Memorandum from Rabbi Raphael B. Butler

In another extraordinary twist in the Dulberg children custody case, it is now apparent that the case was being judged in two Italian court jurisdictions simultaneously – unbeknownst to the mother or her attorneys.

At the moment the Appeals Court in Genoa vacated the Genoa Minors Court decision, the Minors Court in Venice was announcing an even more severe ruling against the mother.  A full text of the ruling is posted.

The Venice decision is, once again, an order which runs contrary to accepted international norms of custody evaluation.  In the Venice proceedings, once again there was no evaluation of the parents or children involved.  The Court based its decision on a four-year-old incomplete court-appointed evaluation.  Even at that time, the children were not psychologically tested.

In its decision, the Venice Court claims that the mother did not object to the proceedings – in fact, she knew nothing of the proceedings.  In its decision, the Venice Court relies on recommendations (which it contends were part of the Israeli Court opinion) that led it to grant full custody to the father along with no visitation rights to the mother.   This, too, is patently false – the Israeli Court, in complying with the Hague Convention, transferred to the Italian Court the responsibility for evaluation and decisions on custody.  The Israeli Court specifically stated that it is in no way judging the qualifications of the parents or offering any suggestions involving custody.  Israel was merely complying with international law.

We must immediately bring to the attention of the judicial authorities in Italy and governmental representatives worldwide that with two children at risk – with no voice speaking on their behalf or appropriately evaluating their needs – the charade of justice must cease and the universally accepted practice of custody case procedures must begin.

When you write, e-mail, call or meet with government officials, ask, among other questions, the following:

1)      How did it come to be that a certain Venice Court heard the exact same case that was being heard in a court in Genoa?  Both parties had initially requested that the Venice case not proceed.   In spite of the request, the Venice Court proceeded and reached decisions without evaluation or notification.  The court responded that it sent a letter of notification to the mother’s Venice residence – where she lived four years earlier!  When there was no response, the court proceeded.  The court clearly knew from the international story that the mother no longer lived in Venice.  The court knew who her attorneys were and other avenues to reach her to inform her of the hearings, but it opted not to notify her.  Why?  Why the simultaneous hearings?

2)      Why is the Venice Court distorting the Israeli Court decision?

3)      What happened to evaluating the children in a custody case?

4)      There are international conventions and agreements to which Italy is a signatory.  The Convention on the Child, and its efforts to secure a balanced environment for the child, and the Hague Convention with its guidelines on the rights of parental visitations and other considerations have been eviscerated in the Venice decision.  Why?

5)      What kind of Jewish home environment can Mr. Dulberg offer his children?  Within the context of the Supreme Court hearing in Israel, Mr. Dulberg represented himself as a committed Jew who would secure the religious practice of his daughters.  It was, in part, due to that representation that the Israeli Court felt comfortable in transferring the children to Italy for evaluation and final custody decision.

      We now know that Mr. Dulberg, far from being a committed Jew, is a convert to Christianity and, according to his priest, an active participant.  A translated telephone transcript of a legally taped conversation (recorded from Israel where one party’s knowledge is sufficient) with the priest in Genoa is now posted.  This is just part of a file of documentation that clearly demonstrates the decided affiliation of Mr. Dulberg.

It is important to note that Mr. Dulberg has the full personal right to decide his religious allegiance.   And while we may all disagree with his choice, it is not cause for an international incident.  However, in light of our communal responsibility to secure a life of traditional Judaism for two young Jewish Israeli girls, we cannot be silent.

Why are these irregularities in justice occurring?

• Is it anti-Semitism as some have suggested?
• Is it seemingly powerful control over the judicial process that seemingly prevents honest justice from occurring – a power driven from some unknown force?
• Is the Church in Italy at peace with the developments that run counter to international law?

We don’t know the answers.

However, we call upon the world community to encourage the Appeals Court in Venice to vacate the lower court ruling and allow for one Italian court case to proceed according to the norms of international convention, law and practice.

The Appeals Court in Venice has scheduled the case for February 11.  Now is the time for active engagement in this unfortunate case.

Let our voices be heard.

• Dulberg Case Information Center

• Dulberg Case in Brief

• OU.ORG Front Page