Family file (Nazareth) 11834-06-20 R.G. v. H.A. - part 5

The social worker:    The defendants were in the picture for many other things".  (Q.  12-15).

1. Later, the social worker was asked whether she knew of a gift agreement between the deceased and the defendant:

"Adv. M.  Baram: Did you know that the defendant in 2013, exactly the year she began to show herself and her presence around the father, some gift agreement was made between the father and the defendant, do you know that?

"The social worker: At the time, the deceased shared with us that he had contacted her asking her to take responsibility for the care of the child.1 And in return he will register the house in her name, which is what he told us at the time." (p.  21, paras.  1-6).

In this regard, the social worker added in the continuation of her cross-examination that: "What I know from the deceased is that plaintiff No.  2 sued him for changing his initial decision and demanded that he receive financial compensation for it." (p.  24, paras.  5-6).

1. The social worker was also asked if she knew that on the same day on May 30, 2013, when the gift agreement was made, the deceased made a will, in favor of the defendant, and she replied: "No, I don't remember, I know that he said he would transfer the house to her in any way, I don't know, that it was on condition that she take care of and take responsibility for B.1 until her last day."

Counsel for the plaintiff asked her why she did not ask the deceased about his change of mind, since she knew that the deceased had an agreement with plaintiff 2, and she replied that the deceased was very disappointed that he did not comply with the agreement, and therefore "he closed the story" with him (pp.  21, 13-31).

1.  The social worker was asked whether it was not surprising to her that the deceased decided to grant the defendant full rights in the apartment, and she replied: "The bottom line is that a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his property...  and with his money," she added, adding that the deceased was "very concerned about B.A, he loved her very much, she was very important to him, he wanted to ensure the treatment" (pp.  22, 1-6).
2. The social worker's testimony indicates that the deceased signed the gift agreement not out of unfair influence or pressure on the part of the defendants, but out of his independent desire to ensure future treatment of his disabled daughter.  The fact that the deceased changed his mind about plaintiff 2 who disappointed him, and placed his trust in the defendants as the ones who would take care of his home.A reinforces the fact that the deceased made the decision according to his sole discretion.
3. The deceased describes his relationship with his children as far away from him and the relationship is not very good, he feels very lonely, he would like something to take care of him (summary from Rambam Emergency Medicine Rambam, examination by a psychiatrist on August 17, 2014).
4. In Prof.  ------'s letter to the National Security Council dated April 7, 2017, it is stated that: "His son-in-law, who accompanied him to the meeting, cares for him and is very involved in his affairs, despite the fact that he lives an hour's drive away...  He added that despite the daily contact he maintains with his father-in-law, in his current situation, this is not enough to ensure his needs and personal security...  Recently he installed cameras at home because he falls frequently."
5. The social worker testified that: "Until 2014, none of the children were in contact with the department," but did not testify about the contact he had with his children, other than through the welfare services.  It should be noted that in the letter of the social worker,

From March 12, 2020, she notes that from 2013 until 2019, when the deceased died, the defendants took care of B.A.  His disabled daughter and the deceased were in intensive contact with the welfare department.

1. The defendant referred to the social worker's testimony regarding her relationship with the deceased, and claimed that the social worker's statements did not reflect reality.  According to her, the social worker could not know when she arrived at the deceased's home and when she left, and when the deceased visited her home (transcript of November 20, 2024, p.  184, paras.  33-36) because the social worker was not involved in the deceased's life throughout the day.  She also testified that most of her contact with the welfare officials was with the Deputy Social Worker, Mrs. ------, who knew her and even came to the deceased's home on one occasion and met with her there (pp.  190, 28).
2. In addition, the defendant testified that the relationship between her and the deceased was not renewed in 2013 but continued continuously in the years preceding that, and that whenever he needed help, she and her defendant husband helped him to the best of their ability (pp.  190, paras.  18-21).
3. The defendant was asked for how many treatments she took the deceased and his daughter in B.A until 2014, and she replied:

"He would call us, he called us and told us that plaintiff 2 made a private transportation for a fee, he would work with the car for a fee.  He got a lot of money.  He told me plaintiff 2 which ride he was on and he didn't want to take me, and I took his car and it was a complete mess.  Then plaintiff 2 called me and told me, I don't want to lose money.  Why do you suddenly take him, what, I started to go crazy on the phone.  So when such an incident occurred, he would drive and take it, it was 24/7 for him" (p.  178, paras.  6-15).

