Stony Brook Film Festival
view counter
Abuse Case Tests Ohel’s Adherence To Reporting Laws

Counselors, higher-ups at Brooklyn social service agency grapple with reporting of abuse to secular authorities. An inside look at an agonizing treatment process involving a mother and her young son.

Special To The Jewish Week
Photo Galleria: 

As the story of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community has unfolded over the last several years, the issue of when, and even whether, to report such allegations to law enforcement has emerged as perhaps the most important and the most complicated.

One of the focal points of this debate — report to secular authorities or deal with the problem from inside the community — has become Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, a social service agency based in Brooklyn. Ohel has earned high praise in the community for the services it provides for foster children. Its work dealing with sexual abusers, however, is much more controversial, with many advocates and observers accusing the agency of functioning in a way that does more to protect the reputation of the community than the safety of its children.

So when a distraught young haredi woman entered counseling at Ohel in 2008 and soon after revealed that she “may be” sexually abusing her own young son, her case would test Ohel — and its adherence to mandatory reporting laws — and expose the agency’s problematic role in this issue perhaps as never before.

The Jewish Week pieced together the timeline of the woman’s case over the course of several months through interviews with people who had intimate knowledge of the case. Some were involved, in one way or another, in treating the woman; others were told about the events either as they were unfolding or shortly after they happened. All but one asked for anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case or their ongoing relationships with Ohel.

Ohel declined to comment on the case, citing the fact that “like all other social service agencies, hospitals, physicians, and therapists, [Ohel] is subject to various state and federal confidentiality requirements.”

The thirty-something mother initially sought counseling at Tikvah, a branch of Ohel on Kings Highway, because she was suffering in an abusive marriage and overwhelmed by the demands of parenting. But her problems didn’t end there. Once in therapy, the woman also revealed a terrible secret: she had been molested as a child by her grandfather.

In addition to working on these issues with her therapist at Tikvah, the woman was also referred to a support group there, facilitated by a psychologist and a social worker, for female survivors of sexual abuse. It was in that group that she disclosed that she thought she “may be” sexually abusing her own 5-year-old son.

Understandably, the other women in the group were both shocked and angered by this disclosure. While the mother claimed to be unsure about her own behavior, her comment was certainly cause for concern and, many in the group believed, a report to the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the city agency charged with investigating such matters. Under New York State law (other states define mandated reporters differently), people designated as mandated reporters — a list that includes social workers, psychologists, mental health counselors and mental health professionals — are required to make a report when, in their professional capacity, they have “reasonable cause to suspect a child is being abused or maltreated.” To the women in the group and those running it, this seemed to qualify as such a case.

The support group leaders promptly consulted with their Ohel supervisor, Hillel Sternstein, who dismissed the woman’s statement, positing that, as a result of her own traumatic past, she was likely suffering from delusions. No report was made.

Sometime after she began treatment, the woman’s son also began individual treatment at Tikvah. Indeed, it seems that despite the woman’s disclosure to the group, her son was brought to treatment not because of her possible abuse of him, but because she discovered he was being molested by a young male relative — something some at Ohel also felt merited a report to ACS. The supervisor overseeing this case, however, deemed a report unnecessary, according to someone knowledgeable about the boy’s case.

Over the course of many weeks, based on additional disclosures by the mother that she was touching and becoming sexually aroused by her son, counselors and their supervisors at Tikvah came to realize that sexual abuse was in fact taking place. Once again, despite their obligation to report the case under the law, a decision was made not to do so. Instead, those involved in the woman’s case, supervised and led by Sternstein, developed a “family safety plan,” which involved making the father responsible for monitoring the mother’s behavior around their son.

Underlying this decision seemed, in part, to be the fear that reporting the woman to ACS could have resulted in the child’s removal from the home. This was of particular concern here, as the mother herself had been removed from her home as a child and had repeatedly expressed to at least one person involved in her case that she would “kill herself” if her child were taken away from her.

After some time, however, because of what they came to see as a dysfunctional family situation, the counselors and supervisors determined that the safety plan was not viable and made a decision to report the abuse. This was viewed as a welcome development by some members of the team, who had begun privately to question the feasibility of the safety plan and the prior decision not to report, but who were also frightened to take it upon themselves to call ACS — an act they felt would be viewed as a subversion of their supervisor.

