Family file (Ashed) 29823-03-23 Anonymous vs. Anonymous

 Claims after the Litigation Settlement 22355-04-23 Anonymous vs.  Anonymous (Parental Responsibility andLength of Stay)

Regarding the minor:                       A.  Born 7/11/18

                                     Through Adv. Lital Kozkov

This judgment concerns a minor who was born when the plaintiff and the defendant were spouses.  The defendant gave birth to the minor through an anonymous sperm donation, the couple raised the minor together, but never entered into a parenting agreement.  The couple separated, the plaintiff had a serious accident and the relationship with the minor gradually faded.

A few months later, the plaintiff petitioned for a judicial parenting order, parental responsibility and time of residence, which the defendant opposes.  Was there a joint parenting intention and what is the minor's best interest? These are the questions on the agenda.

Background and related proceedings, on the timeline:

1. The plaintiff and the defendant began a marital relationship in 2014 and on December 7, 2014 they moved in together as common-law partners. At the beginning of 2015, the defendant contacted the sperm bank and began pre-pregnancy tests.
2. On December 20, 2015, the two reported to the offices of "New Family" and issued a "notice of registration of a relationship", without any reference to the matter of parenthood.
3. In January 2016, the defendant received a notice from the Sperm Bank regarding the process she had to undergo.
4. On February 11, 2016, the two held a wedding party, attended by family and friends from both sides.
5. In April 2016, the defendant notified the sperm bank in writing that she was requesting that the plaintiff not be able to purchase doses from the same sperm donor.
6. The defendant underwent fertilization through an anonymous sperm donation (a process that began even before the wedding) and on July 11, 2018, minor A. was born.
7. The couple's relationship was in crisis, inter alia, against the background of financial difficulties that accompanied them from the beginning of the relationship, including the plaintiff's bankruptcy proceedings, the defendant's claims against the plaintiff regarding drug use that affected her behavior and the treatment of the minor, and the plaintiff's claims regarding a relationship that the defendant had with another.
8. In October 2020, the plaintiff left the rented apartment and on December 3, 2020, a certificate was received regarding the cancellation of the couple's marital registration on behalf of the New Family organization, without referring to the issue of parenthood.
9. The minor moved in with the defendant (her biological mother) with her new partner (B), while maintaining contact with the plaintiff, at a frequency whose scope is disputed, as will be detailed below.
10. On September 15, 2021, the plaintiff suffered a serious car accident due to which she underwent surgery at the hospital, from where she was transferred to rehabilitative frameworks and finally to her parents' home in the north. The defendant brought the minor to meetings with the plaintiff in the north several times, when their frequency gradually decreased, as will be clarified below.
11. On March 22, 2022, the plaintiff informed the defendant that she understood that the relationship between her and the minor was ending, after seeing her holding a family painting in which she wrote the name of the defendant's spouse as her additional mother. Later, she left the kindergarten children's WhatsApp group and stopped participating in funding the minor's needs.
12. On July 17, 2022, about a week after the minor's fourth birthday and a long time after the previous meeting, the plaintiff came to visit her and give her a birthday present. In this meeting, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant's new spouse (B) was seven months pregnant.
13. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916On July 25, 2022, the plaintiff approached the sperm bank with a request to purchase portions from the donor whose sperm was fertilized by the defendant, informing the defendant that she had done so so that the minor would "have a sister" as she put it. The defendant was angry that this was done in clear contravention of her request.  From that date onwards, no meetings were held with the minor.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

14. On August 27, 2022, a baby girl was born to the defendant's spouse, and on November 23, 2023, the defendant was issued a judicial parenting order with respect to this minor, with the consent of the new spouse (in family file 64146-02-23).
15. On December 25, 2022 (about half a year since the last meeting), the plaintiff initiated a dispute resolution proceeding (Dispute Resolution 53265-12-22), the parties held a conversation with Mahut, but did not reach an agreement, and thus the proceeding was closed.
16. On February 8, 2023 , the defendant married her new partner (B), and on March 2, 2023, the two petitioned to allow the new spouse to adopt the minor who is the subject of this proceeding. Counsel for the appellant, the family, announced that she was of the opinion that the clarification of the said proceeding should be frozen until the conclusion of the investigation of this proceeding, and this was done.  This was even clarified at the first hearing of the claims dealt with in this judgment.
17. On March 14, 2023, the plaintiff petitioned for a judicial parenting order (in family case 29823-03-24) claiming that they had decided together to bring the minor into the world and that she served as her additional psychological mother.
18. On April 16, 2023, she petitioned for the determination of joint parental responsibility and time of residence (in family file 22355-04-23);

Upon submission of the statement of claim, I ordered the submission of a report on behalf of the Child Welfare Service.

