Filing For Maintenance - Where ?
Question:
I live in Israel with my two children. My estranged husband lives abroad. I want maintenance for them. Where do I start legal proceedings, here in Israel or abroad ?
Answer:
In Israel. Primary jurisdiction lies with the family court. Maintenance must be applied for and granted where the children live as that is where their needs must be met. If your husband lives abroad you can apply for permission for service of the legal documents to be made abroad. Through this the court gains jurisdiction in relating to a party overseas. Thus, you should apply for child maintenance at the family court covering your place of residence.
Switching Wife's Maintenance From Rabbinate to Family Court
Question:
I filed my husband for maintenance at the rabbinical court. Now I’ve heard that it would be more advantageous for me to have done so at the family court. Can I stop proceedings at the rabbinical court and start them at the family court instead ?
Answer:
A Jewish wife has the choice of filing her husband for maintenance at the rabbinical court (if they are both Jewish) or the family Court . However, if she has already opened a maintenance file at the rabbinical court, she can initiate one of two options if she wishes to backtrack. One is closing the file. The other is cancelling or striking out the plea.
Closing a maintenance file at the rabbinical court is a temporary administrative decision if made by one religious judge, and as such jurisdiction is retained. The wife is preventing from opening a similar file at the family court. Closing a file allows the rabbinical court to keep a watchful eye open for future developments. It is to be distinguished from cancelling or striking out the plea which is a jurisdictional decision.
In the Yaacov case in the eighties the Supreme Court ruled that where a woman files for her maintenance at the rabbinical court and the file is closed upon her application, jurisdiction is retained and she is not able to file for her maintenance at a civil court. If, however, her plea at the rabbinical court is cancelled or struck out there is no jurisdictional bar preventing her from filing in the civil system, today at the family court.
Husband’s Divorce Plea Rejected - Maintenance Options For Wife
Question:
My husband filed for divorce at the rabbinical court and included my maintenance .The rabbinical court has now rejected his plea. He still won’t support me financially. What are my legal options for getting him to do so ?
Answer:
In general, once a rabbinical court rejects a husband’s divorce plea to which a wife’s maintenance has been bound , it loses jurisdiction over the issue of the wife’s maintenance, the Supreme Court held in the eighties. The wife is then free to decide whether to file for her maintenance at the rabbinical court or in the civil system, where jurisdiction nowadays lies with the family court.
Continuing Jurisdiction - Wife’s Maintenance at Rabbinical Court
Question:
My husband filed me for divorce and tied the question of my maintenance to his plea. The rabbinical court awarded me low temporary maintenance but has now rejected my husband’s divorce plea. Am I free to file for my maintenance at the family court where I have heard I will get a better deal ?
Answer:
No! If the rabbinical court has set a wife’s maintenance as part of a divorce plea brought by her husband the concept of ‘continuing jurisdiction’ will apply even if the main plea is later rejected. The wife will be unable to get maintenance at the family court as it will lack jurisdiction to grant it. However, the situation would be different if there was a hearing about the divorce plea and no reference was made to maintenance and no maintenance was set, either temporary or permanent. If this were the case , and the main plea , the divorce plea, was later rejected, then any other plea bound to it, such as maintenance, would fall too when it was rejected. In this situation the wife could file for maintenance at the family court.
Maintenance- Continuing Jurisdiction During Appeal
Question:
My husband filed for divorce and tied my maintenance in with his plea. The rabbinical court rejected his plea . Nothing was decided regarding maintenance. My husband said he is considering appealing against the rabbinical court’s judgment. I want to file him for maintenance. Can I now do so at the family court ?
Answer:
When divorce proceedings , which included a wife’s maintenance,are brought at the district rabbinical court and fail, then presuming there were no grounds for ‘continuing jurisdiction’ regarding maintenance there , the wife is free to file for financial support at the family court. Where the divorce plea is rejected and no maintenance was set, or hearings attended on the subject, there are no grounds for continuing jurisdiction at the rabbinical court re the wife’s right to financial support from her husband. The key issue is when proceedings are regarded as having ended. Once the deadline for appeal is over, the judgment rejecting the divorce plea and maintenance becomes final – the doors of the family court are open to the wife’s maintenance plea. If, however, the husband appeals against the district rabbinical court’s judgment to the Greater Rabbinical Court, then until the appeal is over jurisdiction regarding maintenance remains at the religious court and the wife cannot file for it at the family court.
