Claims after the Litigation Arrangement (Ashed) 14946-10-25 Y.S.T. v. M.S.T.

Judgment

Prior to the father's petition, which was filed within the framework of the lawsuit under the heading regarding parental responsibility and division of visitation time, for a permanent injunction prohibiting the mother from publishing information, videos, and/or photos of the minors on social media.  It should be noted that on December 24, 2025, a judgment was issued regarding the division of parental responsibility and the time of stay, based on the consent of the parties.  In the framework of this supplementary judgment, I will address the father's petition for an injunction. 

Summary of the facts that need to be addressed

1. The parties married each other on ---.2019 and separated on .2025. From this relationship the minors were born, whose details are listed in the heading - H., 5 years and 7 months, and T., 4 years and 5 months.
2. On October 15, 2025, the plaintiff (hereinafter: "the father") petitioned against the defendant (hereinafter: "the mother") in an action in the matter of the minors - for the determination of parental responsibility and time of stay, and for the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting the mother from publishing information, videos and/or photos of the minors on social networks (hereinafter: the "Request for an Injunction").
3. On November 6, 2025, the father petitioned for temporary relief regarding temporary stays, as well as for a temporary injunction to stop the publication of the minors' photos on social media. In the decision of November 11, 2025, temporary residence periods were determined, divided by 6 days with the father and 8 days with the mother, and the father's request for a temporary injunction was rejected.  Subsequently, the father petitioned for a reconsideration of the aforementioned decision with regard to the injunction, and attached to his request a portable device (USB drive) containing photos and publications of the minors, which the mother had uploaded to the social networks.
4. In the hearing held on December 24, 2025, a judgment was given effect to the parties' agreements, according to which the temporary time of residence will become permanent, as well as to additional agreements regarding the division of time spent with respect to the division of time spent and parental responsibility. With regard to the request for an injunction, the parties reached a procedural arrangement, according to which the parties would present arguments on the issue, and the court would rule on the basis of the text.
5. Subsequently, the father filed arguments on his behalf on January 15, 2026, and the mother filed arguments on her behalf on January 20, 2026.
6. On January 22, 2026, I ordered the appointment of a legal guardian on behalf of Legal Aid for Minors, in order for her to present her position on the issue in dispute in the light of the best interests of the minors, and detached from the subjective positions of the parents. The position of the apothecary, Adv. Lital Kozkov, was filed on March 2, 2026, after she spoke with the parents and met with the minors.

Summary of the parties' arguments

7. The father petitioned for a ban on the publication of the minors on public platforms immediately, while removing the existing content, and that any future publication would be done with the consent of the parties. According to him, the publication of photos of the minors on social networks violates their privacy and security, since there may be a risk of misuse of the images online; The publication of content in which the minors appear is on the Internet permanently and may have a future impact on the image of the minors; These are young minors whose position cannot be accepted in relation to the publications; This is a substantive decision in the matter of minors, which requires the consent of both parents as natural guardians; The father did not agree to the publications, but the mother acted as she pleased, uploading photos of the minors while they were exposed, while exposing them to a wide audience due to the mother's being an influencer on the Internet.
8. The mother claimed that she has the right to freedom of expression to publish the minors' content as a natural guardian, despite the father's objections; contrary to the father's claim, the content does not include intimate or revealing photos of the minors, and she agrees to refrain from uploading such revealing content to social networks; the father's objection to the publication began with the legal proceedings, whereas during the life together the publication was acceptable to the father; these are content related to the daily life of the mother and her daughters. When the mother is a network influencer and uploads the content as part of her occupation as well.
9. The court was under the impression that it was not possible to accept the minors' position regarding the issue in dispute in light of their young age. According to her, it is appropriate to formulate an agreed outline between the parties, which will allow the mother's freedom of expression and occupation, as well as suit the religious lifestyle of the minors - all in their best interest.

00The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916