Family file (Jerusalem) 28115-09-25 Anonymous v. Attorney General

The matter of the proceeding at hand concerns the applicants' request, spouses who have been living together in Israel for several years and are leading a household and family life, to issue a judicial parenting order, according to which applicant 2, an Israeli citizen, will be recognized as the additional mother of minor B, who was born in 2025, and who is a foreign citizen who has been residing in Israel for about 6 years, and who is in the process of recognizing status in Israel, is her biological mother.  Due to the fact that Applicant 1 does not meet the condition of "substantive residency" at this stage - according to the policy that guides the Attorney General (hereinafter: the Respondent) - is there no reason to issue the requested order at this time? This is the question that the judgment deals with.

Introduction

1. The Applicants have been in a marital relationship since March 2020 and have been living together as a married couple in Israel and have been running a joint household since September 2020. Applicant 1 is a foreign national from..., and is staying in Israel in a gradual process to regularize her status, the length of the process, normally, is about 4-7 years.  Applicant 2 is an Israeli citizen.
2. As part of a previous proceeding between the parties, a judgment was issued on April 2, 2024, in which an application filed by the Applicants for a judicial parenting order was granted, according to which Applicant 1 was recognized as the additional mother of a minor, who was born in 2023, and of whom Applicant 2 is her biological mother. The order was issued within the framework of a detailed judgment, after the Respondent's objection to the application was rejected, on the grounds that Applicant 1 does not meet the condition of residency - a condition that must be fulfilled, according to the Respondent's position, before a judicial parenting order is issued.  The judgment was based on the main reasoning of considerations related to the best interests of the minor.
3. As noted, the question before the court in this case is whether a judicial parenting order should be issued, which will recognize Applicant 2, an Israeli citizen, as an additional parent to a minor born in 2025, and for whom Applicant 1 is her biological mother, despite the State's position that Applicant 1 does not meet the condition of substantive residency at this stage. "Substantive residency" means, in accordance with the state's position, being a citizen or holder of a permanent residence permit in Israel, and in accordance with the state's current policy, this condition is fulfilled in the last year of the gradual process, and in relation to applicant 1, the condition will be fulfilled in July 2027.
4. In the framework of settling disputes between the parties, it is first necessary to examine the preliminary legal question, whether the judgment given in a previous proceeding, in the matter of another minor daughter of the Applicants, constitutes an act of court that requires the acceptance of the application in the present case, as the Applicants claim, or whether it is not, as the Respondent claiMs.
5. To the extent that it is determined that there is no formal application of the rule of the act of the court, the question arises whether the previous judgment should be diagnosed, in such a way that the result in the present case will be the rejection of the application or the decision for this time, on the grounds that the judgment in the previous proceeding dealt with a minor with Israeli citizenship, and therefore the issuance of the order there did not affect her status in Israel, while the minor who is the subject of the case in this case was born to a foreign genetic mother. who is not an Israeli citizen, and the granting of the order here may have an impact on the status of the minor, as the Respondent claims, or that the set of legal rationales established in the previous judgment, and in other similar rulings, requires that this request be granted as well, without attributing implications to the possible impact of the order on the status of the minor before the status of Applicant 1, her genetic mother, was regulated, as the Applicants claimed.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916Factual Background

6. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)The relevant factual background is described in the judgment given on April 2, 2024 in file 12752-09-23, in the framework of the previous proceeding that was conducted as aforesaid between the parties, as well as in the application for a judicial parenting order, and it is not in dispute between the parties.  I will repeat the description of the relevant background facts for convenience below, with the necessary changes, while adding developments that occurred after they were given, relating to the minor who is the subject of this proceeding.
7. Applicant 1 is a foreign national from... who has been in Israel since January 2020 as part of a service visa (work visa) issued through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and which has been renewed from time to time.  At the time of the judgment in the previous proceeding, the last work visa granted to Applicant 1, the B/1 visa, was valid until August 1, 2024.  It should be noted that Applicant 1 ...  As a project manager that deals with..., as when the judgment was given in the previous proceeding.
8. On 23 July 2024, her status was upgraded as part of the gradual proceeding, and today she holds a temporary residence permit of type A/5, which is valid until 21 July 2026 (see paragraph 1 of the state's response submitted on 26 November 2025). Applicant 1 is expected to complete the gradual proceeding in July 2028.
9. Applicant 2 is an Israeli citizen living in Israel.
10. The applicants have been in a relationship since March 2020, and since September 2020 they have been living together in Israel and maintaining a joint household.
11. On November 29, 2020, the Applicants contacted the "Free Israel" organization for the purpose of issuing joint life certificates, which were issued to them (photocopies of the certificates were attached as Appendix 3 to the application). On the same day, they signed an affidavit stating that they were common-law spouses (the affidavit was attached as Appendix 4 to the application).
12. On March 31, 2022, the Applicants signed a prenuptial and cohabitation agreement that was approved before a notary, which regulated, inter alia, matters related to joint children, when they were born, including the division of equal time between them and the children, in the event of separation; joint decision-making; determining the center of children's lives in Israel; and participation in child support and expenses (the agreement was attached as Appendix 5 to the application).
13. On April 4, 2022, the Applicants married each other in... (The marriage certificate was attached as Appendix 6 to the application).  A few days later, they had a wedding party in...  At the home of Applicant 1's father, with the participation of friends and family, when friends and family members of Applicant 1 came from Israel to...  to attend the event.  On June 17, 2022, the couple also celebrated their marriage in a civil ceremony in Jerusalem in the presence of friends and family.
14. Later on, each of the applicants updated her status in the registry as married and added the second applicant's surname to her surname, as it also appears on the identity card of each of them (photocopies of the applicants' identity cards were attached as Appendices 7-8 to the application).
15. Each of the applicants appointed the other as its proxy for medical matters, as part of an enduring power of attorney and the enduring powers of attorney were deposited in the offices of the Custodian General.
16. The applicants decided to bring children into the world together through anonymous sperm donations from the sperm bank in order to jointly raise the children that would be born to one of them as a couple of parents.  Accordingly, on January 24, 2022, they contacted the Ichilov Hospital Sperm Bank and entered into an agreement with it for the import of sperm units of an anonymous donor (hereinafter: the donor) from a sperm bank abroad approved by the Ministry of Health (the agreement was attached as Appendix 9 to the application).  The applicants purchased together sperm units from the same anonymous donor in order for each of them to conceive from the sperm of that donor, so that the children born would be genetically siblings, even if only partially.  In order to ensure genetic compatibility between each of them and the donor, both of them underwent genetic screening tests by Prof.  Moti Shohat, an expert in pediatrics and medical genetics, and were given certificates regarding the suitability of the donor to the applicants (Prof.  Shohat's certificates regarding the suitability of the donor for each of the applicants were attached as Appendices 10-11 to the application).
17. Subsequently, Applicant 2 became pregnant using sperm from an anonymous donor, and in 2023 gave birth to Minor A.
18. In light of the applicants' desire to determine the center of their lives in Israel, they opened a joint life file with the Population and Immigration Authority. In this context, and even before the birth of the minor, on August 1, 2023, Applicant 1 filed an application for regularization of her status in Israel by virtue of her being married to Applicant 2.
19. On September 6, 2023, the Applicants petitioned within the framework of Family Case Case 12572-09-23 with a request for a judicial parenting order that would establish Applicant 1 as an additional mother of minor A.
20. The Respondent objected to the application due to the non-fulfillment of the residency conditions in relation to Applicant 1, the genetic mother of A.

After submitting detailed positions of the parties and holding a hearing, a detailed judgment was issued on April 2, 2024, in which the state's position was rejected, and a judicial parenting order was issued according to which Applicant 1 is an additional mother of minor A, from the date of her birth (Family Case (Jerusalem) 12752-09-23 Anonymous et al.  v.  Attorney General et al., Nevo, given on April 2, 2024; hereinafter: the judgment in the previous proceeding).  The outcome of the judgment was mainly the result of consideration of considerations relating to the minor's benefit, as well as reliance on guiding rulings in the field (the main points of the judgment will be detailed later in the judgment).