Woman’s Maintenance For Set Period
Question:
The rabbinical court granted me maintenance for a set period. That time has now run out. I have since heard that it is better for a woman to file her husband for maintenance at the family court. Am I free to do this ?
Answer:
This is possible according to Supreme Court judgment in the Banin case in the 1970’s. There it was held that if the period related to in the rabbinical court judgment awarding a wife maintenance is over, then she is free to file a new maintenance plea at the family court. This is so as long as there is nothing stated in the rabbinical court judgment preventing the wife from choosing where she wishes to file for her maintenance after the judgment expires.
However, the answer is not clear-cut. This is because the doctrine of continuing jurisdiction may be relevant, depending on the particular circumstances of the case . According to this, jurisdiction would remain with the rabbinical court and the wife would be prevented from filing a new plea at the family court.
Maintenance – Jurisdiction After Agreement Authorised
Question:
My wife filed a maintenance plea against me at the rabbinical court. This was after we had got a property relations agreement between us authorised at the family court and it was given the validity of a judgment. To make life difficult for her, I objected to the rabbinical court having jurisdiction, saying that this lies with the family court which already dealt with the agreement. The rabbinical court held that it was entitled to hear the plea. Was it right ?
Answer:
Yes ! When the family court authorises a property relations agreement its role is formal – to make sure that the parties made it knowingly and voluntarily. The authorisation does not require a substantial hearing or discussion of the matters in the agreement.
Even if the agreement mentions the wife’s maintenance, the fact that the family court authorised it and gave it the validity of a judgment is not enough for the doctrine of continuing jurisdiction to apply.
If at the time when the property relations agreement was being submitted for authorisation at the family court, there was no maintenance plea pending there, and no deep discussion was held on maintenance, then the family court will not retain jurisdiction to hear a maintenance plea – just because it authorised a property relations agreement between the couple and passed judgement.
Wife’s Maintenance- Jurisdiction When Husband Settles Abroad
Question :
I filed my husband for maintenance at the rabbinical court. Meanwhile he has left the country for Canada and has told me he intends to live there. Does that mean that I cannot sue him for maintenance now ?
Answer:
No! What matters in relation to the rabbinical court’s jurisdiction to hear a wife’s maintenance plea independent of divorce is her husband’s status when she actually opened the file. Actual physical presence of both parties in Israel is not necessary at that time as long as he had Israeli residence at the crucial time. If he subsequently takes up residence abroad that does not prevent the rabbinical court from retaining jurisdiction.
So it was held in the Eilon petition case before the Supreme Court of Justice in the Sixties. Here, the wife had filed for maintenance at the rabbinical court . The husband left Israel and some months later became a permanent U.S.A. resident. It was held that although he was not physically present in Israel when the wife had opened her maintenance file, he had left his family and personal possessions here, and was still a resident of Israel. Thus the rabbinical court retained jurisdiction even though he had now settled in the U.S.A.
Family Court Rejects Father’s Claim of Lack of Jurisdiction
Question:
I got divorced at the rabbinical court, which awarded my ‘ex’ custody and child maintenance. Now I face a plea filed by the children against me at the family court. How can it rule on child maintenance if the rabbinical court handled this issue before ?
Answer:
Where the children were not listed as the plaintiffs in a plea for their maintenance at the rabbinical court, and where no in-depth hearing was held there in which their needs and the defendant’s income and financial capability were discussed and a ruling given, based on findings on these, then there will be no continuing jurisdiction at that legal instance. In other words, the children will be free to file their own plea at the family court.
If a father receives an independent plea for child maintenance filed against him at the family court and believes that the rabbinical court has continuing jurisdiction, he can ask for the plea to be rejected outright in his defence pleadings. This will then be examined by the family court according to abovementioned criteria set by the Supreme Court. This is what happened in June 2004 when Kfar Saba Family Court turned down a divorced father’s claim of lack of jurisdiction in a maintenance plea filed by his minor children. It checked out his claims and found that previous proceedings at the rabbinical court failed to pass the test, reaffirmed its own jurisdiction, and set increased temporary maintenance and a date for a full hearing .
