012-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
Discussion and Decision
- At the outset, it should be noted, taking into account the position of the legal guardian, that it is clear that it would have been preferable for the parties to reach agreements on the matter that is the subject of the dispute rather than by means of a judicial decision. However, since they have not been able to reach an agreement on the issue in dispute, the father's petition for an injunction must be decided. Given the intensity of the conflict, it is hoped that a clear and explicit judicial decision will help calm the situation and put aside the disputes between the parents, while the parents will invest their resources in family therapy and parental coordination for the benefit of the minors.
- On the merits of the matter, as is well known, the parents are the natural guardians of the minors, in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law, 5722-1962 (hereinafter: the "Kashrut Law"). According to Section 15 of the aforementioned Law, "Parental guardianship includes the duty and right to take care of the needs of the minor, including his education, studies, training for work and occupation and work, as well as safeguarding, managing and developing his assets; and the authority to hold the minor and determine his place of residence, and the authority to represent him", while the parents must act in any matter subject to their guardianship with consent, and in the absence of consent - they must turn to the court, in order for it to decide the matter in accordance with the minor's best interests (sections 18, 19, 24, and 25 of the Kashrut Law).
- It should also be noted that not every decision regarding minors is a decision that the parents must make by mutual consent by virtue of their guardianship powers. There are decisions in routine and everyday matters, which are superfluous and inherent to the parent's authority, when the minor is in his custody. In this regard, the words of the Honorable President Shamgar Other Municipality Applications 2266/93 Anonymous, Minor v. Anonymous, 49(1) 221 (1995):
"Of course, this does not relate to all the decisions that the parent must make regarding his children, and it is clear that the custodial parent has the discretion to make decisions that are superstitious or inherent to the right to custody, without the need to consult the other parent... It is difficult to demarcate the line between those issues that are trivial and dragged after custody, and issues that remain in the hands of both parents, but it seems that it is possible to generalize and say that these are decisions of principle that relate to the general right and duty of the parent towards the child: concern for the general and religious education of the minor, supervision of his property, concern for the health of the minor. In all these matters, the parents must decide with cooperation and consent, and sometimes the action involves the approval of the court (see section 20 of the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law)" (ibid., at p. 240).
- With regard to the issue of the publication of content, photos and videos of minors on social networks, in my opinion, as a rule, not every regular publication of minors by their parents on social networks constitutes a decision in principle, which, by its very nature and nature, requires the prior consent of both parents. In today's digital age, the sharing of content, videos, and/or photos of children on social networks by their parents is a common phenomenon. Sharing allows parents to share family experiences with family members and friends; It creates a sense of community and support between parents; sharing creates digital documentation for the minor, and it constitutes the realization of the parent's freedom of expression (see also: Family file (Tel Aviv-Yafo) 42434/07 D.A. ET AL. V. C.D.A. (published in the [Nevo] databases, March 15, 2011)). Moreover, social networks are also frequently used by educational institutions and educational entities, and they are an accepted platform for the transfer of information, for example in relation to activities conducted in educational institutions. It is clear that weight must also be given to the family's lifestyle and the conduct of the family unit before the separation. In light of the above, I am of the opinion that when it comes to the publication of daily photos or videos during routine activities, holidays, events, etc., prior consent is not necessarily required on the part of the other parent.
- In addition, it is clear that the parent is obligated not to publish on social networks information and content about minors that may violate their privacy, and this is even more true in the case of young minors, who cannot give informed consent to the publication, and taking into account that the content remains available in the digital space, and may be used by hostile elements, God forbid. Thus, in another case that was heard before me, I ruled that the parent is responsible for not exposing a minor, through various publications on social networks, to the legal proceedings between the parents, and that a parent is prohibited from publishing content that may harm the parent-child relationship, in the light of the minor's best interest (Claims after the Litigation Settlement (Ashdod) 36383-05-24 A. v. A.M.S. (published in the databases [Nevo], September 3, 2024)). In another case, it was determined that a parent is not permitted to use the photographs and details of a minor's medical condition for the purpose of a crowdfunding campaign, in the absence of the consent of the other parent, and at a time when it is a disproportionate violation of the privacy of the minor and the parents (Claims after the Litigation Settlement (Petah Tikva) 65036-03-23 S. (Father) v. A. (Mother) (published in [Nevo], July 14, 2024)).
