It should be noted here that the plaintiff's desire to receive a donation from that person is natural and understandable (as noted in my decision from the hearing on July 13, 2023), but this raises a great difficulty where she is explicitly aware that the defendant is not interested in doing so. In the end, she managed to purchase the sperm units she wanted, but along the way she lost the defendant's faith and even the relationship with the minor.
The conduct of the time that elapsed until the commencement of the legal proceedings
- In the period of time that elapsed from July 2022 until the plaintiff's first application to the court, the plaintiff did not claim or even present any evidence that she contacted the defendant in order to hold meetings with the minor, despite the quarrel between them.
This is in contrast to other cases discussed in the case law cited above, in which a spouse who does not have a biological connection recurs and asks to maintain a relationship despite the difficult disputes.
It is understandable that the plaintiff was in the emotional difficulty, but it was expected that she would succeed in transcending this matter, from a view to the minor's best interests as first and foremost. This conduct, in and of itself, raises great doubt as to the parent's intention in the first place and even as to the desire for time to stay.
- In fact, it was only at the end of December 2022, about half a year after the last meeting with the minor, that the plaintiff first approached the court in a dispute resolution proceeding, in which it was stated that "since a dispute arose between me and the defendant, who is the mother of my home, I apply to the judicial instance with a request to resolve the dispute without litigation and to refer it to the assistance unit next to the judicial instance."
The plaintiff did not file any request to secure contact in this framework (unlike what is done in similar proceedings conducted in this court), and thus three more months passed without anything.
- The statement of claim for a judicial parenting order was filed only in March 2023. Although this was done near the end of the stay of proceedings, in relation to the minor it is "too little and too late".
- In practice, the first meeting took place as part of the service report for the child in July 2023, about a year after the last meeting with the minor. When it comes to "child time", a period of time that constitutes about 1/5 of the minor's life, it is very significant. At this stage, the plaintiff's image was a thing of the past, as emerges from the report that will be presented below.
- The conclusion that arises from the date of the opening of the proceedings in court is that the plaintiff waited too long from the date of the last filing until she applied to the court, and even then she did not petition for an immediate renewal of the relationship. In light of the case law cited above (in Tax Appeal 4741/21, ibid.), this matter raises a question as to the seriousness of the plaintiff's intentions.
Interim Summary: Was there a joint parenting intent?
- From the above, it appears that the parties established their relationship in a written document as required and even established their separation in a written document. This is not the case with regard to the matter of parenthood, which they did not bother to establish in any way, despite the fact that the possibility of fulfilling it was also well known to the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff showered love on the minor, calling her "my mother", the defendant also gave her the feeling that she was the mother of the minor, but other aspects of the litigant's conduct raise doubts about the intention of joint parenthood.
- The defendant's objection to the plaintiff purchasing the same sperm unit, the lack of a common last name, the many difficulties during the relationship, the crisis of trust surrounding the plaintiff's workplace, the bankruptcy process, the use of drugs, the emotional instability, the refusal to meet the minor in the presence of the defendant's new partner, the announcement that the relationship was over, the anger over the new spouse's pregnancy, the exit from the kindergarten WhatsApp group from the moment the new spouse entered it, The purchase of the sperm unit from the same donor in a defiant manner against the defendant's wishes and in violation of her privacy, the cessation of funding for the minor' s needs, the long delay in the many months that passed until the filing of the lawsuit, the manner in which her image in the minor's world is gradually fading, all of these cast doubt on the intention of joint parenthood, in the absence of an agreement.
- As to the claim that the plaintiff added in her summaries that this was an oral agreement, there is no room for this argument. Even if the plaintiff understood from the defendant that this was the relationship between them, even if the defendant caused the plaintiff to believe that there was no need for a parenting agreement, this does not establish the inseparable obligation directly towards the minor, even if she separates.
- In this situation, in which doubt arises as to the intention of joint parenthood, the question of the minor's best interests takes on a particularly significant place. To do this, it is necessary to examine things from her eyes.
Third, what is the best interest of the minor?
- A review of the social worker's report dated October 10, 2023, which describes the preliminary conversation with the minor prior to the meeting with the plaintiff and even the meeting with the plaintiff herself, shows that the plaintiff is no longer a parental figure in the minor's life, as will be detailed below.
- On July 26, 2023, the social worker met the minor at her home inthe south in the presence of the defendant, when at that time the defendant's spouse (B) and her toddler child were also found in the house, and describes the following about her (on pp. 3-4 of the report):
- The minor ran freely around her house and gradually approached her. The social worker suggested that the minor draw a drawing, the minor drew herself, the defendant, her spouse and her daughter, wrote their names and happily noted: "The whole family in one square" (p. 3 in the middle).
- When the social worker asked the minor if she was interested in adding another name, the minor replied in the negative. When she asked her about the book "Mother Belly Mother Heart Mother Heart" she sat with her mother, looked at the book and said:
"Well, it's like B. is the mother of her baby's womb and her heart mother