Following the dedicated care of the defendants, the deceased shared with us more than once that he wrote in his will that he bequeathed his home to the defendant's daughter and son-in-law, who did not leave him and took care of him with sensitivity and loyalty for the past six years."
- During her interrogation, the social worker was confronted with these reports and testified that: "Until 2014, none of the children were in contact with the department" (Prot. of October 28, 2024, p. 18, s. 19). And to the court's question as to why she did not contact his children, she replied, "Good question, there were trials... But he, too, the deceased, had a very complex relationship with his children" (pp. 18, 34-35, p. 19, 1-2). "He had a very ambivalent and complex relationship with his children as well and he didn't always want them to be in the picture" (p. 19, 5-6).
- The social worker noted that during this period until 2014, the interaction was only with the deceased every week and sometimes more than once a week: "This is a complex story of a disabled adult who treats a disabled girl when the mother was not in the picture, she was hospitalized in a long psychiatric hospital with a foreign worker inside the house when the child needs feeding, hospitalizations." (Q. 26-33).
- The social worker also testified that the deceased shared with her that at the beginning of the disabled daughter's life, B.A. He promised plaintiff 2 that in return for him to drive her and take care of all her needs he would register the house in his name, later when he was disappointed in him that several times when he asked him to drive and it didn't work out for him, he got into a very big fight with him, "He stopped this thing and turned to the defendants, and told them that if they were worried, they would be careful.1 For the rest of her life, he will register the house in their name." (p. 19, paras. 7-21).
- The social worker replied in the matter of plaintiff 3 that she had recently treated the deceased who had a decline in functioning on behalf of one of the companies (pp. 20, 8-11).
- The social worker rejected the claim that plaintiff 3's work as a caregiver would make the defendants' involvement in the deceased's affairs redundant.
"Adv. M. Baram: So plaintiff 3 was in the framework of both her work and the duty that stems from her work from the salary she receives to take care of the father, and in fact then H. and Z. Unnecessary.