Who and what monogamy/AP, Reuters, Getty Images, Shutterstock
An ugly and litigious divorce dispute between former spouses has recently reached a surprising decision, in which the Honorable Judge Shirley Shay of the High Court ordered a family in Petah Tikva to confiscate three children from their mother's custody, and transfer them to their father's custody, and this, among other things, following a false plot about violence against her The wife took care of the father.
The couple married in 2008 and throughout the years of their marriage gave birth to 4 children. All the children were born in a remote settlement to which the parents moved several years after their marriage. Poor
Travis: Kourtney Kardashian "came out of the closet" as an autosexual
"I would go to him, and return home Physically and mentally weak, and sad"
after months of war has reached your hair? You too deserve humanitarian aid.
After 14 years of marriage, the relationship between the two hit the rocks, and an acute divorce dispute broke out between them. Although initially the parents had an equal stay arrangement with the children in the family home (nesting), the arrangement Blown up, when the woman applied to the court for a restraining order against the father, since she claims he is threatening and harassing her. A temporary restraining order was issued against the father on a one-party basis, and after the mother failed to prove the facts, the order was not renewed, and the mother was ordered to pay expenses in favor of the father.
A mother scolds her teenage daughter/ShutterStock
Immediately afterwards, the mother submitted a request to the court to move with the children to another settlement, in the center of the country.
The father filed a statement of defense through lawyer Lucy Meir, and as a result, the court rejected the mother's request.
Despite the rejection of her request, the woman ignored the court's decision, and moved to the center of the country with her children, repeatedly violating the arrangements for staying with the children, and not allowing them to see their father.
As part of the proceedings between the parties, many professionals were called to give an opinion on the conduct of the parents and the condition of the children.
The overwhelming majority of the opinions stated that the mother often involves her children in the struggle between her and their father, and exerts emotional blackmail on them, with the aim of moving them "to her side".
These experts determined that the father does not pose any danger to the safety of the mother and the children.
On the other hand, most experts stated that the mother is a negative influence on her children, especially on her two adult daughters.
Only one opinion, by a criminology expert, claimed danger on the part of the father.
According to the criminologist, the level of dangerousness of the father towards the mother and the children is medium, while the level of dangerousness of the mother towards the children is low.
According to the criminologist, this assertion was based on a single incident of violence that occurred between the couple in the distant past, as well as on the fact that in his youth the father belonged to the 'Hill Youth', and in this context took part in violent activity.
The expert was summoned to testify in court, where his opinion was withheld time and time again, in his investigation by the father's attorney, attorney Meir.
Among other things, the expert had difficulty explaining how a single incident of violence in the past by the father towards the mother, poses a risk to the children.
Among other things, the criminologist claimed in his testimony that the father neglected his children who were staying with him, because he left for work at 06:00 in the morning, while they were sleeping.
According to him, neglect is like violence.
The Honorable Judge Shirley Shay, who discussed the complicated conflict between the couple, disagreed with the expert's position, and even noted in her ruling that no educational authority complained about the neglect of the children, when they stayed with the father, and the children arrived at all the settings on time, this is in contrast to the situation when the children were with The mother, where most of the times the children were absent from school for long periods of time.
Check suitability for treatment
Israeli development: a scientific solution to body acne with over 90% success
In collaboration with Rivka Zaida Laboratories
Parental alienation/ShutterStock
To the question, whether an action by one of the parents, which aims to prevent contact between the children and the other parent, is considered violence in his eyes, the criminologist replied that if this behavior is repeated, he definitely considers it violent behavior.
In her ruling, Judge Shay states that the criminologist did not explain how the moderate violence manifested itself towards the children.
"Hence, it would not be unreasonable to say that, despite the definition of "medium level of danger", the expert does not believe that in practice, the father is dangerous to his children."
In her reference to his testimony, Judge Shay firmly stated her position regarding the phenomenon of parental alienation and its severe damages: "The role of the court, among other things, is to give content to the term "best interests of the child", and in each case to the individual and in accordance with the circumstances that characterize him", Judge Shay ruled.
