The Supreme Court has ruled that the "docker" has to pay NIS 5,000 for every day his son does not provide a divorce. • So far, the amount is close to NIS 1 million.

The Supreme Court has preceded in a case known as "anchoring" that a father who helps his son refuse a divorce pay NIS 5,000 for each day of anchoring, and charged him with a cumulative fine of NIS 920,000. This is a story of mooring, which has been discussed in recent years in the rabbinical court and the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, and so far it has found no solution despite the harsh sanctions imposed on the father.

The affair began about 15 years ago. The couple lived in the United States when, during a visit to Israel, the woman suffered a severe brain event and became disabled and disabled. It was precisely then that, while lying on a vertebra, the husband abandoned her and returned to the United States, leaving her in a difficult situation to raise their two children alone and has since refused to release Baghdad from their marriage.

Six years ago, after the wife filed for divorce, the rabbinical court in Tel Aviv ruled that the husband must provide a divorce to his wife, but the husband refused to uphold the ruling. According to the woman, the husband's father, "Gvir" and Il-fortune from one of the US Hasidism - is the one behind her anchorage. Led by Rabbi Eliyahu Maimon, who worked in Israel and the United States to handle the case.

About four years ago, when the parents of the anchorage husband came to visit Israel, they were summoned to testify before the rabbinical court in Tel Aviv, in which case their departure from Israel was delayed. After the Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court was convinced that the father of the divorcee's father was assisting and supporting his son in anchoring the woman, the court first and foremost decided to impose sanctions on the father for impeaching the court, although he is not a direct litigant in the proceeding. The Tribunal found that the appropriate sanction was a thirty-day sentence. My ancestor appealed this through his lawyers to the great rabbinical court - which rejected the appeal. The father subsequently petitioned the High Court - and his petition was denied. The reluctant father's attorneys provided additional evidence but their arguments were rejected.

The rabbinical court ruled that the appropriate, proportionate and effective sanction on the ancestor was to impose a daily fine of NIS 5,000 per day in lieu of the imprisonment imposed on him, as well as a foreclosure on a property he owned in Jerusalem. In response, the father appealed to the Grand Rabbinical Court and the Supreme Court. The rabbinical court's position in the Supreme Court was represented by Attorney Dr. Rafi Rakas of the Legal Advice of the Tribunals and the woman was represented by Attorney Prof. Aviad HaCohen and Attorney Osnat Sharon.

The Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling signed by Yitzhak Amit, David Mintz and Yael Wilner, rejecting the claims of the anchorage father. "There is no grounds for interfering with the established factual findings, as well as stating that the factual infrastructure was clearly formulated that justifies the imposition of a sanction on the applicant." The judges also noted that the fine imposed on the docking father, in the amount of NIS 5,000 for each day of docking, has for the time being reached the cumulative amount of NIS 920,000 by the time the application is submitted.

Judge David Mintz wrote in the ruling: "Although the phenomenon of divorce refusal is not new, this case seems to reveal new highs of painful harm to the life of a woman who did not improve her fate. The key is the applicant - and if not the key, then at least the opening will bring an end to the affair, But he manages to do this time and time again with nose and forehead. " Justice Yitzhak Amit said in his remarks that there were severe pressures "in ways and ways that judges in the civil system are not accustomed to." Among other things, it was examined whether there is a place for criminal investigation and even a complaint has been filed with the police. We also noted that the father of the ancestor's attorney prevented a solution to the divorce's refusal. "This indicates, first and foremost, the intention of the applicant and his / her power to act in perpetuating the respondent's anchorage, eliminating immediately any attempt to awaken the anchorage affair."