Last week, the findings of a comprehensive study conducted by Adv. Orit Jackman-Ladani under my guidance were published, showing that some family judges ignore the law and Supreme Court precedents.
The study included an analysis of hundreds of rulings from the past decade, and found that many judges ignore the presumption of early childhood and the increased duty of the father to feed his children, which are prescribed by law. They also ignore deliberate rules developed by the appellate courts, such as avoiding a joint physical custody arrangement when the parents are at odds.
The study also found that family judges rule without uniform and consistent reference to relevant variables, such as the age of the children, the division of roles between the parents before separation, the nature of the relationship between the parents and their economic situation, the distance between the parents' homes, and more.
Among the most striking findings: in most cases (42%) there was a similar or equal division of time between the parents' homes, which some judges called "joint physical custody" and some "mother custody"; In 16 per cent of the judgments, exclusive custody of the father was established, although in most of these cases the mother was functioning; There was a 15 per cent decrease in alimony in maternal custody and 35 per cent in joint custody (although the cost of living increased by 14 per cent during the same decade); and 600% child support was awarded in similar circumstances.
This created severe chaos in the field. Lawyers find it difficult to advise and guide their clients, and families in similar situations leave court with very different decisions, depending on which judge or judge they attend.
Over the weekend, the Linor Municipality chose to address the findings of the study on the airwaves and on the pages of this newspaper. According to her, the study proves the need for legal reform promoted by the government, "whose main principles are limiting the court's ability to create such chaos, and therefore it is necessary to reduce the cause of reasonableness, for example," and that there is "great importance for the committee for selecting judges and replacing the activist spirit with law-abiding judges."
This is empty demagoguery. There is no connection between the findings of the study and the government's attempt to reduce the power of the judiciary. The reasonableness ground is intended to enable the Supreme Court to protect citizens from government wrongdoing, and has nothing to do with private disputes. Nor is there a connection between the appointment of conservative judges and the activism of lower court judges – conservative judges can, for example, choose to ignore laws of a liberal Knesset. Restraint of lower court judges must be achieved by enacting up-to-date laws in the Knesset, formulating clear rules for decisions by the Supreme Court, selecting professional judges, and making appellate courts accessible to overturn erroneous rulings.
Linor's remarks are part of a tactic to throw sand in the eyes of the public, as if the proposed reform is intended to fix existing problems in the justice system, such as those pointed out in the study. But the proposed reform does not address these problems at all, but uses them as an excuse to allow the government, which already controls the Knesset, to take over the judiciary as well, in a way that will give it unlimited power to manage our lives and violate our most basic rights.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us