Family file (Ashed) 29823-03-23 Anonymous vs. Anonymous - part 2

On October 9, 2023, the plaintiff submitted a file of exhibits, including medical documents and the wedding albums;

On December 24, 2023, she submitted additional documents, and on January 8, 2024, she submitted a mobile store of videos;

and on February 22, 2024, she submitted additional documents regarding the dates of her applications to the Sperm Bank.

35. The evidentiary hearings (which were postponed for about two months due to the emergency orders) were held consecutively, on the following dates:

On December 19, 2023, the first evidentiary hearing was held, in which each of the parties testified;

On December 26, 2023, the social worker and the plaintiff's sister testified;

On December 28, 2023, the director of the laboratory at the sperm bank at the S.  Medical Center testified.  At the end of his testimony, it was decided that he would submit a printout regarding the sperm donation process, and on January 8, 2024, the required documents were submitted.

On January 22, 2014, the defendant's father, the plaintiff's mother, the defendant's friend, the defendant's father, and the defendant's spouse, Ms. B., testified.  On February 22, 2024, another meeting was held to complete the cross-examinations of the parties, in which the minor's kindergarten teacher also testified.

36. At the end of the hearing, it was suggested to the counsel for the parties to consider formulating an agreement after a meeting with a professional source. The attorneys announced that they were conducting negotiations and had asked for an extension to submit it, but on May 8, 2024, they announced that despite their sincere attempts, they had not been able to promote an agreement between the parties.  Therefore, on May 19, 2024, I ordered the submission of summaries.  On September 6, 2024, the plaintiff's summaries were submitted, on December 31, 2024, the defendant's summaries, on February 24, 2025, the summaries of the lawsuit, and on March 19, 2025, the plaintiff's response summaries.
37. The main arguments of the litigants on the two issues on the agenda will be presented below, followed by the legal situation, followed by the question of the judicial parenting order and finally the question of parental responsibility and the length of stay.

The main arguments of the plaintiff (who claims to be parent)

38. Regarding the claim for a parenting order, she claims that the two met in 2014, began living together as common-law couples on December 7, 2014, registered as a couple as part of a "new family" and married in February 2016 in a wedding ceremony for all intents and purposes, with the intention of having a child together.
39. She claims that they tried to conceive even before the wedding, but the pregnancy ended when the fetus was five months old. The plaintiff was close to the defendant and immediately afterwards they continued their efforts to bring a child into the world in a joint process.
40. claims that they chose to bring the minor together by way of sperm donation, they agreed that the fertilization would be carried out in the defendant's body and that the minor would be their joint home. She claims that she was a full partner in the proceeding, was present at the insemination process, was registered as the contact person at the sperm bank, accompanied the defendant during pregnancy and childbirth, including receiving an identification bracelet at the hospital like any parent.
41. She claims that they made a "covenant" for the minor together, the plaintiff's father gave an advance for the event and the rest of the sum was married by the couple. The plaintiff's family members and parents were present at the event, who saw her as their granddaughter and opened a savings fund for her, as they do for all their grandchildren.
42. She added that the name of the minor was chosen by the two, the minor called the plaintiff "my mother" and the defendant as "mother" (it should be noted that the plaintiff uses these nicknames throughout the summaries).
43. From the day the minor was born, they both treated the minor as their shared home, as she was introduced to family and friends, the kindergarten teacher and the family doctor. notes that she was an active partner in raising the minor.
44. notes that the reason why during the course of their life together they did not act to regulate the minor's status through a parenting agreement was a lack of money, when she believed that the agreement between them still stands. In the summaries of the reply, she claimed that this was an agreement in a criminal appeal to bring the minor as a joint minor.
45. She claims that after about seven years of marriage, she discovered that the defendant had cheated on her with another and on November 23, 2020, she left the shared rented apartment.
46. She claims that even after the separation, they continued to raise the minor together in full cooperation and in an equal manner, and every decision regarding the raising of the minor was shared. After the separation and until the last accident, she used to take the minor out of the nursery on Mondays and Wednesdays on a regular basis.
47. It claims that it appoints the needs of the minor and transferred money for it to the defendant on a regular basis.
48. Claims that after the serious car accident she underwent on September 15, 2021 and the long rehabilitation process that followed, the defendant brought the minor to her parents' home once every two or three weeks, and the minor even celebrated some of their holidays.
49. However, at a stage when she could not continue to transfer funds to the minor's economy, due to the loss of her livelihood due to the accident, the defendant began to prevent the meetings, and beginning in August, the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to speak with the minor and to allow any meeting with her.
50. According to her, the defendant's claim regarding the donation from the sperm bank is unfounded, since she applied for a donation from the same donor back in 2018, when the two had a proper marital and family relationship.