Before making the report, however, Sternstein told the team he would run the decision by Ohel attorney and quality control officer, Adam Lancer — standard Ohel protocol, claim several people familiar with its practices.


A few days later, according to Dr. Asher Lipner — a clinical psychologist who worked at Ohel for nine years — Sternstein notified the team that, based on feedback from Lancer, the team should not make a report. No further explanation was given. (Lipner, who now has a private practice and treats survivors of abuse in the Orthodox community, was the only person among several with direct knowledge of the case willing to speak about it for attribution.) Lancer did not respond to an e-mail about the case. Calls to Sternstein for comment were not returned.

Some members of the group agonized about this turn of events, feeling confused about the reasons for the decision but powerless to act against it; at this point, they feared that, given the lawyer’s directive, reporting could possibly cost them their jobs.

According to Dr. Michael Salamon, the director of the Adult Development Center in Hewlett, L.I., and a prominent psychologist in the Orthodox world, it is not uncommon for psychologists who work in large agencies to find themselves faced with such dilemmas.

“There has been a lot written on the subject of supervision which details the conflicts that arise between a supervisee, the supervisor and the agency they work for,” Salamon told The Jewish Week. “Goals at all three levels are not necessarily the same, supervisees often feel overburdened, even intimidated. As a result, expectations and deciding exactly how to handle things are not always clearly explained or understood.”

As it turned out, however, the issue quickly became moot as, about a week later, the woman suffered a nervous breakdown and was admitted to a hospital in the tristate area. Word of the woman’s hospital admission made it back to Ohel. Members of the team were told by Sternstein that the woman had disclosed the abuse of her son to hospital staff, and also that she had been in treatment at Tikvah. Sternstein also told team members not to talk to ACS — which was said to be conducting an investigation into the case — if they were contacted by the agency; they were told instead to refer any inquiries to a supervisor or Ohel’s attorney.

The child stopped coming in to Tikvah for treatment. The Jewish Week was unable to determine the fate of the boy but did confirm that he was not removed from the home or put into foster care by ACS.

It is unclear whether ACS did in fact contact Ohel about the case, or investigate it at all. Elysia Carnevale Murphy, a spokeswoman for ACS, told The Jewish Week that it is not “possible for someone at ACS to respond to [questions about] the specific case you are looking into,” adding that “[while] we are very committed to transparency, we are also committed to upholding the laws around confidentiality.”


While this case may be the only one that has come to The Jewish Week’s attention to date of Ohel apparently acting in violation of mandatory reporting laws, the agency has long played a role in the handling of sex abuse that, while technically legal, many advocates and observers believe has put the community’s children at serious risk: treating known sexual abusers who have not been reported to law enforcement and whose proclivities are protected from being made public by confidentiality laws, should they drop out of treatment.

A 2000 Jewish Week article, entitled “Treating the Offenders,” described Ohel’s sex offender treatment program, which was started in 1997 in conjunction with the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office. Through the program, Ohel treated Orthodox sex offenders who had been sent to them by the court as well as “those whom the community pressured to seek help without notifying authorities.”

That formal program no longer exists — Ohel pulled the plug on it in about 2003, due to concerns about insurance coverage and potential liability, according to Brian Leggiere, who at one point ran the program. But information obtained by The Jewish Week indicates that Ohel continued to offer treatment at Tikvah to self-confessed molesters who were not court mandated as recently as late 2009.

(It is unclear whether Ohel has since stopped this practice. In response to a direct question about whether the agency currently treats self-confessed abusers who have not been reported, Ohel spokesman Derek Saker said, “[W]hen Ohel receives an inquiry on services for offenders not in the criminal justice system, Ohel provides information on private practitioners who may provide such services.”)

