Glazer’s Lawyers Respond To Gay “Kidnap” Dad’s Take

Yesterday we passed on Eric Hyett’s take on the gay dad “kidnap” tale. You know, the story about how he took his son Jedediah to Israel without consulting estranged husband Joshua Glazer.

Well, now Glazer’s lawyers are offering their own take on the matter, especially Hyett’s claims that Glazer lied to an Israeli court.

Though he won’t offer any new comments, Glazer representative Sam Ferrara had this to say:

Other than to confirm that the version of events presented to you by Mr Hyett is factually inaccurate and can be best borne out by the court documents, as well as assure you that the Israeli court did NOT make any determination based upon unsubstantiated allegations, we cannot comment further pending the upcoming hearings.

It is our sincere belief that our confidence in both the Israeli and New York/Federal authorities will bring about the correct result, as they have thus far.

I remind you that Mr Hyett fled United States jurisdiction without consent and in violation of court directives. He did so with advance planning and quite surreptitiously. These facts will be substantiated by the appropriate authorities in short order.

Hyett and Glazer face off in Israel tomorrow.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #erichyett #gay #israel stories and more


  • ted

    So, wait, he’s claiming that everything Hyett said is factually inaccurate, but refuses to explain and provide evidence of said inaccuracies? This what Glazer did when the Daily News confronted him with all of the lies he told them for the first article that appeared: “I won’t get into specifics.” The Glazers and their lawyers have no shame.

  • Jaroslaw

    Ted- good luck trying to convince Sean S and all of the rest of them from the other post! :)

  • Jaroslaw

    Ted – good luck getting all the know-it-all Nancy’s from the other post to see it that way!

  • Jaroslaw

    sorry didn’t mean to post twice – the “duplicate comment detector” said I didn’t post at all.

  • hells kitchen guy

    He doesn’t have to respond. The burden of proof is on the father who abducted the children and disobeyed court orders.

  • Sean S.

    Since when the fuck was a comment section on a website, or the public at large, relevant for a court case? You guys seem to have a Nancy Grace mentality, that if a person isn’t on TV crying about it, and spinning their own story, that its OBVIOUS they’re guilty. Remind me when they removed one’s 5th amendment and Miranda rights not to have to talk without counsel present, or to infact, talk at all?

    Again, why the fuck should Glazer’s attorney give a shit what anyone in the public thinks, or have to offer any alternate theory to the media? The only person he has to convince is the court, which is the only one qualified to rule on this.

    It’s hilarious for Jaroslaw to call everyone else “know-it-all-Nancy’s” when HE’s the only one advocating something entirely contradictory to the results of the family courts thus far. And why? Because he has some cockamamie personal story and an axe to grind against America’s family court system. By his estimation, the fact that the family courts have clearly not sought fit to indulge his and Hyett’s arguments are a sure fire sign of a massive conspiracy. You just can’t win an argument with people like that; every single legal decision against Hyett will be spun as a “travesty of the court system”.

  • ted

    Sean, you really need to get into some therapy. You have anger issues.

  • Jaroslaw

    Sean – and try reading too. My personal story was ONE example of many.

    If you READ my posts I NEVER took sides – I said that it is POSSIBLE even PROBABLE that Mr. Hyett is telling the truth and we need to get at that truth. But Mr. Glazer, from appearances is playing games. Maybe they both are.

    But you do need some help.

  • Dan

    It looks like the Hyetts are using their wealth/influence to pound Mr. Glazer into submission. God knows that the family court system is dysfunctional enough that it’s susceptible to unscrupulous manipulations.

    Yeah, Mr. Hyett broke the law when he took his kid out of the country. Yeah, I don’t think I would’ve done the same thing. But I’ve never adopted a kid. I’ve never had that emotional bond. God only knows what it must be like for a father seeing his child taken away not by merit, but by judicial lethargy and incompetence.

  • Dan

    sorry, swapped the family names up there. You get my drift tho.

  • Sean S.

