological counseling. His victims only learned of Adler's plea deal years later, and were outraged, as Montero reported:

"'It's a crime that he could walk away . . . and have a normal life,' said Michael, now a mailroom worker in Midtown. 'This man ruined my life.' . . . . 'I was [angry], but I couldn't do anything – I wasn't smart enough to do anything,' said Robert, now a City College freshman who wants to be an optometrist" (Montero, 1999).

Here, in a nutshell, is a vivid illustration of Ohel's priorities. Ohel took no action when the boys complained of heinous abuse for over a year; Ohel never accepted any responsibility for what was done to them; Ohel never talked to the boys about the status of the criminal case. (One of the victims remembered "vaguely" that an Ohel officer told him, after the fact, that Adler was getting "probation; other than that, there does not appear to have been any communication between Ohel and the victims about the prosecution of their assailant.) Ohel's only clear priority was self-protection: both victims charged that "Ohel swept the abuse 'under the rug' to avoid a legal battle that might ruin its reputation."

This confirms the first theme mentioned above: Ohel acted to minimize the consequences suffered by the abuser (and thus, by the agency itself), while doing nothing to aid the victims. This would be bad enough; but in fact, it goes hand in hand with the second theme – that Ohel knew far more all along than it admitted – as duly reported by Montero:

"A former Ohel employee told The Post the boys' allegations were not taken seriously or investigated by Ohel because Michael was thought to be a 'liar.' . . .

"The owner of a Borough Park building where Adler, until recently, had been living told The Post that the former counselor – who married in December and moved to Jerusalem – admitted to her several years ago that he was a pedophile. She said his confession came after Ohel officials knocked on her door and told her to keep an eye on her children" (*Id.*)

This is a singularly damning juxtaposition of facts. On the one hand, Ohel would do nothing for the victims because it assumed – why, we are not told – that the eleven-year-old accuser was a "liar." On the other hand, at the same time Ohel allegedly allowed young boys in its care to be raped at knifepoint, Ohel officials quietly warned the abuser's Orthodox Jewish landlord "to keep an eye on her children," which was all it took to elicit a "confession" from the abuser – though the Orthodox landlord, like the Ohel officials, apparently had no qualms about keeping the confession a secret.

This illustrates a kind of doublethink at work in Ohel that can only be explained as an intellectual method of protecting a culturally-ingrained set of priorities. Ohel's position cannot be described simply as refusing to believe young boys who reported abuse. In fact, the agency *did* believe them, or believed them at least enough of what they said to try to protect someone else's children. But the agency did this only when it could act without *publicly* acknowledging the reality of the victims' abuse and without forcing it to confront the abuser. What is at stake here is not simply ignorance. It is a systematic arranging of priorities so as to preserve the community homeostasis described above. Unfortunately, this approach has the effect of further victimizing children entrusted to its care.
