Israeli father wins unprecedented case against radical feminist court
Across the world, millions of men are fighting parental alienation in family courts, being wrenched from raising their own children, unable to see or speak to them, and the damage to children is beginning to be understood. In Mexico and Brazil for example, it is now a criminal offence if one parent estranges or separates a child from the other.
The following example will sound familiar to thousands of fathers in Israel. It started with the mother of his two children moving over 150km from the family home. This event occurred just after the birth of their second child – his two children now aged 2 and 3.
False claims against men in Israel are an epidemic, with at least 20,000 a year, and nearly 80% being proven as lies. The mother made a claim that the father was violent; was a member of a cult and a drug user, resulting in the father not seeing his babies for over a year.
In the previous hearing, after hiring a new lawyer, information emerged that the mother had actually preplanned the move by applying for schools for education in her new location before she left her husband, so it was not exactly a spur of the moment decision for her and the venomous claims were baseless.
Today 29th May, a hearing took place, to try and settle the matter ‘once and for all’. The mother had two lawyers, the father one – Attorney Meir Givati, an expert in juvenile, civil, family and religious law, who campaigns every day for the rights of children.
The hearing began with Givati stopped at every juncture from being allowed to speak at all on behalf of the father, who had reached the point of being a defeated man. The event became heated, as the judge refused Givati the right to speak at all, whilst supporting the mother’s requirements. She had demanded 14,000 NIS a month for two children, which she claimed also included 350 NIS each of pocket money for the toddlers, and all her needs for the rent of her property.
Despite efforts to disprove these claims with evidence, Givati was still not allowed to respond. The father, exhausted by two years of efforts to see his children, was at breaking point and ready to agree to anything and everything.
He hadn’t bargained for the passion of his lawyer, who spoke out that he wasn’t prepared to stay in the court and face a radical feminist onslaught by the lawyers and also the judge. She was appalled at the idea the lawyer could leave with his client, and asked for a recess. Demanding the lawyer should enter her chambers, he refused. The judge was so upset, she threatened to leave, until gently reminded it was her court; she was the judge and needed to control her courtroom!
Many fathers in Israel and worldwide will recognize this scenario. Being separated from children is painful beyond measure.
Following the recess, Attorney Givati named his offer, which was heard in disbelief by the judge and the lawyers for the mother. Deliberation lasted 2 hours, and the remarkable decision was given:
1. The child support request of 14,000 NIS for the children was reduced to 1,400 per month.
2. The request of 350 NIS for pocket money for each child was scrapped on the argument that babies didn’t need spending money.
3. The contribution to the mother’s home for rent and upkeep was rejected as evidence supplied proved she lived at home with her parents.
4. Fuel money of 1,500 NIS was to be reimbursed by the mother to the father who needed to travel for a 4 hour round trip to see his children. If she did not like this, she would be welcome to return to the town from which she kidnapped the children, and this money could be then added to the child support.
5. There would be no travel ban placed on the father. This was vehemently argued, but upheld. (In Israel it is common to place a No Exit Order on fathers just in case the father might not make child support payments, or possibly either take his children from the country or exit and not return. The lawyer argued that no person should be restricted from full liberty, dignity and freedom on merely a fear. There were many other channels to go through if this might happen.
6. The father was given the right after the next twelve months to open a request to have the children brought back to within a 40km radius of his home.
The subject of radical feminism was debated, with the father’s lawyer insisting on the correct procedures in law being upheld, rather than making decisions without the full evidence. By these arguments, the judge was forced to do her job and not simply rubber stamp a decision automatically in favour of the mother.
To ensure full fairness, the protocol was thoroughly checked before the conclusion in order to be certain that nothing would be changed or added. However, only the decision was presented, not the arguments.
A hearing which in most circumstances would have lasted a few minutes, took several hours. Justice was served!
The father did decide, in the interest of his children, to waiver the fuel payments, for it would have left the mother in arrears, and he believed this would hurt the family more.
A great victory was achieved for a divorced man in Israel, the best interests of the children served, and a blow to the radical feminist machinery which has taken the lives of over 7000 fathers.