In light of the aforesaid, and since the only opinion was given on behalf of the appellants, the respondent will examine the best interests of the children in accordance with what is stated in the respondents' opinion, until June 1, 2023. If the respondent does not act as aforesaid, I will see this as an agreement that the respondent refrains from conducting such an examination because in the opinion of the professional authorities, it is in the best interest of the children to remain in Israel.
The respondent will inform the appellants' attorney, by March 26, 2023, of the dates of the meetings, where they will be held, and who will be the relevant professionals who conducted them, all as stated in the opinion on behalf of the appellants."
At this stage as well, the respondent was again given an opportunity to conduct the meeting by a social worker of her choice, but under the conditions presented by the experts in the opinion regarding the format of the meeting.
- On April 24, 2023, the Authority submitted a request and notice to the court, from which it emerged that the Authority had tried to coordinate with the appellants' counsel a date on which the social worker, Ms. Rath, would come to visit the appellants' apartment. The Authority further noted that on April 23, 2016, a letter was sent to the appellants' attorney (a copy of which was attached to the application) and it was claimed that the letter stated the date of the meeting, which was set for April 24, 2023, and that on that date the social worker arrived at the appellants' apartment, but it was not possible to locate them. It also emerged from the application that there was a misunderstanding regarding the date of the meeting, which stemmed from a clerical error in the said letter (the date stated in it was 23 March 2023, when the summons letter was sent to the appellants on 17 April 2023). Therefore, the Authority sought to postpone the dates set out in my decision above.
- There is no dispute that in the letter that was sent to the appellants and their counsel, there was a clerical error as to the date of the interview and an incorrect date was mentioned, which preceded the date of sending the letter. However, it emerged from the summons that this time the intention was that the social worker would come to the appellants' home for the purpose of conducting the interview (according to the application, she did come, but due to a mistake in the letter that was sent, the appellants were not at home).
- The summons letter detailed the conditions for holding the interview, contrary to my previous decisions. The summons letter reads as follows, regarding the manner in which the interview was conducted:
"1. [Regarding the address and date of the summons]
- It is clarified that the social worker, Ms. Rath, will hold the meeting under her professional hat as a social worker who is fully committed, as has been made clear more than once, to the rules of the profession and professional ethics.
- The meeting will take place in accordance with the professional judgment of the social worker and is expected to take place for about two hours. However, the meeting can be extended or shortened, depending on the professional judgment of the social worker.
- The purpose of the meeting is to conduct clarification and an open dialogue with the minors, in order to understand their situation, and for this purpose the meeting will be held in the presence of the minors only. If the minors request the presence of the parent at the meeting, this will be possible, without any reservation. It is possible that the social worker will ask during the meeting to have a conversation with each of the minors separately, all in accordance with her professional judgment.
- At the same time, it should be clarified that in order for the success of the investigation and the preparation of an effective opinion, the social worker must meet with the minors alone and get an impression of them directly, without the intervention or influence of a third person during the meeting. Therefore, the presence of an attorney at the meeting will not be possible.
- [Regarding the continuation of the proceeding after receiving the social worker's opinion]"
- In my decision on April 24, 2023, I instructed the appellants to respond to the request for permission, and I also instructed them to provide the Authority with the updated address of the appellants. However, in the decision I stated as follows: "After receiving a response, I will make a decision on the application, taking into account that my decision was given on April 16, 2023, and the respondent issued a letter on March 12, 2023, more than a month later, summoning me to a meeting to be held on April 24, 2023.".
- On April 27, 2023, the appellants' response was submitted. In response, the appellants emphasized that three weeks after the date set in the court's decision, the Authority issued a letter summoning for an interview, with the date specified for the interview being a date that had elapsed even before the letter was sent by the Authority. In addition, counsel for the appellants argued that: "The format of the meeting described in it [in the letter] is inconsistent with the principles of the best interests of the child in general, and with the decision of the honorable court in particular." It was further argued in the response that when the letter was received, and it was clear that it was the wrong date, the appellants' counsel wrote a response letter, but before they could send it, they received a telephone call from the Authority's attorney in which they were informed that the social worker was already at the scene. According to counsel for the appellants, he clarified that it was clear that this was a mistake and therefore they worked on preparing a response letter, mainly regarding the nature and manner of conducting the interview, but they had no way of knowing that the authority's mistake occurred in the month of the visit mentioned in the letter, and not in any other detail. Counsel for the appellants emphasized that the Authority's claim in the application, that they were the ones who did not understand the date of the meeting, is outrageous, when it is clear on the face of it that the mistake occurred in the Authority's own letter. It was further noted that on the same day the response letter was sent to the respondent (a copy of which was attached to the response of the appellants' counsel). Counsel for the appellants further noted that although the reply letter contained all the reasons, including the fact that it was indeed the address of the appellants, the request for leave was submitted, in which the response was not stated, neither at that stage nor afterwards.
- As to the format of the meeting, counsel for the appellants noted that it violates the court's decisions in a number of respects. First, the summons, even if it had the correct date in it, was sent less than 14 days in advance as determined by the court's decision, and this amount of time was required to prepare the minors for the interview.
We also noted that the court's decision states that the social worker who will conduct the interview is a neutral social worker who specializes in working with minors, and an inquiry conducted by the appellants' counsel revealed that the social worker who was sent does not have such expertise. According to what was stated in the response, the appellants' counsel spoke on the matter with the authority's attorney and she noted that this was "a doctor's visit social worker, and that is what the authority has at the moment." We also noted that the same social worker, Ms. Rath, was also the signatory of the opinion attached by the Authority to its response of November 20, 2022, an opinion about which the court's decision of December 2, 2022 determined that she uses general terms and it is not possible to learn from them the manner in which the meeting was conducted. According to counsel for the appellants, this attests to a lack of expertise in working with minors.