**What Went Wrong at Ohel Children's Home – and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse?**

Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher *Help Us Regain The Children Legal Research Center USA* 

### **1. Introduction**

182 Sexual Abuse – Breaking the Silence

Rutter, M. (1987). Psycho-social resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of

Sgroi, S.M. (1982) Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse. (2nd ed).

Sigmond, S.T.,, Greene, M.P., Rohan, K.J., & Nichols, J.E. (1996). Coping and Adjustment in

Swanston, H.Y., Nunn, K.P., Oates R.K., Tebbut, J.S. & O'Toole, B.L. (1999). Hoping and

Talbot, J.A., Talbot, N.L. & Tu Xin. (2004). Shame-proneness as a diathesis for dissociation in

Valente, S.M. (2005). Sexual abuse of boys. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric

Van Rensburg, E. & Barnard, C. (2005). Psychological resilience among sexually-molested

Williams, B. (2003). The worldview dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and development 81, 370-374. Wright, O,M., Crawford, E. & Sebastian, K. (2007). Positive Resolution of childhood sexual

male and female survivors of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5

coping in young people who have been sexually abused. European Child and

women with histories of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17

girls in the late middle-childhood: A case study approach. Child Abuse research in

abuse experiences: the role of coping, benefit-finding and meaning-making. Journal

Orthopsychiatry, 57 (3), 316-331.

Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, 134-142.

(3), 57-75.

(5), 445-448.

Nursing, 18 (1), 10 -16.

South Africa, 6 (1), 1-12.

of Family Violence, 22, 259-608.

Massachusetts, MA: Lexington Books.

The cover-up of sex crimes at the expense of child victims has become an all-too-familiar story in many religious communities. The protection of priests accused of child molestation by the Catholic Church hierarchy is now a matter of record; more recent publicity has identified Orthodox Jewish communities as another locus of such misconduct (Dorff, 2009).

Central to such cover-ups is an institution powerful enough to suppress the evidence of abuse and motivated to do it. This chapter presents an analysis – for the first time – of the role in the suppression of child abuse scandals played by the American Orthodox Jewish community's most prominent child welfare agency. The agency, Ohel Children's Home and Family Services (hereafter, "Ohel"), is a large state-licensed agency located in a heavily Orthodox wedge of Brooklyn, New York, and performs foster care, adoption and counseling services. The Ohel agency first opened its doors in 1969. Rapidly, it grew into what the *Village Voice* in 1994 dubbed a "bulwark" of the Orthodox community (Barrett & Bowles, 1994), with a budget of over \$4 million, and political ties that have brought U.S. Senators, Congressmen, state legislators and New York City mayors to its annual fundraising dinners.

Given the nature of its services – foster care was always one of its priorities – the agency dealt early with problems of child abuse. In early 1997, the agency doubled its investment in the issue by opening a program for child sex offenders. That program was shuttered after about five years (Winston, 2009b), but the agency continues to highlight its role in working with child victims of abuse. In April 2009, Ohel and the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes, jointly announced the formation of a special program called "Kol Tzedek," the ostensible purpose of which was to encourage the highly insular Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn to recognize the seriousness of child sex abuse, and to confront the problem honestly – with steps including reporting all such abuse to appropriate city or state authorities (Winston, 2009a).

Lamentably, the agency's actual record belies these stated intentions. In February 2011, Ohel was skewered in an exposé reported by Hella Winston of the *Jewish Week*. Winston's article contained damning evidence that Ohel had blatantly ignored New York statutes requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse to state authorities. (Winston, 2011a).

What Went Wrong at Ohel Children's Home –

2011).

**2. A case for denial** 

**2.1 Community homeostasis** 

so forth.

prejudices of the community it represents.

Orthodox Jewish culture affects this sensitive issue.

and What Can Be Done About Its Failure to Protect Jewish Children from Abuse? 185

subordination of the rights of sexual abuse victims to the preservation of the community's good name. Similarly, we will examine the sociological background to the mounting evidence that Ohel, as part and parcel of the community it serves, has flouted state laws that require reporting of suspected sex abuse to authorities. It is worth stressing, in this connection, that when Ohel addresses its own community it goes out of its way to avoid any mention of such mandatory reporting, even in places where such mention should have been *de rigueur*. For example, in a promotional newsletter Ohel distributed in the summer of 2009, in which it quoted from a press release issued by Brooklyn's District Attorney announcing the new joint sex-abuse initiative with Ohel ("Kol Tzedek") mentioned above, the agency carefully removed from the press release every reference the D.A. had made to police,

We hope our example will inspire researchers to inquire along similar lines into other institutions, connected with religious communities, which may have failed to protect children from child sexual abuse. The effect of religion-based organizations taking on public functions is already receiving public attention: in the wake of the grisly murder in July 2011 of eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky in one Brooklyn's Orthodox neighborhoods, one of the authors was asked to write an editorial for New York City's most widely-read daily newspaper about the misuse of public money for Orthodox Jewish "citizen patrols" which, like Ohel, often refuse to report suspected Jewish offenders to police (Lesher,

The remainder of this chapter is divided into three main sections. First, we offer a sociological analysis of the Orthodox Jewish community's attitudes towards the reporting of offenders, as these related to a Jewish welfare agency like Ohel. Second, we examine the documented history of abuse or neglect cases apparently covered up either by Ohel officials or by professionals working with Ohel, such as pediatricians, counselors and their rabbinic

Ohel does not operate in a vacuum. Its actions reflect deeply held beliefs, attitudes and

Although, strictly speaking, Jewish law requires adherence to governing secular law, in practice the observance of traditional Jewish piety is often at variance with secular laws requiring the reporting of suspected Jewish offenders to police. Let us examine how the

Much as the physiological system of an organism maintains internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus tending to disturb its normal condition, Orthodox Jewish communities as a whole strive to maintain internal stability by rejecting or attacking any forces that threaten to disturb the community's perceived harmony. An important component of that harmony is the perception that the community continues to project a public image as a locale of behavior that is devout, sober, ethical, and

advisors. Finally, we offer some suggestions for addressing the problems examined.

prosecutors and the reporting of sex crimes to secular authorities (Lesher, 2011).

