The court vehemently rejected the exaggerated demands of the woman, who insisted on exclusive custody, using the argument that her former husband smoked marijuana to blacken his face
.
The decisive judgment of Justice Erez Shani of the Family Court in Tel Aviv made it clear that family lawsuits should be subject to an increased good faith obligation.
In the present case it was determined that the woman - who filed claims for custody, alimony and distribution of property - did not meet this duty when she made exaggerated demands that had no legal basis and tried to harm her husband's image by claiming that he was a "drug addict." The woman was charged NIS 30,000 in favor of her ex-husband.
The claims were filed two years ago, after the woman left her husband for a childhood friend. Among other things, it demanded the distribution of unequal property, including 80% of the apartment. She also claimed alemony of NIS 11,000 for their two daughters (over the age of 6) and insisted on exclusive custody.
In an especially ironic ruling, Justice Shani rejected most of her clames . The judge made it clear that a person who is referred to the court must act in good faith, all the more so when it comes to family matters.
In the present case, the woman did not meet this duty when she blackened her husband's face and made false claims about his financial situation. At the same time, she even insisted on exclusive custody despite the conflicting position of the welfare services, and demanded an absurd amount of support that ignores the fact that she is also earning a good salary.
In the first stage, therefore, the judge rejected the custodial claim and made it clear to the plaintiff that in accordance with the social services position and the daughters' wishes themselves, the custody will be shared.
In the first stage, the temporary ratio will be 40% for the father and 60% for the mother.
The judge was impressed that the woman's claims that her divorce was a violent man who was not fit to be a father because he was a "drug addict" were completely refuted in the welfare surveys.
In the context of the father smoking grass for pain relief, the judge wrote that "medical cannabis prescriptions, like any other dose and medicine, do not in themselves deny full custody of a person, let alone joint custody. The test is in the behavior of the person taking the action, and not in his impressions. "
NIS 300 for alimony
The judge ruled that it is not appropriate to demand such high maintenance expenses when the woman's income is NIS 11,500,000 a month, while his salary is barely NIS 9,000. In addition, the judge noted that the woman apparently ignored the new rule that requires taking into account the mother's economic situation.
Therefore, with considering the decision regarding custody and differences in income between the parents, the judge desided the father only to pay NIS 300 for living expenses and participation in medical expenses and private lessons.
Finally, the woman's claims of unequal distribution collapsed one by one. For example, while she claimed that her divorce was the owner of a three-story building, in practice drafted in the taboo and evidence in the file clearly demonstrated that the property belonged to his mother and he did not enjoy it financially.
Accordingly, the judge clarified that all joint property would be divided equally between the former spouses.
In the end, and considering the plaintiff's flawed behavior, she was charged with NIS 30,000 in court costs.
Attorney Plaintiff: Attorney Vicky Pony
Counsel for the Defendant: Yinon Bar-Shilton, Iris Bar Shelton-Weiss -Attorney for Family Affairs
Attorney Yitzhak Karo is a family law attorney. ** The writer did not represent the case.
to the original article https://www.psakdin.co.il/Document/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%94%D7%9E-%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA#.Ww7nYkiFNhH