Forum

Filter by
Not judging by a successful relocation case decided by Tel Aviv Family Court in September 2005, where a divorced mother, originally from the U.K., was given permission to relocate there with a 10 and an 8-year old, over whom she had custody in Israel. She had originally planned to relocate to England to be near her family in the South Coast, but later amended her plans to remarry and live in London. She had made it clear to the psychologist appointed by the court to make a report and recommendations that if her plea were rejected, she would remain in Israel. The psychologist noted that if the mother had to remain in Israel should her plea be rejected, the same problems of isolation and strain she experienced before would resurface, and this would have an indirect negative effect on the children as it would weaken her parental capability. Furthermore, refusal would fan the flames of animosity between the parents which would boomerang on the children, and they could bear a grudge against their father because of this.
Not necessarily. The court will appoint a professional to test the relative parenting skills of both you and your 'ex' and to make a report and recommendations on whether relocation abroad with their mother is in your children's welfare ie preferable to remaining in Israel with you. While the expert will be impressed by your commitment as a parent, being too extreme could boomerang. For example, in a relocation case which reached the Supreme Court in 2005, one of the reasons given for overturning the District Court's refusal for permission for the children to relocate abroad with their mother was the father's ‘totality’, which the expert's report had noted. It had said that both the mother and father were very capable parents but the professional appointed to make a report and recommendations noted that the father's unwillingness to see any advantages for the children in relocation and the totality of his views put pressure on them, whereas their mother's more open and balanced approach had a calming effect on them. She saw the advantages and disadvantages of both options for them – of staying in Israel with the father, or moving to the United States with her, whereas he could only see the negative side of relocation, and the positive side of staying in Israel. ‘I estimate that the father's deep persuasion that the girls' place is here, without any doubts, puts hidden pressure on them,’ the expert wrote.
Yes, this is known as a ‘voluntary return’, the terms of which can be negotiated, and it has many advantages for both sides.
Apply to the family court for permission to relocate overseas with your minor child for a specified period of time. Where parents cannot agree about where a child should live, even temporarily, then the family court hears the parties' competing claims, and can rule on the dispute. It has discretion to overrule the non-custodial opposition's opposition to relocation overseas.
No, you are not ‘stuck’ with rabbinical court jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction for relocation lies with the family court where the plea can be filed, directly.
Even if you expressly consented to rabbinical court jurisdiction at the time, children have independent legal personalities and are not bound by the choice/s of their parent/s regarding the judicial forum they chose to adjudicate on legal proceedings concerning them, according to long-standing Supreme Court of Justice binding precedent. Your children can initiate relocation proceedings themselves, as plaintiffs, via you, as their natural guardian, in the family court. You can also file for relocation, as a plaintiff, too.
Yes, if the Israeli Family Court hearing the case is satisfied that this would be in the child's best interests after all.

In Israel a ten year old who is declared as being sufficiently mature will have his views taken into account in family law cases, but in an abduction case heard by Haifa Family Court even the views of a mature 9 year old were heard. In the case ,decided in August 2006, the court listened to the views of an 11 year old girl and her 9 year old brother and refused to return them to Holland, from where their mother had abducted them . Under the Convention where a child is of sufficient age and maturity and objects to being returned, the court has a discretion not to order his/her return, even if there is an act of abduction. In this case the children's elder sibling lived in Holland with the father.

