I therefore concur with my colleague's opinion that the application for leave to appeal should be rejected, subject to the aforesaid" (paragraph 5 of his judgment).
- In this comment of the Honorable Justice Sohlberg, there is only accuracy in the description of the State's position, as presented to the Supreme Court, regarding the relationship between the rule and the exception in the State's position in principle, as understood by the Honorable Justice Sohlberg. However, it is clear that it does not constitute an adoption of the state's position or an expression of a position on it, one way or the other.
- I would also like to refer to the judgment of the Family Court in Tel Aviv-Yafo (the Honorable Judge Snunit Forer) inFamily Case 8901-03-21 Anonymous et al. Attorney General, Nevo, given on September 4, 2023 (given after the judgment in the case of K.L.M. and the judgment Bin Tax Appeal 802/21). In that case, the court was required to consider the question of whether a judicial parenting order should be issued to an Israeli citizen and resident in relation to the son of a foreign citizen who resided in Israel on temporary residency (A/5) in a gradual proceeding due to the marital relationship, in a manner similar to in our case. The Respondent objected to the granting of the order on the grounds that the mother giving birth does not have permanent status in Israel and does not meet the exceptions. The court rejected the state's argument in a detailed and reasoned decision, and held, inter alia, as follows:
" 26. The decision to expand the family was part of joint family planning... The minor was born in Israel. Since his birth, the applicants have been raising him together in Israel. The Applicants applied for the arrangement of Applicant No. 2's residency in Israel even before the birth of the minor and from the time they returned to Israel. In other words, the concern that the parenting order is being used to arrange legal status is debilitating. Applicant 2 is in the midst of the gradual process and has temporary residency for herself and the minor. No reference was made to this in the Attorney General's response...
- To all this must be added the best interest of the minor. When examining the best interests of the child, one should also take into account the principles outlined in the 1989 International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by Israel in 1991.
- The court must give weight to the separate rights of the minors and their protection:...
- According to Article 7 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child:
"The child shall be registered immediately after his birth, and from his birth he shall have the right to be called by name, the right to acquire citizenship, and, as far as possible, the right to know his parents and to be cared for by them." and "Member States shall ensure the realization of these rights, in accordance with their national laws and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this area, and in particular where the child would be stateless in their absence." ...
- The continuation of the parenting order proceedings is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The minor was born in Israel. His mothers chose Israel to make a home there. They chose that Applicant 2 would become pregnant in Israel, undergo her pregnancy here and give birth to him here. They have been raising the minor in Israel since his birth. The minor is entitled as a basic right that his family's daily worldview will also receive legal recognition.
- To this must be added the considerations relating to the status of Applicant 1 vis-à-vis the minor (see: extensive details in 47781-12-19 Appellant Family v. K.M. L. et al.)." (emphases in original).
It is precise, as was clarified in the hearing that took place before me on February 26, 2026, that no appeal was filed against the judgment.
- I also consider referring to a (supplementary) judgment of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court (the Honorable Judge Agmon Gonen) sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs in Administrative Petition 38707-07-23 Dana B. et al. and their minor children v. Minister of the Interior and the Population Authority (unpublished, given on April 11, 2025). In that case, the question of the Israeli citizenship of a minor who was born abroad to a couple of mothers using fertility technology was discussed, and her birth certificate registered as her parents the mother of the non-Israeli birth mother and her spouse, who is an Israeli married to her abroad and has no biological connection to the minor. The court ruled that the petitioners there should be allowed to file an application for a judicial parenting order, without fulfilling a residency requirement in Israel, so that a spouse who lacks status in Israel will be recognized as the mother of a minor who gave birth to her Israeli partner, even though the spouses and their children do not even live in Israel. Similar to the ruling of the Honorable Justice Shaked in Civil Case 70429-03-23, the court also referred to the importance of creating a situation in which two brothers will have similar marital status. It was held as follows:
" 22. ... In light of the real difficulty that arose in light of the procedure that requires residency as a condition for obtaining a judicial parenting order, and the harm to the children's best interests, I am of the opinion that an alternative remedy should be given to the petitioners, which is the remedy given in other cases - the granting of a judicial parenting order, without a residency requirement in Israel. As the Petitioners, and Petitioner 1, who is mainly an Israeli citizen, rightly argue, leaving the family unit in which there are two brothers, each in a different status, harms or is liable to harm their interests. ...
- The barrier facing the Petitioner to obtain a judicial parenting order stems from a procedure adopted by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs in this matter, which stipulates that the application must be submitted relatively close to the birth, dates that have long since passed, and in addition establishes a requirement that the parents be residents of Israel. The solution of a judicial parenting order is given in the absence of legislation regulating the issue as a whole, and therefore the petitioners should also be allowed to benefit from this solution and not be left in an absurd situation of different parenting in different countries, with all the difficulties that stem from this and the possible harm to the best interests of the children. Therefore, it should be determined that in this case, the petitioners will be allowed to submit an appropriate application for a judicial parenting order even though they are not Israeli residents.