She argues that there is no basis for the defendant's claims regarding her desire for revenge, since her entire desire is in contact with the minor.

51. From a legal perspective, it is believed that the establishment of parenthood is determined by the tests set out in case law and not according to a psychological theory that examines the best interests of the minor, a matter that has not been examined so far by an objective professional body.
52. Alternatively, she also argues that an examination of the minor's best interests teaches that a judicial parenting order must be issued, in order to stabilize her place in the minor's life and allow her to continue to maintain contact with the two dominant parental figures in her life.
53. With regard to the claim for parental responsibility, it is of the opinion that determining its existence will significantly advance the minor's best interest in enjoying a stable family framework, as it was until the date of the accident.
54. Regarding the claim for equal time of stay, she claims that this will allow her to continue to be involved in raising the minor as she did until she was separated.
55. It is reasonable to assume that all the testimonies support her claims and therefore she should be given a judicial parenting order, joint parental responsibility and equal time spent with her.

The main arguments of the defendant (the biological mother)

56. Regarding the claim for a judicial parenting order, she claims that the marital relationship began only on December 20, 2015, when they held only a couple's party and not a marriage ceremony.
57. Claims that the claim was filed as an act of revenge for the termination of the relationship. They never made a parenting agreement, never opened a joint file with the sperm bank, did not apply to a surrogacy agency together, and did not even sign a joint signature before a notary regarding the joint intention of parenthood, simply because it never existed.
58. Claims that the plaintiff delayed for too long in filing the claim, which was born out of jealousy and a desire for revenge and not out of a genuine desire to take part in raising the minor. This is evidenced by her separation from the minor for a year and a half, and the fact that she never raised her desire to anchor motherhood in the Bible.
59. Claims that she brought the minor into the world by personal decision, regardless of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not present at the insemination process (but rather another friend of the defendant) and was not even a partner in choosing the minor's name.  Claims that there was a complete separation according to which the defendant is and only the mother of the minor.  The defendant never saw the possibility that the plaintiff would serve the minor as an additional mother.  notes that she was the main and exclusive caregiver of the minor.
60. Denies that the plaintiff's father paid for the minor's "Brita" party.
61. Claims that the plaintiff did not have even a minimal parental role over the minor as a parent and in fact constituted only a dangerous factor in the minor's life.
62. She also claims that she tried for a long time to end the difficult relationship with the plaintiff, who "trapped" her when she was only 20 years old, while the plaintiff was 29 years old, obsessive, dependent and addicted to drugs. She claims that the plaintiff makes heavy and daily use of drugs, which has affected her moods and her daily conduct.  She claimed that the plaintiff is a negative figure who is irresponsible and motivated to live.  notes that on December 2, 2020, the plaintiff left the rented apartment, thus ending the relationship between them.
63. She claims that from the date of the separation, the relationship between the plaintiff and the minor was almost severed, with the exception of a few visits out of good will only. She claims that the plaintiff herself said that the place of rehabilitation in which she is located, "Beit Levinstein", is not a good place for the minor, and thus prevented the strengthening of the relationship.  The minor celebrated the Jewish holidays with her and on the plaintiff's birthday she took the minor to visit her as a gesture of goodwill and nothing more.  In practice, for the past three years, the plaintiff has not seen the minor.
64. claims that the plaintiff never paid alimony for the minor. The transfers to her bank account were made for the payment of a loan they had taken for the purpose of purchasing a car, and on the date when she repaid the loan in full on the car together with her current partner, the transfers to her account stopped.
65. She claims that on the day the plaintiff discovered that her new partner was pregnant, jealousy overwhelmed her and then she decided to contact the same sperm donor (despite the defendant's objections) to demand contact with the minor and even to demand a parenting order.
66. She claims that the plaintiff fraudulently used the marriage certificate about two years after it was canceled, in order to trace the anonymous sperm donor and conceive from that donor, in order to tie her to her life.
67. notes that for the past two and a half years she has been in a beneficial relationship with Mrs. B. and with the toddler who was born to her , who serves as the sister of minor A , the subject of the proceeding.  The two daughters are raised as sisters, in a family unit that benefits them, with her partner being a positive and optimal figure for the minor.
68. claims that the reason why the plaintiff's status in relation to the minor was never regulated is that such a possibility never came up on the agenda. According to her, the delay taken by the plaintiff in opening the proceeding regarding her recognition as the mother of the minor attests to a lack of cleanliness.
69. argues that this is an extreme case in which there is a clear indication that the establishment of parenthood will harm the minor's well-being, soul, feelings and well-being.
70. Claims that the plaintiff did not lift the burden imposed on her with regard to the joint intention of the parties to conceive, was not involved in the upbringing of the minor, did not regulate her status in the registry and created a prolonged disconnect with her, for which there is no basis for the issuance of a judicial parenting order.
71. Regarding parental responsibility and time of stay, she argues that they have no place in the absence of a judicial parenting order.
72. For all these reasons, it is of the opinion that all the claims should be dismissed.