It will certainly investigate the stability of the new relationship, and a professional appointed to make a report and recommendations may even meet with the mother's new husband, as well as her and the children, and yourself.
Yes, an Israeli court can ‘punish’ a parent who unjustifiably refuses to co-operate over a minor's passport by ordering costs against him/her. For example, in 2005 after hearing the evidence and viewpoints of the parties, Tel Aviv family court told a father that it had found no reasonable justification for him objecting to his teenage child being issued a new Israeli passport, and that if he withdrew his objection, and consented, no costs would be ordered against him. He refused to consent, so as well as ordering the Ministry of Interior to issue the child a passport, it ordered him to pay the mother's legal fees for bringing the action.
Yes, you will most probably be asked to meet the clinical psychologist appointed by court to make a report and recommendations about whether relocation would be in the children's welfare. You will probably meet him/her alone, and also with the mother, and the professional may even observe how you and the mother interact with the children. For example, in September 2005, as part of a divorced mother's plea to relocate from Israel to her native UK with her minor children, where she was planning to re-marry, her prospective new-husband met the psychologist appointed by court alone, with the mother and with her and the children. The psychologist reported his impressions, noting that the partner was aware and supportive of the help they may need in adapting to life in the UK, but clearly understood and respected the important role the minors' father had in their lives, and had no intention of imposing on it. The court, which passed judgment authorizing relocation, subject to a detailed plan being permitted concerning the minors' schooling, took all this into consideration.
Not necessarily, because the court has discretion and the last word here. For example in May 2005 the Supreme Court finally put an end to a two year court battle between divorced parents, both of whom had remarried, over relocation of their mutual children. It re-instated the original Family Court's judgment allowing relocation, but held that both sides would bear their own costs, which covered two appeals, and specifically recommended that the District Court's ruling on costs be reversed.
Yes, if the other parent agrees, this can be one of the conditions of the agreement.

Bring legal proceedings against your ex-husband at the family court in Petach Tikva, asking it to grant an order allowing your child from your first marriage to relocate overseas permanently.

You will have to prove that the grounds for your relocation application are legitimate and reasonable, and prove that it is in the child's best interests and is the least detrimental alternative, or least harmful alternative, in the circumstances, given all the options. The court can grant you such an order, and overrule your husband's objections, as part of the legal proceedings, but you will need a clear 'relocation plan' which shows how the father-child relationship can be retained despite the distance, as well as what arrangements are proposed for the minor in terms, of educational, health and social activities etc.

Yes - or permission from the family court in Israel, if you do not consent. If your 'ex' relocates overseas without your consent or court permission, unilaterally, then this would be an act of civil child abduction.
If you oppose the idea of your 'ex' relocating overseas permanently with your child, then she must apply to the family court for permission to relocate, and you can oppose the application. If you have grounds to suspect that she is planning to relocate, unilaterally, because she knows you will not consent, then there are pre-emptive emergency legal steps that you can take, to prevent the child's exit from Israel.
No, there have been a number of cases in Israel in the last few years where mothers of young children who have been returned under the Convention, have fought custody and relocation cases to European countries, and won them, after having earlier returned to Israel following Hague Cases. They will get a fair hearing, and the child's best interests, as perceived by the court, will be the overriding factor deciding the case. A court may be sceptical about the parent's good faith – regarding honouring future visitation if allowed to leave Israel with the child, especially in the absence of substantial financial guarantees. Where real bias against a party is suspected, the option of asking for the judge to disqualify him/herself is always open.

Unfortunately, the Hague Convention governing civil aspects of international child abduction is not yet in force between Israel and the Philippines.

 

The Philippines acceded to the convention on  29.3.2016 , with it becoming a "Hague Convention" Country only on 1.6.2016. At present, only Japan has accepted its accession, so currently the Hague Convention is only relevant regarding abductions  between Philippines and Japan, though hopefully, other countries, including Israel, will accept the accession, so that it will have wider effect.

 

Currently, therefore, you would need to take direct legal action in the Philippines via experienced specialist counsel there, for a non-Hague order for the return of your child and/or to represent you in custody proceedings there, if perhaps already initiated by your wife. You would be advised to select counsel in the Philippines who would work in conjunction with English speaking specialist family law counsel, in Israel, to maximize your representation and thereby improve your chances of returning your child. 

 

Our law practice could, for example, offer such assistance, and provide an expert legal opinion on Israeli family law  , to be presented overseas, to explain about your equal parental rights under Israeli law and the independent rights of the child (who is an Israeli citizen, too) , and how they have been breached. We could, also assist in the preparation of detailed affidavits, and gathering relevant evidence, regarding  habitual place of residence and joint parental intentions.

