In this situation, when it comes to a period of time during which the plaintiff was in bankruptcy proceedings, the claim that she financed the plaintiff's fertility treatments is an unproven claim.
- The conclusion that emerges from all of the above is that the spouses did indeed establish their relationship, both in terms of their actual life together and in terms of their registration in the documents, but the situation is different with regard to parenthood. Despite the fact that the defendant's fertilization was on the agenda even before the marriage and it was known to the two when they came to register as spouses at the offices of "New Family", they did not see fit to sign a joint parenting agreement, for an unclear reason. Even when the defendant began the fertility treatments themselves, the plaintiff did not see fit to arrange parenthood with the sperm bank.
The plaintiff's claim that this was due to a lack of money is unsatisfactory, inter alia, in view of the large amount of money invested in the elegant wedding, as reflected in the prestigious photo album that was presented to the court.
The plaintiff's argument that she relied on the defendant's words and the impression she created that there was no need for the documents since things were clear between them, even if they were found to be true, is a claim that is relevant only in the relationship between the two.
This is in contrast to the relationship between the plaintiff and the minor, which she was supposed to ensure in a signed agreement, regardless of the defendant and her promises, as detailed in the case law above.
- Involvement during pregnancy and childbirth:
- The testimonies indicate that the plaintiff accompanied the defendant's ultrasound examinations and traveled with her to the hospital prior to the birth, as admitted by the defendant (p. 21 of the transcript);
- The plaintiff also stayed with the defendant during the birth and received an identification bracelet from the hospital so that she could enter the nursery if necessary, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was her partner when she planned the pregnancy, passed it andgave birth (p. 45 of the transcript).
- After the birth, each of the spouses was photographed with the minor and even together, a matter to which the defendant also admitted (p. 50 of the transcript).
- It was found that during the pregnancy and childbirth, the plaintiff acted as a spouse and parent, and the defendant even treated her as such. At this stage, when the birth of the minor is a fait accompli, when the couple is still in contact, it was expected that the plaintiff would act as required in order to register as the minor's additional mother, and it is not clear why she did not do so.
- Conduct in the period following the birth of the minor:
- On August 18, 2017, after the birth, a "Britta" party was held in honor of the minor, in the presence of extended family members on both sides, who saw the minor as a joint creation of the couple. The defendant admitted that both of them financed the cost of the event, but notes that the funding on the part of the plaintiff was made only because she was her spouse and not because of her parental connection to the minor (p. 46 of the transcript).
- Regarding the choice of name, the defendant admitted in her testimony that she had spoken with the plaintiff's sister about the meaning of the name A (p. 45 of the transcript) and claimed that she did so because of the friendship between them. The plaintiff's sister testified that this was a broader relationship based on the relationship with the plaintiff (p. 86 of the transcript).
It can be assumed that the plaintiff was also indeed involved in the choice of the minor's first name, although this does not establish parental intentions.
- After the birth, the defendant herself called the plaintiff "mother" in a Facebook post she posted on July 15, 2025 (Exhibit 6, p. 56 of the plaintiff's exhibits file) in which she wrote:
"Thank you, Creator, for this pure happiness, I'm a mother!!