"This court believes that the time has come to make it clear in clear language that a parent who does not allow minors to be in contact with the other parent, or incites them against him, harms their welfare, and in extreme cases, it is even a harm that reaches the level of real violence, both mental and emotional. The duty of a home The law is to protect minors who have been caught in such an extreme situation, and not to allow it to continue or be fixed. In view of everything detailed above, the court determines that the father is not dangerous to the minors," according to Judge Shay.
After this determination, the judge moved on to discuss the mother's request for relocation of residence and the father's petitions for division of residence times and parental responsibility.
According to the verdict, the eldest daughter initially expressed her desire to move in with her mother, and this is because she suffers socially in the school settings in the remote settlement.
Only after the criminologist determined that the father posed a moderate danger to the mother and the children, did allegations of fear of the father begin to arise on her part.
In her ruling, Judge Shay notes that from the moment the eldest daughter moved to live with her mother, the relationship between the father and the eldest daughter was completely severed.
Several months later, the second daughter also moved to live with the mother, while she does not enroll her in an educational setting at all, thus committing a criminal offense by violating the provisions of the Compulsory Education Law.
In this case too, and despite the experts' impression that the second daughter gets along well with her father, she also began to refuse to meet with him.
"The mother proved in her conduct that she did nothing, or at the very least did not do enough, so that the girls, who are staying with her, would be in contact with their father, and she even acted actively to preserve the severing of the relationship that was created," Judge Shay states, adding: "The mother also proved Because it is impossible to accept her cooperation in everything related to family care, and then the accommodation of any expert/therapist/professional, who does not think like her or does not follow her instructions, until she also called the court, both the father's lawyer and the The guardian of criminal justice."
Attorney Lucy Meir/Sam Yitzhakov
In addition, the judge determined that "the mother allowed the minors to be absent from an educational setting for a long time, in order to achieve her goals, while harming them and their welfare, and while renouncing her parental duty."
The judge stated that in the complex situation that had arisen, the professionals were debating how to act, in order to reduce as much as possible the emotional damage to the children, and without taking too draconian measures against the mother, which could do more harm than good.
"The mother's choice to repeat again and again claims of the father's alleged dangerousness is worrying and raises the fear that the mother will continue to make use of these claims, in front of the children, when they stay with her, in order to make them want to sever contact with the father" said Judge Shay.
In her ruling, the judge also referred to Attorney Meir's claim that the will of a minor is not necessarily in his best interest, all the more so in cases of incitement, and this is regarding the weight that should be given to the girls' will to move to the new settlement
. In front of the court are all the materials and testimonies, and even the words of the girls themselves, which were spoken to the court in its meeting with them, from which it is unequivocally clear that not only is the desire of the minors not necessarily in their best interest, it is a matter of their will, and they speak from their throats, until they are unable to separate their will Judge Shay also
refers
to a psychologist's opinion that was given, in which he recommended separating and dividing the custody of the minors between their parents, and in his investigation he admitted that there is no perfect solution to the conflict, and that the transfer of the children to the custody of Aman apparently damages the fate of their relationship childhood with their father.
The judge disagrees with her decision on the psychologist's recommendation, and notes that the children who stayed with their father never expressed any desire to sever their relationship with their mother, while all the children who stayed in their mother's custody expressed an increasing desire to sever their relationship with their father.
For this reason, and out of an aspiration to keep Regarding a stable relationship between the father and his children, Judge Shay finally ordered that the three youngest children should be transferred to the custody of the father, while the eldest daughter, who is completely estranged from the father, will continue to grow up in the custody of her mother.
In addition, Judge Shay determined that the three children's stay with Aman will take place for three months at a contact center, twice a week, for several hours, and under the supervision of professionals.
At the end of the first three months, and subject to the fact that the mother observes the times of stay set as such, the supervision will be removed from the weekly meetings, and these will take place on the same days and for an additional three months.
According to Judge Shay, this unusual decision stems from the fear that the mother will refuse to return her children to the father, in the event that they stay at her home, as she has done in the past.
After the six months in which the mother can only see her children at a contact center, weekends will be added, once every two weeks.
In addition, the judge determined that the parties will work to receive family care and provide emotional care.
Judge Shay sealed her ruling by imposing the payment of court costs on the woman: "In light of the mother's abnormal conduct, the number of applications submitted during the procedure and the number of discussions that took place, I obligate her to pay the father's costs in the amount of NIS 35,000."
More on the same topic:
relations
women
men
Love
sex