The main points of the Attorney General's position on the minor:

73. The main question , according to her , is the best interests of the minor, in which it is necessary to examine whether the plaintiff serves as a significant parental figure to the minor at the time of initiation of the proceedings and what was the nature of the relationship before it was severed.
74. notes that there is no congruence between the parties' versions and there is even no communication between them, which has serious implications for the minor's future and on her mental and emotional development.
75. Notes that even if the parties had a joint intention to bring a child into the world and raise him together, this intention was not translated into acts such as a spousal declaration form, a criminal appeal, section 23 of the Sperm Bank Procedure, signing a joint declaration of intent before her parents, or signing a parenting agreement. This is in contrast to what is customary and customary in such cases by jointly signing the required documents.
76. It is of the opinion that the delay in filing the application for a parenting order, after the weakening of the relationship and a prolonged break from July 2022, and after the minor turned 4 years, when the relationship between the spouses was at a low point, the defendant's spouse was pregnant and the plaintiff turned to the sperm bank in order to purchase a portion from the defendant's willed donor, all of these create a difficulty regarding the application for a judicial parenting order.
77. She argues that even if during the pregnancy and childbirth and over a certain short period of life together, the plaintiff was involved in the minor's life and was "my mother" to her, the fact that after they separated her involvement in the minor's life decreased significantly, raises great difficulty.
78. is of the opinion that it is in the minor's best interest in the circumstances of her life not to grant the request for a judicial parenting order in relation to the plaintiff, who is no longer a significant figure in the minor's life. Considering the plaintiff's part in the delay and the lack of active action in all matters relating to arranging a parenting agreement as evidence of the joint intention to have a child together, there is no reason to grant an order.
79. With regard to the renewal of the relationship without a parenting order, she believes that at this stage, the chances of a significant renewal of the relationship for the benefit of the minor are low and may force the minor to be drawn into the powerful and ongoing conflict between the parties.
80. She also believes that a therapeutic response should be provided to the minor in order to ensure the existence of a proper narrative in the minor regarding her life story. For this purpose, a therapeutic person must be appointed who will understand the minor's perception of reality and what is the required guidance for the litigants.

The Legal Framework:

81. A judicial parenting order, as is well known, is based on the parenting pillar known as "Affinity to Affiliation", which was first determined in the case of the High Court of Justice 566/11 Mamet Megged v. Ministry of the Interior (Nevo, 28/1/14) and was called by that name in the Supreme Court in Tax Appeal 1118/14 Anonymous v.  Ministry of Welfare (Nevo, April 1, 2015) by the Honorable Justice Hendel, who clarified that this pillar expresses recognition of the parenthood of a person who has no genetic or physiological connection to the newborn.  By virtue of the marital relationship he maintains with the parent who has the classic parental connections, i.e., the biological ones.
82. The prerequisites for this purpose were brought in Family Appeal (Haifa District) 28901-03-17 Appellant Family v. Anonymous (Nevo 24/5/18) and later also in another civil hearing 1297-20 Anonymous v.  Family Appellant (Nevo, 25/7/22) on the basis of the outline of the family appellant's counsel, and these are:

• "There is a need for two spouses to sign a parenting agreement , which is an agreement between the spouses according to which the spouse agrees to conceive from sperm donation...
• "Spouses" are defined as those who live together and maintain a family life and a joint household and are not married to another.
• Subject to the fact that the couple is 21 years old,
• that they were a couple for at least 18 months before they made the parenting agreement,
• that 90 days have not passed from the date of birth to the date of submission of the application,
• That the spouse has not been convicted of violent or sexual offenses whose severity or circumstances there is a concern of significant harm to the child's best interests...
• A court will not issue a parenting order if it finds that it is contrary to the best interests of the child, and for the purpose of examining the matter, the court may use a social worker's report.

83. With regard to the question of the joint intention to establish parenthood, in Tax Appeal 4741/21 Anonymous v. Anonymous (Nevo 21/7/22) it was held that today, when the need for a parenting agreement is known and known to the public, the question of why the parties did not apply in real time to arrange parenting status, may raise a question as to their intention:

"Today, about 10 years after the birth of the minor, the heel of the judicial parenting order has been widely recognized, and many requests are being submitted for such an order.  In the current period, in which the parenting order is entrenched, the passage of time may actually raise the question of why the parties did not apply in real time to arrange the status of the spouse, if indeed they agreed to create joint parenthood.  This, on the evidentiary level, is to determine the couple's intention."