When I went down to buy a Coke, she saw fit to take off her pants at my house and when I came back the buttons started to close. It's only motivated by frustration because she knows me. We have friendships. She sat at our house, we did karaoke, she drank at our house, barbecues on the fire, and when she wanted to smoke drugs at my place I didn't accept it and I said under no circumstances and I also believe that I don't come close to it. It came unequivocally from there. After she saw that on TikTok we also raised our marriage and our family, it created even more jealousy and I don't have a word to describe what's happening here. That's Solomon's trial, what's happening here.
- The conduct toward the sperm bank (after the separation)
- As noted in the first part of the judgment (paragraph 95 above), the defendant explicitly stated in the follow-up form at the Sperm Bank, on April 10, 2016: "She does not want the donor to be used by her spouse - (the plaintiff)."
The testimony of the director of the sperm bank indicates that apparently the two spouses were present in the room at the time of writing this note, and the following are his words (p. 86, paras. 4-6 of the transcript of December 28, 2023):
"I don't know, I assume from the record that they did come together. From my familiarity with our procedure, so far I have not had a case where a single woman came to me and wrote that she did not want her partner who did not show up at all to write it down. This sentence would not have been written if she had not been present in that room.
- With regard to the plaintiff's application to the sperm bank regarding herself, it appears from the documents she presented that on December 2, 2018, she first applied to choose a sperm donor with the same characteristics (Appendix 2, p. 9 of her supplementary exhibits of February 22, 2024), but did not purchase anything. Shortly thereafter, she received an invitation for the tests, but it is not clear if she came to them. Later on, she was summoned for tests scheduled for September 11, 2019, but shortly after that date she had an accident. On January 18, 2020, she was examined by a gynecologist at the hospital in the north, and on September 16, 2020, she underwent an ultrasound examination and was summoned to the sperm bank for November 22, 2020 (Appendices 5-7, pp. 15-20 of the supplementary exhibits), but this process did not bear fruit.
In practice, only on July 25, 2022 (about a week after the visit to the plaintiff in which she discovered that her partner was pregnant), did the plaintiff contact the sperm bank with a request to purchase doses from a sperm donor whose characteristics were identical to the sperm donor chosen by the defendant and sent to complete tests (Appendix 4 to the statement of claim, pp. 31-32).
- The plaintiff admitted that in fact she went to the sperm bank with her mother and received the donor's data through the defendant's ID number , and the following are her words in her cross-examination (pp. 32, paras. 21-29 of the transcript):
"There is nothing left of the donor's doses in the hospital. I went into the sperm bank and checked with him that he might have leftover from those doses. I didn't use any illegal way. I went to the manager of the sperm bank there and told him and I know in retrospect fromthe defendant that he told us that there would be no more doses from that donor. That was when we started the process. He said there were 10 last doses of the same donor left.