Second, the question of the existence of a joint parenting intention must be examined, mainly through a parenting agreement. In his absence, it is necessary to clarify the reason for this and to examine from the rest of the evidence what was her real intention regarding the establishment of parenthood, through all the relevant circles, including the sperm bank, the degree of involvement in the child's upbringing in the various periods, the educational frameworks, the family members, the economic conduct, and even the date of the application to the courts.
Third, it is necessary to examine what is in the best interest of the minor, when in the meantime the question of whether he is the petitioner for a parental order is still serving as a significant parental figure in the eyes of the minor.
- With regard to the claim for parental responsibility and the time of stay, a distinction must be made between two channels:
Insofar as there is a judicial parenting order, this matter must be addressed, due to the very status given to the petitioner as a parent, while determining the scope of parental responsibility and the scope of the time spent in accordance with the best interests of the child who is the subject of the proceeding, as ruled in the tax appeal 4880/18 Anonymous v. The Attorney General (Nevo, January 24, 2019).
In the absence of a judicial parenting order, the sole consideration is the best interest of the child, and therefore, in practice, this will be done only in rare cases where there is a significant relationship between the minor and the petitioner, at the stage of initiating the proceeding, such as the one that was heard in Family Case 58503-05-16 Anonymous v. Anonymous (Nevo, August 4, 2021)
- In the matter before us, in light of the above, the claim for a judicial parenting order will first be clarified, and only afterwards will the claim for determining parental custody and determining the time of stay be clarified.
Chapter 1: The Claim for a Judicial Parenting Order
- An examination of the evidence that will be detailed below shows that the parties made sure to anchor in the documents their relationship and separation, but not the matter of parenthood, despite the fact that this could have been done both at the beginning of the relationship, at the time of the minor's parenting, after her birth, and prior to separation. The defendant dealt with the sperm bank separately from the plaintiff, with reservations about her involvement, in a manner that raises doubt as to the intention of joint parenthood. The couple did indeed lead a life together and raised the minor together, but after the separation and the serious accident that the plaintiff underwent, a separation was gradually created between her and the minor, partly due to the plaintiff's choices, in a manner that raises great doubt as to the intention of joint parenthood. The encounter between the minor and the plaintiff in the framework of the report also raises doubts regarding the minor's best interests. Below we will detail things in order.
First, regarding the intention of the joint relationship:
- The plaintiff and the defendant began a marital relationship in 2014 and on December 7, 2014 they moved in together as common-law partners, as detailed in the affidavit dated December 20, 2015 (Appendix 3, p. 9 to the plaintiff's exhibits file). At the time the affidavit was drafted, the two appeared at the offices of "New Family" and issued a "Notice of Registration of Partnerships" (Appendix 3, p. 15 to the plaintiff's exhibits file).
- On February 11, 2016, the two held a wedding party with the participation of family members and friends from both sides, with the defendant in a wedding dress and the plaintiff in a groom's suit (Appendix 4, pp. 18-33 to the plaintiff's exhibits file). It should be noted that the full and elegant album was submitted to the court for review. The dispute regarding the exact nature of the incident is irrelevant, since it is clear that the two decided to formalize the marital relationship between them.
- The couple separated in October 2020 and issued a marriage certificate in December 2020, a matter that is not controversial between them. In this framework, too, they did not see fit to give expression to the matter of parenthood, without a clear reason.
- It turns out that the matter of the relationship was settled in Scripture both at the beginning and at the end, so there is no dispute about its existence.
Second, regarding the intention of joint parenthood:
- Asnoted above, unlike the issue of the relationship, the issue of parenthood has never been expressed in writing. In the absence of a parenting agreement, the question of joint parenting intention is questionable. An examination of this intention vis-à-vis the relevant circles, including the conduct vis-à-vis the sperm bank, the kindergarten, the members of the extended family, and within the home, the upbringing of the minor alongside the economic and marital difficulties, through the separation, the accident and the deterioration of the relationship, raises doubts about the joint intention, as detailed below.
- Dealing with the sperm bank (before the birth of the minor)
- The defendant's separate conduct with regard to the fertilization process and the objections she expressed during the process give rise to a great deal of chronological terms regarding the intention of joint parenthood, as will be detailed below.
- The defendant began testing for fertilization in 2015 and on January 18, 2015 she received answers to the tests she had conducted (Appendix 3, p. 89 to the plaintiff's medical exhibits file).
- Regarding the identity of the lender at the sperm bank, the defendant's testimony indicates that both the plaintiff, her friend and her mother (p. 152 of the transcript). This can teach us about the connection between the parties, but not necessarily about the issue of parenthood.
- Despite the fact that the issue of fertilization was on the agenda when they reported to the offices of New Family in December 2015 (cited above) and were registered as spouses, there is no mention of parenthood in this certificate, for an unclear reason.
- On January 24, 2016, the defendant arrived at the Fertility Research Institute at the S. Medical Center and began to undergo the process required for fertilization by means of sperm donation (Appendix 3, pp. 97-98 to the plaintiff's medical exhibits file).
- The defendant objected to the plaintiff receiving a sperm unit from the same donor, at the very beginning of the process. On April 10, 2016, the defendant's tracking sheet at the Sperm Bank (Exhibit 25, p. 83 of the plaintiff's exhibits file) stated:
"I don't want the donor to be used for her partner --"