    I’m not the one advocating (1)breaking the law or (2) arguing for a 21st century mob mentality of deciding court cases in the public sphere, which is exactly what the people defending Hyett’s blatantly illegal act are doing.

    Does no one else see the contradiction with every other article on here about legal issues that relate to the LGBT community, that we all agree that people have to follow the law on discrimination and other issues. But now, for no reason at all but because some people have an axe to grind, its completely okay to dismiss the American legal system? By Jaroslaw and Ted’s logic, the doctors who refused treatment to lesbians are clearly “heroes” then for doing what their “conscience” tells them, and not what the law says.

    Is everything done in the American legal system fair? Hell no. But its the best thing we got, and its certainly a hell of alot fairer than almost all the legal systems of the world. So go ahead, Ted and Jaroslaw, encourage people to do “what they want”, and lets see how far we as a community get when Christian fundamentalists decide that they don’t want to recognize the authority of the court systems in the same way Hyett decided he didn’t like the New York Family Court. You guys are advocating a very slippery slope, one that is not only stupid, but detrimental to all the legal advancements the community has made in recent years. If the Courts are to be selectively recognized, what is it worth it to have gay marriage recognized in California, or anywhere?

  • Sean S.

    My position has been consistent since the first article cited on Queerty. You can’t willfully disobey court order’s and flee to another country just because you don’t like them. If we are to accept and promote legal decisions handed down by court’s in this country that recognize gay marriage, anti-discrimination laws, and a whole raft of other decisions, then we must also accept decisions that are unfavorable to us, either as a community or on a personal basis.

    If you believe that Hyett was “justified” in fleeing the country, than you are on the side of advocating the selective recognition of court decisions when only they agree with you. And then you are no better than the reactionary nutbars who prattle on about “judicial activism” and how the decisions the courts make aren’t valid when they recognize gay rights.

  • ted

    Sean, learn to read. I never once said the breaking the law is justified. Ever. I pointed out that the Glazers have lied, the news stories have been biased, and that Hyett had reasons to do what he did that did not involve being insane, evil, selfish, or stupid.

  • Sean S.

    “Sean, learn to read. I never once said the breaking the law is justified. Ever. I pointed out that the Glazers have lied, the news stories have been biased, and that Hyett had reasons to do what he did that did not involve being insane, evil, selfish, or stupid.”

    There are no “reasons”, certainly none that cannot be solved by the judicial process in this country, that demand fleeing to another country in an attempt to find a prejudiced venue for your case. And thats exactly what has happened, and anyone trying to “justify” (which is exactly what you’re doing when you attempt to present Hyett’s “reasons” for what he did) is being ridiculous.

    If, as Ted keeps alluding too with his evidently personal and vast knowledge of this case, Hyett had legitimate reasons to be concerned for the welfare of his child than he should have worked through the court system. Whatever credibility he had with the his family court judge is now fucked; court’s do not take kindly, and rightly so, to those who try to run an endgame around them, no matter how much they protest they had “reasons”.

    If he was in danger, than Hyett has done the single stupidest thing he could have done. In the same way that the Texas authorities blew it by doing an unconstitutional raid of the FLDS, Hyett has now destroyed his legitimacy.

  • Jaroslaw

    I think they’ve kidnapped Sean S! Where’s all the rage and swearing?

    Again – geez – Sean, learn to read. Where did I or Ted advocate that people should do whatever they want?

    This case merely points out the strong PROBability (not possibility) that the Family Court screwed up here.

    When the law is wrong, how are people supposed to protest it? I asked you that before and you didn’t answer.

  • Sean S.

    “Again – geez – Sean, learn to read. Where did I or Ted advocate that people should do whatever they want?”

    When you defended and attempted to explain away his clearly illegal actions, and impugn the integrity of the family court system with unsubstantiated just so stories.

    “When the law is wrong, how are people supposed to protest it? I asked you that before and you didn’t answer.”