- Thus, in today's digital age, not every publication of a minor on social media is a significant decision regarding the minor, subject to the consent of both parents, and the publication can be seen as an inherent decision that is attached to the custody rights of the parent holding the minor at that time. At the same time, it is the duty of the parent to consider the best interests of the minor in the publication itself, and to ensure that his interests, including his privacy, protection, and dignity, are not harmed as a result of the publications.
From the general to the individual
- After reviewing everything that was placed before me, including the pleadings, the minutes of the hearing, the main arguments and the position of the legal guardian - I found that there is no reason to grant a sweeping injunction to publish any content, photos and/or videos of the minors on social networks. However, the content of the publications should be limited to content that does not constitute a disproportionate violation of the privacy of the minors and/or the parties.
- Prior to the separation, the mother used to publish photographs and/or videos of the minors as a matter of routine, inter alia, as part of her occupation as a social media influencer, and the minors are accustomed to being photographed by the mother, as also appears from the position of the legal guardian. The father knew about the mother's occupation, and agreed, at least implicitly, to upload the minors' publications to social networks in everyday situations in their lives. It should be noted that this was the conduct, even though the family led a religious lifestyle, so that the separation of the parents does not raise or lower this matter. Thus, just as the mother used to advertise the minors on social media before the separation, I did not find in the father's arguments a clear reason to prevent her from doing so after the separation, and only for this reason, and I accept the argument, that it appears that the father petitioned for an injunction because of his desire to harm the mother in view of her occupation. However, in practice, this is a routine parental decision, given that today the publication of children's photos on social networks is done as part of the parents' desire to document and share their experiences with their children, from a place of pride, and as part of the family story.
- It is not superfluous to note that a divorce conflict between the parties is taking place at a high intensity. It is sufficient to examine the father's arguments in the statement of claim, in which he claimed that the physical custody of the minors should be determined only by him (claims that were abandoned by him at a later stage of the proceeding), or the mother's claims in the protection order proceeding that took place between the parties (threatening harassment and protection order 16893-11-25), [Nevo], in which it was determined that there is ground for issuing an order to prevent threatening harassment against the father against the mother. After the evidence revealed that the father entered the mother's home and placed a camera in the house - in order to illustrate the intensity of the conflict. In these circumstances, there is substance to the mother's argument that the motive for the father's request for an injunction is not the protection of the minors, but rather the father's desire to harm the mother's livelihood. Either way, I am of the opinion that imposing a sweeping restriction on the mother to upload publications in which the minors appear is actually liable to further intensify the conflict between the parents, instead of calming the situation and improving the relationship between them for the benefit of the minors.
- At the same time, it is necessary to prevent the publication of content of the minors in their intimate situations and/or while they are naked, out of the obligation to protect the privacy of the minors, and to take into account the religious lifestyle led by the parties. In addition, it is necessary to prevent the publication of any content that involves the minors in the details of the conflict between the parents and/or the legal proceedings between them. Thus, it is forbidden to publish content in which the minors are not dressed according to the season, and not including photos of the minors in a swimsuit - as the mother used to do in the past. With regard to publications of this kind, I accept the father's argument that this is a disproportionate violation of the minors' right to privacy; that may contradict the way of life of the parties; and that the publications endanger the minors, if, God forbid, the publications reach hostile elements. It is not superfluous to note that the mother agreed not to upload content that violates the privacy of the minors of the type detailed above, as stated in paragraph 5 of the main arguments on her behalf.
- Taking into account that the parties were referred to a parental coordination proceeding, as detailed in the decision of February 15, 2026, I determine that if there is a dispute between them regarding a specific publication, it will be raised in the framework of parental coordination. The parties will try to formulate agreements in view of the best interests of the minors, and in the absence of agreement, the parental coordinator will decide the dispute. For this purpose, the parental coordinator is given powers in accordance with sections 19 and 68 of the Legal Capacity Law, for a period of 12 months.
- In view of all of the above, it is hereby held as follows:
- The father's request for a blanket injunction against any publication that includes photos and/or videos of the minors on social networks is denied.
- An injunction has been issued prohibiting any parent from publishing on social networks any content that involves the minors in a conflict between the parents; any content that harms the image of the other parent and/or the parent-child relationship; as well as any content that documents the minors in a revealing, intimate or provocative manner, including when they are naked (full or partially).
- In the event of a dispute regarding a specific publication , it will be decided by the parental coordinator, in accordance with the mechanism detailed in section 20 above.
- With regard to costs, taking into account the results of the decision and the procedural arrangement reached by the parties, and in order not to further intensify the conflict between the parents, I will not make an order for costs.
This concludes the investigation of the claim. The secretariat will close the file.