1. She also testified that the deceased was at her home and also participated in all of her events (paras.  24 and 27).
2. The defendant was confronted with the social worker's claim that she did not know her until 2013, and replied:

"We would talk on the phone from time to time, and Dad had a good caregiver at the time.  And we would talk a lot on the phone and we would come from time to time.  Then Dad was really independent, he didn't need us so much...  And if he needed to, we really should, we would have come, we never said no to him" (p.  179, paras.  11-16).

• The defendant was confronted with the fact that in contrast to her claim that she treated the deceased, in the transcript of the deceased's conversation with plaintiff 3, he says: "I excommunicate the defendant, I wish her a black life. In 35 years of her life, she hasn't invited orcome to her home."

And she replied: "So I'll tell you exactly what happened at the time, at the same time they went to him, plaintiff 3 went to his house and poisoned him against me, she talked all kinds of things about me, she would do this and that to you, she filled his head with all kinds of things, well, well.  She worked on him emotionally well.  And then he said what he said.  He also told me things like that about them, so what?" (p.  180, paras.  5-14").

• The defendant was asked to tell how she helped care for her sister B.A: "First of all, heart.A I was worried from time to time he would call me to shower her so I would shower her. When the girl was at Rambam Hospital, my husband and I would go to her every day, the only ones, except for plaintiff 4 who came to her only two or three times. The two did not come to the hospital at all and were not interested in her at all.  Then she was in some boarding school for a while and only we went to boarding school, none of them came, and my father said to me, 'Do you see why I trust you and the defendant?' Because the girl was like this and that and no one cared about her, only me and him.  He is poor 24/7 was at my father's service.  I'll show you, all the time ------, ---------, poor guy he paid over 1,000 shekels a month for tunnels.  Two in the morning, my father calls.  ..  She never answers his phone and he would run there all the time." (p.  181, paras.  4-15).
• The defendant also confronted the social worker's testimony and explained that in the years 2013-2014 the deceased did not need treatment, there was a caregiver there: "He needed less, it was more for the child... He didn't need much help from us, just more on the phone to talk to the institutions" (p. 212, 23-28).  But they were in touch and there were mutual visits (Q.  31-33).
• According to the defendant, until 2014 the deceased did not require significant assistance, conducted himself with complete independence and even used private transportation services of drivers who drove him to various places. According to him, the deceased managed his affairs alone and was independent and mobile (p. 213, paras.  23-28).  Until the dispute between the deceased and plaintiff 2, he drove the deceased when plaintiff 2 could not take him, and after the dispute, he came to him several times a week, sometimes even twice a day (Q.  36).
• The defendant was also confronted with the transcript of the deceased's conversation with plaintiff No. 3 in which he says: "The one who steals my money is the defendant" and replied that during this period the defendants took the deceased out of a nursing home, poisoned him against them, and "put him in his head" (p. 216, pp.  6-10).
• The defendants confronted the claim that as of 2017, the medical reports stated the deceased's neglected condition during the period when they were supposed to take care of him, and replied that he could not be forced to shower and when he wanted to impress, he dressed in his best clothes (pp. 214, paras. 15-20), the social worker also replied in the same way to them: "As I said earlier, he was a very complex man, He was very stubborn, he wanted things to be his way and for the most part he didn't cooperate, yes, his house wasn't in the best condition" (pp.  23, 1-4).  The social worker was asked whether she saw his neglect and whether she contacted the defendants about it, and she replied: "As long as he was lucid he didn't want to shower often, when he wanted he could look like a model.  For the most part, he didn't care how he looked or how he was dressed" (ibid., paras.  11-13).
• As to the deceased's relations with the other plaintiffs' children, no evidence was brought that the defendants acted to sever the ties between the deceased and his other children.

The evidence shows that the deceased conducted legal proceedings against plaintiff No.  2 from 2007 to 2011, which ended their continued relationship.