In 2009, The Jewish Week reported on the case of Stefan Colmer, who had been “sent” by rabbis to treatment at Ohel after he was discovered to have been sexually abusing boys in his Brooklyn neighborhood. Because neither the victims nor anyone else with knowledge of the situation reported Colmer to law enforcement at that time, his treatment at Ohel was not court mandated and thus considered voluntary. Further, because of confidentiality rules, the therapist treating Colmer was prohibited by law from notifying anyone in the community about the danger he posed to children unless Colmer signed a release or disclosed to the therapist that he was currently abusing or had serious thoughts of abusing a specific child (such information allows for the breach of confidentiality rules).

This meant Colmer could drop out of treatment at any time without suffering legal or social repercussions. And he did just that, ultimately going on to molest what police believe may be as many as 12 other boys, two of whom ultimately filed charges.

Another such case involves Emanuel Yegutkin, who was arrested in January 2009 on charges of child molestation and endangering the welfare of a child and is currently awaiting trial. At the time of his arrest, Yegutkin, then 30, was a principal at Elite High School, a private Jewish school in Bensonhurst. According to several sources close to Ohel, Yegutkin — who also worked as a camp counselor and volunteer Hatzolah medic — had been seen at Ohel for this issue prior to his arrest, apparently referred there by a rabbi in the community.

The fact that Ohel made a practice of treating unreported sexual abusers — instead of guiding referring rabbis to report to law enforcement — is something many advocates and observers find troubling, particularly given the context in which Ohel operates. In the ultra-Orthodox community, where most people do not report for fear of being branded an “informer,” because rabbis have instructed them not to and/or to avoid the social stigma of being a “victim,” therapy, these observers say, is one of the only means employed to deal with molesters.

Add to this the fact that therapists are bound (with some important exceptions) by confidentiality and it becomes clear that treating self-confessed abusers who have not been reported means there is likely to be a potentially dangerous lack of oversight and accountability in the treatment process.

This view seems to find support from The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, an international, multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse that has 3,000 members. A position paper put out by the Association notes that it “supports the position that treatment of sex offenders does not replace a criminal justice response, but rather is one of several tools society can use in designing effective sentences for offenders. Treatment can be combined with other criminal justice responses such as probation, jail, incarceration, as well as community monitoring and supervision.”

None of this, of course, directly applies to the case of the mother, who did not come into treatment as a known molester and whose disclosures while in therapy clearly created a situation that would mandate a report, according to Charles Carson, assistant deputy counsel at the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, the agency that supervises ACS.

“A mandated reporter situation [certainly] comes into play,” Carson told The Jewish Week, “when either the child comes before the mandated reporter, or the parent, guardian or other person who is responsible for the child comes before the mandated reporter, in the reporter’s professional or official capacity, and provides information that creates reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or maltreated.”

Despite meeting these criteria, Ohel did not make a report, something that seems to contradict Ohel’s public statements.

“We comply with NYS mandated reporting requirements and are regularly audited by various city, state, and federal licensing and contract agencies regarding our provision of services to clients,” Saker, the Ohel spokesman, told The Jewish Week in an e-mail message. In an earlier, joint interview with Dr. David Pelcovitz (who co-edited a book with Ohel CEO David Mandel on sexual abuse in the Orthodox community), Mandel echoed this statement.

Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for the Brooklyn DA’s office, told The Jewish Week that, while he could not comment on this particular case without knowing all of the facts, “[The DA’s office has] investigated cases of failure to report and we’ve brought charges [against others] in the past. We certainly take any allegation of any crime seriously. We never dismiss anything out of hand. [If we had allegations of a failure to report], we would pursue it; we would look into it.”

The Brooklyn DA was Ohel’s partner in its now-defunct sex offender treatment program and currently partners with Ohel, among other agencies, on Kol Tzedek, a hotline the DA set up in 2009 to encourage victims of sex abuse in the Orthodox community to report abuse to law enforcement.

According to Carson, of the Office of Family and Children’s Services, in addition to potential criminal liability, a mandated reporter who fails to report under the required circumstances could be held civilly liable for any “proximate damage” caused by the failure to report (in this case, proximate damage would be the continued abuse of the child). If the mandated reporter is employed by a licensed state agency, the failure to report could also be a violation of the agency’s statutory responsibility.


