(Emphasis mine, M.A.3).
- The Honorable Judge Dafna Barak Erez also discussed the centrality of the consideration of the best interests of the child in the case of Administrative Leave to Appeal 7762/23 Anonymous v. Population and Immigration Authority (Nevo, August 14, 2024), in her ruling (paragraph 28 of her judgment):
"When examining an application for granting status , the respondent is obligated to act in accordance with the principles of administrative law, including to consider all the relevant considerations for the purpose of deciding therein, and to properly balance them [.....] In the circumstances of the case at hand, one of the main considerations that the respondent should have considered was the best interests of the minor children."
(My emphasis - M.A.C.).
- For more on special considerations for children who are not citizens of Israel, which oblige the state to take into account the rights of the child under the Convention when considering applications relating to them, see: Appeal of Petition/Administrative Claim 5718/09 State of Israel v. Huda Muhammad Yosef Srour (Nevo, April 27, 2011, paragraphs 46-47); AAA 9890/09 Cannon Ikna Nawa v. Ministry of Interior (Nevo 11.07.2013) Application for Administrative Appeal 5040/18 Regarding v. Population and Immigration Authority Ministry of the Interior (Nevo 09.02.2020) and the sources mentioned therein: paragraphs 3-5 of the judgment of Judge (as he was then called) Meltzer. See also: Tamar Morag, "Twenty Years Later: The Perception of the Rights of the Child under the Convention on the Rights of the Child," Children's Rights and Israeli Law 15 (Tamar Morag ed., 2010); Tali Kreitzman-Amir, "On Parents and Children: Family Reunification in Israel," Mishpatim, 44, 361, 389 (May 2014), and Edna Arbel, "The Child in the Mirror of Law," Dorit Beinisch 567 (Keren Azoulay et al., eds., 2018)).
Delay in the Authority's Action and Damages to Children Due to the Passage of Time
- So far, I have discussed the principle of the best interests of the child as a general consideration. In the case before me, the question of the best interests of the children arises in light of the passage of time until the authority dealt with their case. As mentioned, daughter S. is almost 9 years old today and son M. is 14 (M. will celebrate his 15th birthday in October 2025), and they have been living in Israel since they were born. As mentioned, the children were born in Israel and entered the education system long before their arrest. The girl S. underwent a diagnosis on behalf of the Ministry of Education committee when she was 3 years old and was placed in a special therapeutic kindergarten class. The state in which the children are educated knows their details and the details of their parents, and could have dealt with the matter in their early years. Had they decided to remove them at the time, it is certainly possible that the damage caused by this would have been significantly less (unless the removal meant separation from one of the parents, which might have happened in this case). The appellant's son was born near the end of the work visa she held.
Moreover, in 2019, the children were arrested with their mother, when they were 4 and 9 years old, and proceedings have been underway in their case ever since. Since their arrest, too, the Authority has dragged its feet and has not dealt with their case, as detailed in detail above. During all this time, their status is not regulated, and their mother receives a temporary residence permit every two weeks while she reports to the authority's offices as part of the conditions of her release.