POWER MUST ANSWER.
Case file
Companion article: Six Children and a Private Court
Assembled: September 18, 2026
Scope: Historical judicial decisions and present reference material. This record documents the sources used in the article. It does not establish current family circumstances or certify an exhaustive search of all later proceedings.
Read the entire opinion, including the final paragraphs addressing severability. The article relies on the court's account. The underlying arbitration agreement, award and hearing materials have not been independently obtained.
| ID | Source | Role in the article |
|---|---|---|
| R01 | Hirsch, 2004 | Central judicial account and outcome. |
| R02 | Glauber, 1993, court opinion reproduced by CaseMine | Earlier New York custody-arbitration analysis. |
| R03 | CPLR 7511 | Present statutory reference on vacatur and modification. |
| R04 | Domestic Relations Law 240 | Present statutory context. Not every current provision necessarily had identical historical wording. |
| R05 | Loike v. Kletenik, 2012 | Trial-level example of a mixed result. |
| R06 | Berg v. Berg, 2011 | Comparison involving confirmation of a financial award. |
| R07 | Matsui v. Matsui, December 2021 | Later appellate treatment of arbitration and custody jurisdiction. |
| R08 | Fawzy v. Fawzy, 2009, opinion reproduced by Justia | Different New Jersey framework. |
| R09 | Johnson v. Johnson, 2010, opinion reproduced by Justia | Qualification of the record requirement in the circumstances of that case. |
| R10 | Beth Din of America rules, December 2025 version | Separate institution's published procedures; not identified as the Hirsch tribunal. |
| R11 | Weisberger v. Weisberger, 2017 | Religious upbringing and civil-court custody review. |
The cases do not all involve the same tribunal, jurisdiction or legal issue. R05 is a trial-level decision. R08 and R09 are New Jersey Supreme Court decisions concerning secular arbitration. R11 reviews civil-court restrictions. R10 is an institutional policy document from much later than the central case.
No source here establishes a nationwide rule prohibiting custody arbitration. No source establishes that all batei din use the same procedures.
| Established by the reporting file | Not established by this file |
|---|---|
| The published judicial outcomes described in the article | The identity of the Hirsch panel or any present affiliation |
| The language and reasoning in the cited opinions | A complete transcript of the Hirsch arbitration |
| The existence of the referenced criminal complaint | The truth, nature or final disposition of its underlying allegations |
| The legal distinction among the compared decisions | A finding that any named arbitrator committed a crime |
| The procedures stated in R10 | Compliance with those procedures in an individual proceeding |
A beis din's family award reached into custody, support, property and a criminal complaint. New York courts rejected it. The case shows why a parent's signature cannot answer every question about a child's welfare.
No new requests for comment or interviews have been made. The parties' positions are described only to the extent reflected in the published decisions. The Beth Din of America's general rules are not a response to the Hirsch case.
The article omits children's names and identifying details unnecessary to the institutional analysis.