Regardless of the law, the fact that Ohel did not report the case of the mother comes as little surprise to some, given its unique position standing in a sense between the community and law enforcement.

“[Ohel] is the group in the community that works with children, with survivors and with abusers,” Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani (spiritual adviser) of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and a longtime advocate for abuse survivors, told The Jewish Week referring to the mother’s case as well as others of which he has knowledge.

“They have been the point men for the community [on this issue] and they have accepted the approach of the community, which is never to go to the police. They endlessly [hide] behind technicalities,” Rabbi Blau continued.

“Because [Ohel is] an agency that does wonderful things for children,” Rabbi Blau added, referring to the homes and services Ohel provides for foster children, it is not an agency he would like to see disappear. However, with respect to the handling of child sexual abuse, Rabbi Blau believes that Ohel “is the problem, in a nutshell. They [have shown that they are] not able to deal with the situation that they are legally required and morally required [to deal with]. The workers are all sincere people,” the rabbi added. “Solutions [to the current problem] would involve changing [Ohel’s] leadership. [And] you will know there’s change when they start reporting.”

Despite the particular issues at play in the Orthodox world, some observers see Ohel’s behavior in general — and in the case of the mother and her little boy specifically — as reflective of society’s approach to this issue more generally.

“This is a paradigmatic story of how we deal with child sex abuse in the United States, and also another example of the inadequacy of New York’s reporting laws,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor at Cardozo School of Law and a prolific writer and speaker on the issue of clergy sex abuse.

“At every level, the adults protected adult interests. While the adults dithered in their own interest, this young child was left to fend for himself. It is tragic, and all too predictable.”

Last Update:

02/28/2011 - 17:00

view counter

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

yes, indeed we do need to weigh the risks vs benefits when reporting offenders who turn themselves in voluntarily. while always adhering to the law, there are times when the question of reporting is shaded in gray rather than in black and white. it's at such times that we need to ask ourselves what will benefit the whole rather than a single victim. furthermore, we need to gain the community's trust so we don't continue to perpetuate or perhaps even aggravate the current situation.

i couldn't agree with "annonymous"'s message on Fri, 2/25/11 11:01. we do need to weigh the risks vs. benefits when considering reporting said offenders. while always adhering to the law, there are those gray areas that may point to the need of gaining the trust of both victims and perpetrators.

The Coalition Against Legal Abuse is comprised of men and women, aligned to combat corruption within the Brooklyn NY District Attorney’s office (Henna White, and OHEL). Witnesses to crimes against families, men, women and children in the New York area, should contact the Coalition immediately, in confidence. 1-800-958-2904,

