Subsequently, the Authority reiterated its arguments in the request for reconsideration, adding:
"As part of the Respondent's attempts to find a social worker with appropriate training, on July 4, 2023, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Affairs provided the Respondent with a list of social workers who had previously worked in the Ministry of Social Affairs as social workers under the Youth Law and are currently working in the private sector, so that the Authority could use counseling services on their behalf. Taking into account that this is a social worker from the private sector, the methods of employment were examined, including examining the absence of an impediment to submitting bids as part of a "request for a price quote".
The authority went on to detail the center's procedures published at the end of September, but added that it had not received a response. It was also noted that it was decided to prepare a tender for the employment of a social worker in the Authority, a standard that will meet both the need for an enforcement administration and the humanitarian committee, and the process of promoting the tender has begun. The Authority further attacked the court's decision of May 21, 2023.
- However, the Authority added that despite its efforts, no social worker was found that met the requirements set by the court: "In the specific circumstances of the present proceeding, the respondent will wish to leave the decision on the question of the best interests of the minors in this proceeding to the discretion of the court..." I instructed the appellants to respond to what was said both with regard to the determination of the best interests of the children and with regard to the exhaustion of the proceeding. On December 21, 2023, counsel for the appellants submitted their response. The appellants argued that the court must determine that it is in the best interest of the children to remain in Israel, and continue to rule on the appeal on its merits, and determine that the Authority's decision rejecting their request for status on humanitarian grounds cannot stand.
- Counsel for the appellants emphasized that the humanitarian request was already filed on September 5, 2019, with the arrest of the appellants. They also discussed the sequence of events, both in the proceeding before the humanitarian committee and in the proceeding before me, and in both cases it was necessary to conduct an interview with professionals to examine the best interests of the children. Counsel for the appellants emphasized that in light of the Authority's conduct throughout the entire process, in repeated violations of the court's decisions, and while trampling on the appellants' rights, there is a need for the court's supervision of the continuation of the proceeding.
- In light of the above, I determined in my decision of December 26, 2023 that it is in the best interest of the minors to remain in Israel. However, I determined, and in this regard, there was an error in my decision that: "The appeal against the decision of the Humanitarian Committee is pending." This is while a decision has not yet been made by the Committee on Humanitarian Affairs, and this matter in itself was not the subject of the appeal before me (as noted, an appeal in this regard was deleted after the parties agreed that interviews of the children would be conducted by professionals brought before the Committee). The intention was that the appeal before me remained pending. It seems that the mistake was made because throughout both proceedings the authority was required to conduct interviews with the children, and there was not always a clear distinction as to the proceedings in which the question arose. I also determined in the same decision that the parties may submit short written summaries in the appeal before me, while limiting the dates for their submission. The appellants' summaries were submitted on February 4, 2024.
- On February 22, 2024, about two and a half weeks after the submission of the appellants' summaries, the appellant appeared as required at the Authority's facilities in Beit Dagan, for the purpose of renewing her temporary license, as part of her bi-weekly appearance. The director of the facility, Mrs. Ben Sasson, informed her that a hearing would be held an hour later. The appellant called her attorneys, who spoke with the facility manager and stated to her that according to the court's decision, the authority must notify the holding of a hearing at least two weeks in advance. Counsel for the appellants further noted that summaries were submitted in the proceeding before me. About half an hour had passed, according to the appellants' counsel (paragraph 10 of the application of February 26, 2024), an email was received in the office of the appellants' attorney from Ms. Orit Sharmi of the Authority's Enforcement Headquarters, Administration and Foreigners, in which she informed the appellants' attorney that at the request of the facility manager, the appellant was invited to a "hearing to promote her departure from Israel", which would be held on February 29, 2024 at the enforcement facility. That is, within a week from the date of the summons. Again, in violation of the court's decisions on this matter itself (a copy of the email was attached as Appendix 1 to the appellants' request of February 26, 2024). On that date, the appellant's license was extended by only one week, until the date of the interview, in direct contravention of the court's decisions.
- In other words, after more than three years had passed at that time, during which the Authority did not hold a hearing for the appellants in a lawful manner, and as it undertook both in the appeal before me and in the appeal before the Tribunal in the framework of the humanitarian application, the Authority was reminded to hold a hearing with a short notice of its undertaking, for the mother only, in order to promote the appellants' departure from Israel, when it must submit summaries in the appeal before me. In light of this, on February 26, 2024, counsel for the appellants filed a motion to order the cancellation of the hearing. In the application, they argued that if the Authority had notified the hearing two weeks before the required date, the Appellant would have been summoned to the hearing on March 7, 2024, a day after the date set for the submission of the Authority's summaries.
- On February 27, 2024, I issued my decision according to:
"The case is ripe for a decision. After the PA did not rule on the [humanitarian] request for years, and after many violations of the court's decisions, there is now no room for the PA to take any action in this case, except for submitting summaries in the case.