    The law isn’t “wrong”. There is no question of legal importance here; its a family court dispute, not Lawrence v. Texas. There is no novel legal question arising here like other cases which revolved around things like gay adoption, whether or not a homosexual ex-spouse could see there child, whether being a lesbian meant you lost custody, etc etc. This is a plain and narrow, and incredibly nasty, custody dispute. Civil disobedience this is not.

    If Hyett had a problem with court decisions, he then needed to carefully document his reasons why Jed was not receiving adequate care under Glazer’s watch, and why he deserved more than his alloted visitation time (which, from what has been mentioned, were evidently a weekend arrangement). and filed appeals.

    Instead he absconded to another country, which in his own words, was to find a prejudiced venue for his case. His amateur lawyering aside, the Hague convention is mostly there to STOP people like him; the written exception about the possibility of endangerment of a child is not to be taken as an endorsement of that behavior, but requires not merely that the child is “in danger” but that said parent would get no relief in that country.

    Its hard to imagine the Israeli courts putting the American family court system on the same bar as say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or other countries whose divorce and custody laws are highly prejudicial to their own citizens, Muslims/religious authorities, and men in general.

  • Jaroslaw

    God Sean, you’re like talking to a rock!

    Your answer is what I predicted – the law or court system is not wrong… SO:

    Humor me! Assume I’m telling the truth about my sister – what should she do? I told you she is witholding the visitation due to molestation and is facing jail time.

    Or apparently you have never heard of incompetent cops, judges. No one has ever won a lawsuit for criminal negligence against doctors, lawyers, police?

    The laws have ALWAYS been correct? This would include anti-miscegenation laws, the laws that prohibited women from voting?

    Sean, you need to buckle up and get past third grade. They have free high school completion programs in almost every state now.

    I wish you the best and I sure hope you don’t vote.

  • Jaroslaw

    Oh, and in fourth or fifth grade, Sean S, we learned about the separation of powers – Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches. The founders of the government knew mistakes and power grabs and corruption occurred and they were trying to minimize them by forming the government this way.

    Gosh, here we go again, (and you are going to have to read) but check out or – read The Shock Doctrine or Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. The laws are often self serving based on who corrupts them or who lobbies to pay for them to get passed in the first place.

    When George Bush signed a recent law into effect (I forget which one) he added a post script of his own that he reserves the right to interpret the law! The NY TIMES wrote that with that act, GWB overturned 200 years of legal history!

    So don’t tell me the laws are always right. As for defending or excusing Mr Hyett – again – you can’t read. I never excused him, I said IF his allegations are TRUE, I can see why he did what he did.

    So, Sean S., life is not as black and white as you make it. There is corruption, mismanagement and every other wrong in the world. Sometimes people have to do things outside the box. If they didn’t we wouldn’t be having this conversation -we would be serfs, property of the king. Think about it.

  • Sean S.

    None of that has anything to do with a family court case in New York. We can get into discussions of larger political matters, and I’m not in disagreement on many of them, but thats not what were talking about here. We are not talking about the ever burgeoning powers of the executive branch, the failure of legislative oversight, or the opinions of Supreme Court justices.

    What we are talking about is a dispute between two people over one child. Again, the mechanisms and rules of family court are well defined, and no one involved in this case is challenging THOSE rules or laws. Hyett’s attorneys are not questioning the court’s jurisdiction, or raising that Hyett’s due process or constitutional rights have been stampeded over (though Hyett HAS mentioned that his CHILD’s human rights are in danger, but thats a separate issue).

    It does, in essence, boil down to the fact that Hyett does not like the terms of the custody deal he has. And he wants to change them. And he is perfectly within his rights to argue and appeal against them. What he DOESN’T have the right to do is to commit custodial interference by absconding with the child to a foreign country. ESPECIALLY if they’re true; trying to run an endgame around the legal system destroys your credibility and your standing, and will almost certainly work in the favor of the person who you alleged is committing the abuse.