19. On May 9, 2023, the biological mother filed a statement of defense regarding the parenting order, in which she claimed that it was a difficult relationship, that there was no consent to joint parenting, that the plaintiff did not take part in raising the toddler, and that she had even cut off contact with her about a year before the filing of the statement of defense.
20. On May 30, 2023, the plaintiff submitted a reply in which she denied the claims of the biological mother.
21. At the same time, I ordered the appointment of an attorney for the minor, and on June 6, 2023, Attorney Lital Kozkov was appointed to this position.
22. On June 13, 2023, the biological mother filed a statement of defense regarding the length of stay, in which she raised similar arguments in respect of which she believes that there is no point in allowing the plaintiff to maintain time with the minor.
23. On the same day, the appellant's counsel informed the family that she was not intervening in the matter of the time of stay, regarding the parenting order, she needed a report before formulating her position, and therefore she was requesting an exemption from appearing for the first hearing.
24. On June 14, 2025, the Apotheque informed the court that she had spoken with the defendants, who reiterated their positions, and had even spoken with the minor, who as far as she was concerned, was living with a "mother in the womb". As for the former spouse (the plaintiff), she was also under the impression that the plaintiff was not part of the minor's life and that she remembered her only partially.

Copied from Nevo

25. At the first pre-trial meeting on June 15, 2023, it was decided, inter alia, that the parties would return to meet with the social worker of the Assistance Unit, who would also hold a conversation with the minor and announce her position within a week. Instructions were also given regarding the urgency of submitting the report of the Child Welfare Social Worker.
26. The Assistance Unit announced that it would not be able to hold a conversation with the minor in light of its age, and on June 26, 2023, it announced that it had met with the legal owner, heard the life story given by each of them, and offered them a way to promote consent, but this did not help.
27. On July 11, 2023, a partial report was submitted by the Social Worker for the Child Ms. Tzlil Deri, in which she detailed her conversations with the litigants, noted all the disputes between them and the difficulty due to the lack of parenting documents (as opposed to spousal documents) and noted that she would later speak with the minor.
28. At the second pre-trial meeting on July 13, 2023, counsel for the appellant informed the family that in her opinion, the question of joint intention and the other criteria required for a judicial parenting order should first be clarified, the existence of which is a necessary condition for determining time of stay. In the decision given at the end of the hearing, it was determined that the two questions should be clarified together , and therefore the social worker would complete the report after a conversation with the minor and an interaction meeting between her and the plaintiff in a neutral environment.  At the same time, dates were set for evidentiary hearings.
29. On August 16, 2023, a meeting was held between the minor and the plaintiff in the presence of the social worker and the legal guardian, after separate preparatory meetings with each of the litigants. The minor refused to enter the meeting and only after many attempts at persuasion did she agree.  When she entered the room, the minor plaintiff was also initially reluctant, but later she played a game brought to her by the plaintiff and tasted the chocolate she had given her.  The plaintiff told the minor, "I love you and miss you, and you will know that my heart and yours are never separated," but the minor replied, "He is separated."
30. On October 10, 2023, the social worker's report regarding the said meeting was submitted, in which she notes that after the meeting, the minor told her that she was not interested in another meeting with the plaintiff. The social worker was under the impression that in view of the disconnect created by the circumstances, the plaintiff is not a significant figure in the minor's life, and therefore the issuance of a parenting order will not advance the minor's best interests.  It is also of the opinion that there is no reason to set time between the plaintiff and the minor, as this will weigh heavily on her emotionally and may cause her to create dangerous split mechanisms.  However, she believes that the correct narrative regarding her life story should be mediated by the minor.
31. With the outbreak of the "Iron Sword" war following the Hamas massacre in southern communities on October 7, 2023, the plaintiff sought to instruct the defendant to update her on the minor's condition during the missile attacks on residents of the south. On October 20, 2023, I instructed the defendant to do so.  An application for leave to appeal filed in this matter (Family Appeal Leave 50190-10-23) was deleted on October 30, 2023.
32. On October 23, 2025, counsel for the family appellant announced that in view of the dispute on the question of the joint intention to bring the minor into the world, the factual dispute regarding the nature of the relationship and the factual dispute regarding the first years of the minor's upbringing, she wishes not to take part in the factual clarification, to hold it between the parties only, and to leave the decision on these questions in the hands of the court. Therefore, she requested that she be exempted from the first three evidentiary hearings and announced that she would appear for the last hearing, at which the Social Worker for the Child was supposed to testify.
33. On October 29, 2023, the plaintiff petitioned to order the resumption of meetings with the minor, so that she would not be forgotten. The next day, it was decided that the defendant and the court would announce their position within 7 days.  On November 6, 2023, the court announced that in view of the state of emergency in which the country is at the beginning of the war, when the minor lives with her mother in a settlement in the south, which is under heavy missile barrages, it is doubtful that she will be available for this matter, and therefore believes that it is in the minor's best interest to clarify the question of the parenting order first and only afterwards the matter of the relationship.  On November 8, 2023, the defendant announced that the application itself indicates that the applicant does not see the best interests of the minor and that she too believes that this should be discussed only at the end of the proceeding.  Regarding the parenting order, many decisions were made regarding the date of the evidentiary hearings due to the emergency orders due to the war.  A decision regarding the meetings was not made, inadvertently, but the Applicant did not raise this matter either.  Presumably, she realized that the process of resuming contact under missiles and sirens could encounter difficulty.
34. Prior to the evidentiary hearings, exhibits were submitted on behalf of the two parties, as follows:

On September 20, 2023, the defendant filed an exhibits file, and on December 28, 2023, she filed additional documents;