Yes – in December 2005 Beersheva Family Court rejected a plea filed by the mother for the return of two minors, aged 12 and nearly 10, for their return to Italy, because they objected to going back, and were found to be of sufficient age and maturity for their views to be taken into account, after an expert was appointed to comment on this.
Yes, especially if she has a poor record, and frequently sabotages or interferes with visitation. A parent's willingness and ability to maintain contact with the other parent and to recognize his/her legitimate role and rights – and the importance for the children of an on-going relationship with the other parent– is a vital factor. A court could refuse relocation because of a mother's poor record on this.
An order preventing a minor's exit is a stronger safeguard – the mechanism of the remaining parent's authorization provided for may be too weak or open to abuse by a manipulative parent. For example, if prior written agreement is required an ‘abducting parent’ could forge this. The mechanism may not require written agreement, but just say agreement in which case the ‘abducting parent’ could claim he/she had oral consent, and leave with the minor.
The whole point of a temporary order granted by the court is that it can be registered at all ports ,with the Israeli border police, according to the I.D. and passport details given for the minor, and thus minimize the risk of the minor leaving the country . There is always the risk of the minor leaving on a false passport, or an additional foreign one, the details of which are unknown to the remaining parent, or being smuggled across a land border. Barring this, however, a 'stop order' registered at the points of exit from Israel should prevent the minor from being able to leave.
It could require the selection of a suitable school, near the minor's intended home abroad, which caters to his/her needs. For example, in a relocation case in September 2005 Tel Aviv Family court permitted relocation of minors to London, subject to certain plans/conditions, including those relating to their education. After the mother had selected a Jewish primary school with a good academic reputation near their intended home, that provided a supportive framework to Jewish Israeli children with language and other difficulties, and provided proof of this, the court held that the school answered the minors' needs, and authorized their registration there, as part of the decision approving conditions for their relocation.
Not judging by a successful relocation case decided by Tel Aviv Family Court in September 2005, where a divorced mother, originally from the U.K., was given permission to relocate there with a 10 and an 8-year old, over whom she had custody in Israel. She had originally planned to relocate to England to be near her family in the South Coast, but later amended her plans to remarry and live in London. She had made it clear to the psychologist appointed by the court to make a report and recommendations that if her plea were rejected, she would remain in Israel. The psychologist noted that if the mother had to remain in Israel should her plea be rejected, the same problems of isolation and strain she experienced before would resurface, and this would have an indirect negative effect on the children as it would weaken her parental capability. Furthermore, refusal would fan the flames of animosity between the parents which would boomerang on the children, and they could bear a grudge against their father because of this.
No, it does not rule on that. It may refer to a removal or retention of the children, but will not say if this was wrongful or not. That is a basic tenet of a voluntary return.

Yes, as a rare exception. An Israeli family court will not usually digress from the expert's recommendations or order a supplementary report in relocation proceedings, unless there are 'heavy-weight' reasons justifying this, but it is possible for a supplementary report to be ordered, if, for example, it is found that not all the factors or options that should have been considered, were considered.

For example, in February 2016, Tel Aviv District Court, a supplementary expert report by was ordered as part of relocation appeal proceedings. It was held that a court appointed expert in child relocation proceedings must check out all the possibilities thoroughly, including the implications for the minor/s of the parent wishing to relocate with the child/ren in question, actually relocating alone, and leaving them with the other parent, even if he/she expressly declares that he/she will not do so. The decision to allow relocation in the child/ren's best interests, is usually a difficult choice, of the 'least detrimental alternative', in practice, and there must be full consideration of the quality and nature of the child/ren's relationship with each parent, and a comparison of likely damage resulting from separation from each parent.

Apply to the family court for permission to relocate overseas with your minor child for a specified period of time. Where parents cannot agree about where a child should live, even temporarily, then the family court hears the parties' competing claims, and can rule on the dispute. It has discretion to overrule the non-custodial opposition's opposition to relocation overseas.
No, all issues related to children like custody and relocation are dynamic, and can always be re-opened. Relocation may not be in a child's best interests at a particular time, but may be later on. A custodial parent who is refused permission by the court to relocate when the child is young may be successful later.