In a hearing on October 29, 2020, about three years ago, the authority undertook to examine the best interests of the children. Since then, the Authority has been given countless opportunities to formulate a procedure and rules to do so (for details, see paragraphs 1-18 of my decision of May 21, 2023), and the Authority has not done so, and has even repeatedly violated the court's decisions regarding the manner in which the best interests of the minors are examined.
After the petitioners submitted expert opinions in the field from the outset, and after three years in which the Authority failed to formulate a procedure or guidelines in this regard, my decision of May 21, 2023 was issued, which determines the manner in which the Respondent must examine the best interests of minors.
Today, more than a month, a new hearing is requested, which is full of arguments and arguments that would have been well placed in all the opportunities given to the respondent to formulate such a procedure herself, as of October 29, 2020, when she undertook to do so.
Therefore, as stated, the application is denied."
- After the Authority did not receive any update on the file for three months, I instructed the Authority, in a decision of September 22, 2023, to announce whether it had carried out what was stated in my decision of May 21, 2023. Since I assumed that the matter had been carried out, I instructed the Authority to produce the opinion that was given by October 11, 2023. I added that if the Authority did not act as stated in my decision, I will determine that it is in the best interest of the children to remain in Israel, in which case the Authority will have to make a decision based on this determination. In light of the state of emergency following the outbreak of the war, on November 16, 2023, I extended the deadline for submitting the Authority's response until December 1, 2023. On December 5, 2023, when no response was submitted, I instructed the Authority to clarify why it was not responding to the court's decisions, given the state of emergency. On the same day, the Authority's response was submitted, stating that the attorney in charge was on reserve duty. On the merits, it was argued as follows:
"The delay in handling the case of the minors who are the subject of this proceeding stems from the fact that in the court's decision of May 21, 2023, it was determined that the professional opinion regarding their best interests would be given by a social worker in accordance with the Youth Law. We would like to clarify that up to the date of writing this notice, the Respondent is promoting actions to locate and recruit a social worker, whether outsourced, or through its regular standard of expertise in hearing minors and examining family ties..."