In the video: Attorney Yordan Shlomi explains about divorce proceedings/Editor: Ziv Steiner
The Family Court was recently required to file lawsuits filed by a divorced father, after his eldest son (14 years old), who according to the judgment given at the time of the divorce was supposed to live with his mother, moved to live permanently at his father's house and severed contact with his mother.
These circumstances led the father to sue in court not only for the cancellation of the alimony payments set for him at the time of the divorce, but also for the mother's obligation to pay the alimony of the child who now lives regularly with the father only.
Between the minor and his mother there is a rift of over two and a half years, and all the efforts of the mother to renew the relationship have failed.
The intervention of the court which required the parties to appear at the contact center of the Department of Social Services did not help either.
It turned out that the minor moved to the father's house after a quarrel broke out between him and the mother and as part of it, in a moment of emotional upheaval, the mother asked him to leave her house and move to the father's house - which the minor did and since then, according to the impression of the court, the minor receives from the father a vindication for his behavior and sabotage In the possibility of renewing the relationship with the mother.
Alienation and also inheritance?/ShutterStock
The court got the impression that the father wanted to commemorate the separation, and he even excluded the mother from the son's bar mitzvah celebrations and prevented her from receiving photos of his conversion to the Torah.
Later, the father tried to remove the mother from the son's class WhatsApp group because she did not participate in the transfer of funds as required by the committee.
In a reasoned ruling, Judge Ofra Guy of the Ashdod Family Court specifies that the child's move to permanent residence in the father's home constitutes a change of circumstances that justifies the cancellation of the alimony charge established for the father at the time of the divorce, and hence the very charge must be re-examined, including the distribution of the alimony payments between the parents.
At the same time, the verdict states that no substantial justification has been proven for the behavior of the child who is estranged from his mother, and in light of the father's insistence that he refrained from taking any action to stop parental alienation against the mother, the result was that this is a "rebellious son" - a concept that has halachic origins and its practical meaning extends to exemption from paying child support the boy.
The determination of rebelliousness was also strengthened by the fact that it was discovered in court that the mother's name was saved in the son's contacts as "Fah".
More in Walla!
Pietro is celebrating a round birthday and you enjoy a once-in-60-years sale
In collaboration with Pitro
From the right: Adv. Daniel Frydenberg, Adv. Ohad Hoffman/Yel Cohen
Attorneys Daniel Frydenberg and Ohad Hoffman from the "Hoffman & Frydenberg" office, who specialize in family and inheritance matters, explain that the ruling applies the ruling that stated that a parent is not just an "ATM" for child support payments, and that a parent's duty to support his children is subject to the child's duty to treat his parents with basic respect.
Far-reaching revelations about the giving of derogatory names to the mother and her separation from essential events in her son's life, leads to the result that there is no need to discuss the mother's obligation to pay child support for her estranged son, especially in light of the court's analysis of the father's financial situation.
More on the same topic:
parental alienation
divorce
foods
Court