The forum of the exposé was itself significant: the *Jewish Week* is anything but a fringe publication. On the contrary, it is a nationally distributed weekly magazine claiming over 100,000 subscribers to its hard copy weekly edition and a quarter of a million readers of its electronic version (updated daily). What is more, it is affiliated with the centrist Jewish Federation, a fact that tends to moderate its news reporting and makes it highly sensitive to criticism that it is singling out one religious group, such as Orthodox Jews, in its coverage.

Nevertheless, Winston's initial foray was soon followed by even more alarming allegations. In an article dated May 31, 2011, she revealed that Ohel, apparently in a frantic effort to clear its name from the charges contained in the earlier article, had shared confidential files about abuse cases with outsiders. Such conduct raised the hackles of a number of child welfare experts, as Winston reported:

"Even if it were technically legal for Ohel to show the files to handpicked outside individuals, sharing patient information with consultants for the purpose of clearing the agency's name may be an inappropriate use of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which governs privacy regulations, according to Abner Weintraub, a national authority on HIPAA. Mary Vandenack, another authority on HIPAA, told The Jewish Week that bringing in a consultant who is not an expert in the specific area or who has an interest in the outcome is unethical and may even constitute fraud if the agency and/or consultant make representations that the consultant is an expert" (Winston, 2011b).

In addition to what may have been a serious breach of confidentiality, Winston revealed that David Mandel, the agency's CEO, apparently implied to a group that reviewed those files "the prospect for future collaboration with and funding from Ohel." In other words, Ohel appears, in essence, to have bribed those who reviewed confidential files in order to elicit from them an assessment more favorable to the agency's public image. Sharing the files with outsiders in the first place was bad practice; the act threatened critical standards of confidentiality. Indeed, as Winston reported, it may have violated federal HIPAA laws. Coupled with an offer of financial benefit to the outside organization asked by Ohel to clear its name, the act took on a possibly criminal character. (Winston has told the authors that child advocates are asking law enforcement officials to investigate possible criminal violations perpetrated by Ohel.)

These startling details tell only part of the story. The authors – both as researchers and as members of the Orthodox Jewish community<sup>1</sup> – consider it imperative to examine the larger, systemic implications as well. How does Ohel's approach to reporting child sex abuse cases to authorities relate to its role vis-à-vis Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States, Canada and Israel, all of which financially (and politically) support the agency? How does the interlocking of Ohel and the Orthodox communities it serves contribute to the reification by which Ohel has become, as noted above, a "bulwark of the Orthodox Jewish community" (Barrett & Bowles, 1994)? Clearly, Ohel is a part of the Orthodox Jewish community rather than external to it. For this reason, our analysis of Ohel's conduct begins with a recognition of the agency as something integral to and generative of the community that has built, sustained and promoted it.

In this chapter, consequently, we will use the prominent and readily available example of Ohel to investigate the underlying reasons for the Orthodox community's all-too-frequent

<sup>1</sup> One of the authors is the daughter of the late Rabbi Dr. Abraham Neustein, a highly distinguished clergyman, educator and Talmudic scholar.

subordination of the rights of sexual abuse victims to the preservation of the community's good name. Similarly, we will examine the sociological background to the mounting evidence that Ohel, as part and parcel of the community it serves, has flouted state laws that require reporting of suspected sex abuse to authorities. It is worth stressing, in this connection, that when Ohel addresses its own community it goes out of its way to avoid any mention of such mandatory reporting, even in places where such mention should have been *de rigueur*. For example, in a promotional newsletter Ohel distributed in the summer of 2009, in which it quoted from a press release issued by Brooklyn's District Attorney announcing the new joint sex-abuse initiative with Ohel ("Kol Tzedek") mentioned above, the agency carefully removed from the press release every reference the D.A. had made to police, prosecutors and the reporting of sex crimes to secular authorities (Lesher, 2011).

We hope our example will inspire researchers to inquire along similar lines into other institutions, connected with religious communities, which may have failed to protect children from child sexual abuse. The effect of religion-based organizations taking on public functions is already receiving public attention: in the wake of the grisly murder in July 2011 of eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky in one Brooklyn's Orthodox neighborhoods, one of the authors was asked to write an editorial for New York City's most widely-read daily newspaper about the misuse of public money for Orthodox Jewish "citizen patrols" which, like Ohel, often refuse to report suspected Jewish offenders to police (Lesher, 2011).

The remainder of this chapter is divided into three main sections. First, we offer a sociological analysis of the Orthodox Jewish community's attitudes towards the reporting of offenders, as these related to a Jewish welfare agency like Ohel. Second, we examine the documented history of abuse or neglect cases apparently covered up either by Ohel officials or by professionals working with Ohel, such as pediatricians, counselors and their rabbinic advisors. Finally, we offer some suggestions for addressing the problems examined.
