'The message to both parents is, 'You are seen, you are heard'" (Photo: ShutterStock)
For many years, most decisions in the family courts regarding arrangements for divorce children to stay with their parents expressed, on the one hand, a clear preference for a relationship with one parent, while the other parent was left with a sense of frustration and a great emptiness, and on the other hand, placed most of the burden of caring for children on mothers, even in the case of a working mother who begs to share the burden with the father so that her work will not be harmed.
Attorney Dan Malkieli of the Dan Malkieli Law Office, which specializes in family law, explains how two recent decisions in the Beer Sheva Family Court by Vice President Justice Rotem Ayash Kudler, which recognized the right and responsibility of both parents to have a proper relationship with their children, may change the picture regarding the issue of stay arrangements.
What did the Family Court rule?
In the first case, says attorney Dan Malkieli, the court heard a request to establish temporary living arrangements for two children, including a two-year-old toddler. The mother requested, due to the constraints of her work, that the father's arrangements for staying with the children include sleeping in the middle of the week as well, and that on the days when the minors will be with their father, he will pick them up directly from the educational institutions so that she will not have to leave even on these days before the end of her work day.
The father claimed that he lived with his parents and could not sleep with his children there, and that if the children stayed with him, he would not be able to get to his place of work on time. The father also asked to pick up his children on weekdays from 5:00 P.M. (so that he could arrive after his work ended) and not directly from the educational institutions.
The court recognized the mother's constraints and work times, and ruled that twice a week the father would pick up the children directly from the educational institutions and that the arrangements for staying in the middle of the week would include lodging, even if the father would have to leave his workplace earlier or arrive later at his place of work.
The court emphasized that the father's work is no more important than the mother's, who also has to work and earn a living, and therefore required the father to maintain extensive living arrangements with his children even though the father objected.
The court unequivocally ruled that the children of the parties came into the world from a joint decision and joint act of both parents, and therefore the obligations and rights of both parents, towards their children, must be balanced. The court further ruled that there is no justification for the mother, who works for a living, to have to find solutions for the children even on days when there are living arrangements with the father, so that the father can advance in his work. In this regard, the court ruled that "the realization of parenthood entails the recognition to bear parental obligations and not just enjoy time spent with them." This decision allowed the mother, at least twice a week, to work full working days.
In the second case, a father asked to sleep his one-year-old son with him every other weekend, while the mother objected on the grounds that the child was still breastfeeding. The court examined the circumstances, took into account the toddler's age and the fact that he spends an entire day in the nursery without breastfeeding anyway, and ruled that there is no impediment to extending the stay with the father so that the child sleeps with him as part of the stay arrangements.
The decision may be seen as controversial. Is it?
"Ostensibly, but when we examine it in depth, as well as the first decision, we see that it is consistent with the principle of the best interest of the child and recognizes the importance of proper contact with both parents as a basic right of the child," emphasizes Adv. Malkieli, adding a reservation: "The specific circumstances and the assumption that at the age of one year the toddler is already facing changes in breastfeeding arrangements, enabled in that case the expansion of the living arrangements to include overnight stays."
What is new about the decision regarding the stay arrangements?
"The determination that the child's right to a proper relationship with the father overrides his right to breastfeed is far-reaching and no less than revolutionary," explains attorney Tzachi Pinkas of Adv. Malkieli's office. "Until now, most rulings regarding residence arrangements have been based on the assumption that the mother is the primary caregiver when it comes to toddlers, and it would have been inconceivable to examine the issue of breastfeeding."
Now, according to Pinkas, "the court has taken a significant step towards gender equality, recognized the importance of the father's involvement in the child's life, examined the circumstances and balanced the interests of both parents and their equal right to proper contact with the child."
Attorney Pinkas adds: "Of course, the decision is not intended to diminish the importance of the mother's role in raising the child or to diminish the importance of breastfeeding, which, as we know, provides important nutrients and fosters a bond between mother and child. However, the court recognized that there are other ways for the mother to contact her child, and that denying the father access to his child can have negative consequences for both the father and the child."
What is the trend emerging from these two decisions regarding residence arrangements?
"A clear common thread runs between these two decisions," explains Attorney Pinkas. "First, undermining the traditional perception that the mother is the primary caregiver, and second, a clear recognition of the web of rights and obligations of both parents, while balancing them both as parents and as human beings who want to go out to work and fulfill themselves.
"The message to both parents is, 'You are seen, you are heard.' Therefore, if the mother needs to go out and work, they will take this into consideration and oblige the father to share in the burden of caring for the children. Likewise, if the father wants to take a significant part in raising the children and sleep with him even when they are young and even still breastfed, they will allow him to do so. The father's right to exercise his parenthood – as well as the child's right to be with his father even at night – will prevail over the child's right to night suckling."
In conclusion, says Adv. Malkieli, "The decisions handed down by the Beer Sheva Family Court reflect a change in perception regarding joint parental responsibility and an important step towards equality and recognition of the importance of the role and involvement of both parents in the child's life as a basic right."
To contact Adv. Dan Malkieli, who has 30 years of experience in family law and who represented in the above cases, you can contactus here orby phone - 053-9376362
To the firm's page on the legal website Article courtesy of Zap Legal
The information presented in the article does not constitute legal
advice or a substitute for it and does not constitute a recommendation to take proceedings or refrain from proceedings. Anyone who relies on the information appearing in the article does so at his own risk
In association with Zap Legal
- theorem
- Family Law
Tags
- divorce
