Counsel for the appellants also noted that the court's decision determined that the appellants could be accompanied by an entity of their choosing, whereas in the summons letter it was noted that only the parents would be allowed to be present at the meeting, and that the manner of holding the meeting was not clarified, apart from referring to the professional discretion of the social worker, which would not allow the children to be properly prepared.
- In light of this, on April 30, 2023, I decided as follows:
"On the face of it, the authority violated the court's decisions. A full affidavit will be submitted (not to the court) in which the authority will address the question of why it did not bring the letter of the appellants' counsel before the court, in light of the scribe's error in the letter as to why it stated that the appellants could have known the correct date, and why it noted that the address was not up to date. The affidavit will also address the question of whether the social worker has expertise in caring for children, and if so, certificates attesting to her expertise as aforesaid, will be attached. If the social worker is not an intern as aforesaid, it will be clarified in the affidavit why she was sent and not the social worker who specializes as stated in the court's decision. The affidavit will also address the question of why the appellants were instructed to appear only with their parents, in contravention of the court's decision. Such an affidavit will be submitted by May 15, 2023......"
I also determined that until a decision is made on this matter, the Authority will not conduct an interview with the minors.
- On May 15, 2023, under the submission of the affidavit in accordance with the court's decision, a laconic request was filed to extend the deadline for submitting the affidavit by 14 days, on the grounds that additional time was required for the professional bodies to submit the notice and affidavit. In light of the above, on May 21, 2023, my detailed decision was given regarding the manner in which the best interests of the child were examined. At the beginning of the decision, I noted (p. 1 of the decision):
"The question underlying this decision relates only to the specific question of the format of holding a hearing for children of foreign citizens, who are seeking status in Israel, or who are slated to be deported from Israel, by a social worker on behalf of the Population and Immigration Authority (hereinafter: the Authority), for the purpose of providing an opinion as to what is in their best interest. Despite a number of proceedings on the matter, and the Ministry of Justice's guidelines related to hearings for children in the event of deportation from Israel, appropriate procedures have not yet been established for cases in which the Authority treats minors in general, and for the manner in which the hearing is conducted in particular. I will note that this decision was made after the Authority was given countless opportunities, over the course of nearly three years, to clarify the format of the hearing for the children, and to anchor it in an appropriate procedure, but as will be detailed below, all she undertook was to hold a hearing before a social worker, in the Authority's facilities, without the presence of the Authority's representatives, all "under the conditions and resources available to the Respondent, including in relation to the place of the meeting" (paragraph 8.3 of the Authority's response of August 4, 2022)."
- After extensively reviewing the powers of the Minister of the Interior regarding the granting of residence permits in Israel; the authority's duty of fairness and its duty to exercise discretion on a proper factual basis; the Ministry of Justice's guidelines regarding the manner in which the best interests of the child are assessed; I have determined the state's obligation to consider the child's obligation as a primary consideration (including international and local conventions and reports), as well as the case law on this matter, as follows:
"74. The best interests of the children therefore require that the interview be conducted by a youth law social worker who is qualified to care for children; will be held in their natural environment, in the presence of their mother or another companion of their choice, separately from meetings with the mother for other needs; will take a reasonable amount of time for the purpose of creating trust in light of the anxiety described in the opinion on behalf of the appellants; Prior information will be provided regarding its purpose, location, duration, participants, and any other details that can reduce anxiety and enable the best interests of the children to be safeguarded within the framework of the clarification process itself.
- In light of the above, and further to my decisions of 12 March 2023 and 30 April 2023, the Authority will coordinate a meeting with the children, Appellants 2 and 3, in order to clarify their situation and best interests in connection with the decision in the humanitarian application, which will meet the following conditions:
The meeting will take place in the appellants' apartment and only if this is not possible in a facility designated for children, and in any case not in the facility for those who are refused at Ben Gurion Airport or at the Authority's offices in Beit Dagan. If the interview does not take place at the appellants' home, the appellants' attorney must be notified of its location at least two weeks before the date of the interview, so that it can be ascertained that it is indeed a suitable place for the interview to take place in light of the above principles, and to prepare the children for the matter.