Additional Civil Hearing 21793-02-26 Anonymous vs. Anonymous

Additional Civil Hearing 21793-02-26

Application to hold an additional hearing in the judgment of this Court (the Justices D. Barak-Erez, G. Kanfi-Steinitz andY. Kosher) BLA 57929-12-24 [Nevo] As of January 29, 2026 (hereinafter: The Judgment).

Factual Background

1. The Applicant and Respondent 1 (hereinafter: The Respondent; Here are the following: The Parties) had a relationship between the years 2013-2016, without getting married. It should already be noted that today the Respondent is single and has no children, while the Applicant is married and a father of two.  During the period when the parties were partners, the respondent was diagnosed with a malignant tumor in her ovary that also spread to her uterus, and as a result, the respondent was required to undergo aggressive chemotherapy treatments that had an impact on her fertility.  Before the treatments began, the parties held a consultation meeting with a doctor at Soroka Medical Center (Respondent 2; hereinafter: Soroka Center) regarding the fertility preservation procedure.  At the time of the meeting, the doctor gave the parties a document entitled "Affidavit" (hereinafter: The Agreement), which the two parties were required to sign, and which included various agreements regarding the process.  The agreement stated, among other things, that it would not be possible to unilaterally cancel the agreement After The success of fertilization and the insertion of embryos that will be created into the woman's uterus.  It should be noted that the agreement was drafted on behalf of the Soroka Center in accordance with administrative guidelines published on the subject, but the agreement "does not necessarily reflect a uniform wording that was practiced or practiced in various medical centers", and in fact even the Soroka Center itself currently uses a different wording (paragraph 28 of the judge's judgment Barak-Erez).
2. The parties signed the agreement in the presence of a lawyer, and shortly thereafter the process of extracting the eggs from the respondent's body was carried out, in parallel with the delivery of the applicant's sperm for fertilization. It should be noted that the Applicant later testified that at that stage his relationship with the Respondent was undermined and he had doubts regarding the process, in which he did not share with the Respondent.  When the extraction was completed, it became clear that only three normal eggs had been extracted from the respondent's body.  In accordance with the latest medical recommendation, which was given, among other things, in view of the chances of survival of the eggs, the parties decided to fertilize the three eggs (in contrast to the initial recommendation, in which they were offered to fertilize half of the eggs to be extracted).  Close to the date of the freezing of the embryos, the doctors ordered the cessation of fertility preservation treatments, after which the respondent underwent a hysterectomy.  Thus, the three fertilized eggs are the only ones that were eventually extracted from her body.
3. In 2016, after the Respondent was informed that she was "clean" of cancerous tumors, the Applicant informed her that he was interested in ending their relationship, and the two separated. A few days after the separation, the Respondent contacted the Applicant and asked him to sign a document of consent for the use of the frozen embryos.  As it emerges from the judgment of the Family Court, the Respondent noted that the Applicant "told her that only after he has a new spouse that she will internalize that the issue of embryos is something that he brings with him into a relationship, will he sign the consent document" (paragraph 2(16) ibid.).  About four years later, on October 11, 2020, the Respondent contacted the Applicant on the matter again; The applicant said that he would discuss this with his wife, and later announced his refusal of her request.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 19164.       On November 22, 2020, the Respondent filed a claim with the Family Court in Be'er Sheva (Family Bag 52163-11-20) [Nevo], in which she asked to instruct the Soroka Center to allow her to use the frozen embryos through a surrogacy procedure.  As part of the proceeding, the position of the Attorney General was submitted, which presented a proposal for an outline according to which if a judgment is issued in favor of the respondent, it will be possible for her to undertake a surrogacy process as a single mother, while after the birth a judicial parenting order will be issued that will sever the parental relationship of the applicant and the surrogate mother (hereinafter: The Consultant's Outline).  After a lengthy proceeding, on March 6, 2024, the Family Court (Vice President) Rabbi Kudler Ayash) and ruled that the respondent should be allowed to use the embryos frozen in the surrogacy process, in accordance with the consultant's outline.  The Applicant filed an appeal with the Beersheba District Court (Family Appeal 24918-04-24) [Nevo], and on November 26, 2024, the District Court accepted the appeal by a majority opinion (the justices G. Levin andP. Gilat Cohen, against the judge's dissenting opinion Y. Danino).  It was determined, in summary, that without the Applicant's consent, the frozen embryos could not be used.