While this article deals with the terrible dilemma of whether to report offenders receiving therapy -- and ultimately I believe we must intervene on behalf of the victims of abuse -- there is one more aspect to these scenarios that has not been addressed in the article above. That is, the reluctance of some who would go for treatment to address there abusive behavior precisely because of the fear of being reported to law enforcement. To the extent mandating reporting is indeed enforced, how many more will go underground, unwilling to seek treatment, and thus further endangering other potential victims.? It's truly a conundrum.
The Jewish week should be aware and publicize to the secular media, government officials and potential readers of the Mandel / Pelcovitz book on child sexual abuse, that in his capacity as Director of Ohel, David Mandel himself instructs and encourages mental health professionals how to take various steps to protect victims while avoiding reporting to the appropriate secular authorities. This can be substantiated from many sources, including the videos SJF / The Awareness Center posted on Youtube a number of years ago (see links below). It is also worth exploring whether Dr. Pelcovitz, in his many consultations with schools and other child related agencies in the orthodox Jewish community, accurately interprets the law regarding reporting suspected child sexual abuse.
Completely agree with Sasha. Its time for Mandel to go. Thanks goes out to Dr. Lipner for the courage to put his name in the article and to Ms. Winston for writing it.
Our community is in need of more such investigative essays which serve as effective disinfectant for the dirt hiding under layers of what are probably good, but terribly misguided, intentions. Like the long-suffering citizens of dictatorial countries, there needs to be a movement to shake things up at the top, and abolish the archaic mode of sweeping unspeakable crimes under the carpet. Taking care of criminals within the Orthodox community has proved to be a colossal failure of the "old" way of doing things, and it's time people like David Mandel realized that. I do sympathize with those who are part of Ohel's food chain and are therefore too timid to speak up and face repercussions, but they should do so nonetheless, as children's safety is at stake. Asher Lipner should be commended for his courage in speaking out and being a voice for those who are too afraid to do so.
To Anon directly above @ 15:15 If you would like "real" allegations, let me know. I am more than happy to share and provide proof. Though something tells me you aren't really that interested. Call my bluff. As for not adding something constructive, I beg to differ. It tells us all where NOT to turn if ch"v our children are harmed.
Considering Ohel gets federal funding, I was curious if there will be a federal investigation into the fact this organization is breaking the law?
I totally agree. It's time that these "coverups" end. I am personally working with a few victims (this is totally new to me) and when I hear how Jewish Organizations that are supposedly "there" to help the "At-Risk" teenagers actually not only did NOTHING about someone that they claim they "suspected" but after he was arrested on molestation charges and indicted, this one organization allowed the molester (who is not a "teen-ager" anymore, he's over 25) to continue coming to their location and hanging out with teenagers. There is something very very wrong over here. To top it off, there is a (supposedly) well respected "Rabbi" who was aware of the abuse (because the molester told him about it and had conversations with him about it over a few years time) and NEVER REPORTED it. He allowed it to continue. What do we do about these organizations and Rabbi's? Are we supposed to just do nothing???
Who are the rabbis that refer sexual predators to "treatment" at Ohel? They are the ones who need to be exposed. They also need to be prosecuted. In many states, they are mandated reporters themselves, and even when not, they are often in violation of child endangerment laws by intentionally covering up for and aiding and abbetting molesters to evade law enforcement.
This article reflects some very subtle critique of a wonderful organization that deals with thousands of cases. Rather than present it in light of the great dilemnas that confront each psychologist and caseworker, the article focuses on the failure to disclose and report and implies that Ohel regularly covers up sexual abuse cases. Aside from the fact that the entire allegation is based on anecdotal discussions, I don't think it adds anything constructive to the current crisis confronting the Orthodox community regarding sexual abuse.

Your Article on Ohel is right on, not reporting child abuse or even suspected child abuse is horrendous. This organization has other abuses of appropriate conduct. They seem to be more concerned with protecting the organization than the welfare of their clients and the Jewish community they proport to help. In your article you mention that staff is afraid to go against the agency to report and to deal with reportable and dangerous situations. There are other issues with this agency terminating staff who have acted in the best interest of their clients. A through investigation of the top managment of Ohel is of great importance.

FYI I guarantee this is not the only time Ohel has had shady and suspicious behaviour revolving around sexual abuse. I, for one, was sexually abused by someone under Ohel's care. When Ohel was contacted regarding the matter and they did everything in their power to keep us from going to the police or public.
Thank you, Jewish Week, for your continued and frank discussions regarding this important topic. As an advocate for Orthodox victims of child abuse, I have struggled for years to get this information out, struggled to encourage our rabbonim to report known abusers. Your forthright and yet measured writing on this topic greatly benefits our case and cause.
The recent novel "Hush" by Eishes Chayil depicts the challenges of bringing abuse to light within an ultra-Orthodox community.
I think this article is important in that it may show the ritual initiations and grooming practices of religions and cultures and how these practices may be hidden in the psyches of newer generations who on one level are aware of the practices as being damaging and being abuses yet are unconsciously or in this case the mother became conscious that she was acting out. In a way it is admirable that this mother realized and admitted what she had done and then made the connection between her being sexually abused by her grand father and her acting out.. Have seen this in many of the catholic church/religion's cases of sexual abuse too.. It almost seems like it is a "secret" ritual initiation /grooming process which it appears the hierarchy and priesthood and religious orders have come to accept as normal. It makes one wonder how many catholic priests and nuns and religious were sexually abused by priests and nuns..yet remain silent.. because they view it as a part of their cult .. Guess it is a time in history when some brave people are coming forward and saying we can't do this any has to stop with us..

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.