- This result is consistent with the rulings of the family courts, which ruled that in certain cases the best interests of the child require the issuance of a judicial parenting order even when the residency conditions are not met. Thus, in Family (Family Jerusalem) case 12752-09-23 Anonymous v. Attorney General (Nevo, April 2, 2024), the Honorable Judge Michal Bardenstein reviewed the procedure and the recommendations of the committee that preceded it, and ruled that due to the principle of the best interests of the child, a judicial parenting order should be allowed even in the case of a non-resident. It is true that there were parents who lived in Israel, but this is also true for our case. Similarly, in Family Appeal 47781-12-19 State of Israel v. K.M.L. (Nevo, given on January 4, 2021), an exception was made to the residency requirement in similar circumstances. ...
In light of this, another judgment in a family case (Family Tel Aviv-Jaffa) 26335-07-24 Anonymous v. Attorney General (Nevo, March 1, 2025). Admittedly, the exceptions that were brought in a particular tax appeal above, and adopted in subsequent case law, do not include a case like the one before me, however, the Petitioners must be allowed some solution,...
- This solution is a proportionate, specific solution, which excludes the Petitioners' case and allows them to be given the solution adopted by the Supreme Court in similar cases, as an interim solution, until the matter as a whole is settled in legislation. It should be emphasized that this is a procedure and not a piece of legislation (in this regard, see: in Tax Appeal 5620/22 The Attorney General v. Anonymous (Nevo, December 27, 2022), where it was held that adoption should not be allowed when the parents, Israeli citizens, live abroad due to an explicit provision in the Adoption Law). ..."
As it became clear in the hearing that took place before me on February 26, 2026, the Respondent did not appeal the judgment in the Dana case, and this became conclusive (counsel for the Applicants, who also represented the Applicants in the same proceeding, noted that she had filed an application for a judicial parenting order that is pending due to the Respondent's objection, and has not yet been decided).
- Thus, the non-fulfillment of the residency requirement, according to state policy, is not a consideration that can overcome the weighty considerations that concern the minor's best interests, and which tip the scales.
Conclusion
- In summary, all the considerations related to the minor's best interest clearly tip the scales in favor of granting a judicial parenting order.
- The applicants are spouses who have maintained a stable and committed relationship in Israel for several years, and together they lead a joint household and a full family life. They serve as joint mothers of Minor A, in respect of whom a judicial parenting order has already been issued recognizing Applicant 1 as a parent. Since the birth of Minor B, they have been taking care of her upbringing and well-being together, as they do for their eldest daughter. The two minors flocked to the donor's sperm. No allegation was raised regarding the misuse of this proceeding in bad faith, with the aim of granting status to the minor (even if it would be an indirect result of the order). In fact, the Applicants' joint lifestyle attests to an honest and genuine parental intention in parenting the minor and bringing her into the world as part of the expansion of the family. Failure to issue a judicial parenting order in these circumstances will prevent the minor from recognizing another parent and will deprive Applicant 2 of all the parental rights, duties and powers granted by law. This result is inconsistent with the best interests of the minor. In addition, this will prevent the recognition of the significant sibling relationship between minor B and her sister A, a fact that also harms the minor's best interests. These considerations support the issuance of the requested order.
- The residency requirement is not anchored in law, and as we have seen, in any case it does not override the decisive considerations regarding the minor's best interest. However, even according to the recommendations of the inter-ministerial team, on which the state's position is based, the condition of practical residency is met in our case. With regard to the condition of substantive residency, even according to the recommendations of the inter-ministerial team, flexibility is maintained in its application in the appropriate exceptional cases due to considerations related to the best interests of the minor. Given the aforesaid, in my opinion, the respondent would have been expected to include the case at hand within the framework of the exceptions in which the granting of a judicial parenting order should be granted, even in her opinion, and this is due to the totality of the considerations related to the minor's best interest, as described in the judgment, and as required by other rulings that have been given with respect to the issue of residency as well.
- In view of the totality of the aforesaid, the application is granted.
- Accordingly, a judicial parenting order is hereby issued stating that Applicant 2 is an additional parent of Minor B, and this ... . I determine that all the duties, rights and powers that exist in law between a parent and his child apply between Applicant 2 and the minor, all without prejudice to the status of Applicant 1 as the mother of the minor.
- The state will bear the attorney's fees and expenses of the applicants in the sum of ILS 25,000 to be paid within 30 days, otherwise they will bear linkage differences and interest in accordance with the law until the actual payment.
- The judgment will be published, subject to the omission of identifying details about any of the family members.
- The Secretariat will send the judgment to the parties and close the case.
Granted today, February 27, 2026, in the absence of the parties.