    Any halfway decent lawyer would tell you the same thing; if a police officer is aggressive, or violating your rights, socking them is going to feel good, but absolutely destroy your chance to actually do something about it. The same applies here; if it is your belief that a child is being abused, than trying to resolve the matter extra-legally may feel good, and may evoke sympathy, but it will do shit nothing for your case. The FLDS case is a prime example of a bad way of doing something good, and now they’ve absolutely wrecked what chance they had to nail those bastards. Same applies here.

    And for the last time, of course the law is not “always correct”. But trying to compare the Civil Rights Movement, to a man who absconds with his child to a foreign country is ridiculous. This is not civil disobedience for fuck’s sake. This is not even the White Night riots in response to discrimination or unfairness. The parents homosexuality is not at issue, and there certainly (as many in the so called “Father rights” movement) a prejudice based on gender roles. He didn’t like the terms of his deal, and is trying to get them changed; thats doesn’t rise to an earth shattering moment of judicial malfeasance.

  • ted

    I came back here to link to some of Sean S.’s most hostile and condescending comments, and I discovered — quel suprise! — he deliberately misrepresented what I wrote. These were my words: “…and that Hyett had reasons to do what he did that did not involve being insane, evil, selfish, or stupid.” He bolded “Hyett had reasons” and then wrote an entire paragraph on how there are no reasons for justifying leaving the United States, which apparently has the greatest legal system in the universe, and he accused me yet again of “justifying” Hyett’s actions. Of course what I actually wrote was “…and that Hyett had reasons to do what he did that did not involve being insane, evil, selfish, or stupid.” Which has nothing to do with justifying his actions. It has to do with pointing out that his reasons were not insane, evil, selfish, or stupid. I wouldn’t have done what he did, but I actually have empathy and can see he did what he did because he felt he had to. But empathy, along with arguing with any integrity, seems to be impossible for you. Which is really sad.

  • Sean S.

    “and then wrote an entire paragraph on how there are no reasons for justifying leaving the United States, which apparently has the greatest legal system in the universe,”

    Actually it, with a handful of exceptions, does. Have you ever had the pleasure of being arrested in another country? No other country has the exclusionary rule in force all the time, without concern to the “severity” of the alleged crime, and certainly no other country has as strong Miranda and Fifth amendment rights as America does. In Britain not talking to police can be reported in court AGAINST an individual, and if you refuse to testify in your defense, the prosecution can actually make argument that you certainly did it and won’t fess up to it. Such egregious attempts at coercing self incrimination are verboten in American court’s. I could go on with other examples from rules regarding being held without cause to the rules regarding search and seizure (which, though eviscerated in recent years, still hold up well compared to international standards).

    Hell, despite the whining about the unfairness of America’s family court system on this, and other threads, Hyett will enjoy these same rights when he is brought up on custodial interference and most certainly will employ them. I doubt we’ll see Hyett on the stand defending his actions; he shouldn’t have to after all, just like Glazer, despite Hyett’s accusations, did not have to respond to any communication from him outside of court. In the end Hyett will be protected by the very court system he absconded from in an attempt to prejudice his case.

    And of course Ted suggests that his elaboration of reasons why Hyett would do such a thing is not a “justification”; just a mere, slight defense of course of Hyett’s actions. Are certain actions understandable, but still illegal, or even wrong? Certainly. But as indicated by Ted’s axe to grind that the coverage has been unfair, that Queerty’s one line factual updates on the issue are one sided, and that he “personally knows” the defendants in question, of course he’s not merely trying to empathize. He’s going for bat for him publicly. And not in a “man he did something stupid but we should go light on him” sort of a way, but in the “Of course he did nothing wrong, and anyone who disagrees clearly believes in the unfair conspiracy to deny rightful parents their children”.

  • ted


    I know that your nasty temperament won’t allow you to see any of this clearly, but you’re not doing yourself any favors by lying about my comments when everyone else can read them.

    Would you ever be so careless and nasty with your words if you weren’t anonymous? I doubt it.

Comments are closed.