Child Maintenance – Limits of Agreement Restricting Jurisdiction
Question:
My ex-wife and I had our divorce agreement authorised by the rabbinical court. The agreement contained a clause restricting future claims to alter the sum of child maintenance agreed by us to being held at the same rabbinical court. I have just been served with a plea for increased child maintenance filed at the family court. Is this a breach of the agreement ?
Answer:
Not necessarily. If the maintenance plea is an independent one from the child it can be filed at the family court even though the divorce agreement supposedly restricted future litigation on child maintenance to the rabbinical court. This is so where a child is not a party to the divorce agreement ( the parents only are sides ) and there is no in-depth hearing regarding his/her maintenance. In these circumstances, the child is not bound by the jurisdictional restriction in the divorce agreement.
The Haifa family court dealt with such a situation in October 2001. The parents had their divorce agreement (covering child maintenance amongst other subjects) authorised at the Haifa district rabbinical court where they divorced. A clause in the agreement read : “ Where there are substantial changes in circumstances either side is entitled to file a plea at the Haifa rabbinical court about child maintenance.” Later, the father was served with an independent plea for child maintenance from the child himself, at the family court. The father contested the family court’s jurisdiction, arguing it lay with the rabbinical court.
Rejecting the father’s arguments the family court said that two conditions had to be fulfilled for the rabbinical court to have gained jurisdiction over child maintenance. The first was that the minor was a formal side to the proceedings and secondly, that he is a side from the substantial aspect. In this particular case, neither condition was met. Regarding the formal test, his parents were sides to the agreement, and he was not mentioned as a side. On the substantive front, no in-depth hearing was held regarding child maintenance.
Two-Point Jurisdictional Test Re Child's Independent Plea
Question:
What happens when an independent plea for child maintenance is filed at the family court by a divorced mother with custody –but her ‘ex’ claims the rabbinical court, which set maintenance for the minors earlier, has continuing jurisdiction ?
Answer:
If a family court has a children’s independent maintenance plea before it and the defendant , the father, asks for it to be rejected outright for lack of jurisdiction, the family court will use a two-point rest devised by the Supreme Court to see whether the rabbinical court has, indeed, retained jurisdiction over the issue. The first part of the test is formal/technical – to see if the children are listed as plaintiffs on the plea filed previously , at the rabbinical court, whereas the second part is substantive, checking whether there was a full discussion on child support in which the minors’ needs and parental income were examined before it made a ruling based on these. Only if the two parts of the test are passed, will the family court declare itself to have jurisdiction over children’s maintenance where the defendant claims continuing jurisdiction at the rabbinical court
Single Parent Moslem Mother – Child Maintenance At Family Court
Question:
I am unmarried Moslem mother . I got pregnant from a fellow Moslem student at university. Where can I file him for maintenance to support my child ?
Answer:
An unmarried Moslem mother can only file for child maintenance at the family court as the Moslem Sha’ari court does not recognize paternity outside of marriage, and has no jurisdiction over the matter . Only when the family court has decided on paternity can it award child maintenance. If paternity is denied, the question of genetic testing will arise.
Separated Moslem Wife –Civil Option For Child Support
Question:
I am a Moslem woman married to a Moslem man according to our religion. My husband has returned me to my family with the children. We are still married. I have heard that the civil courts in Israel are more modern in their outlook than religious ones. Can I get financial support for my children at the family court, rather than our religious court ?
Answer:
Yes, due to an amendment to the 1995 Family Courts’ Law, a Moslem wife can choose whether to file for child maintenance at the family court or the Sha’ari (Moslem Religious) Court. There is now parallel jurisdiction for child maintenance where the parents are both Moslem and married according to their religious law. Previously, a Moslem wife who married her Moslem husband according to their religious law could only file for child maintenance at the Sha’ari court, which had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, according to legislation dating from the days of the British Mandate.
If the couple did not marry according to Moslem religious law, but in a civil ceremony abroad, then only the family court will have jurisdiction over child maintenance as their marriage will not be recognized by the Sha’ari court, which does not recognize paternity outside of marriage either .
International Law Backs Woman’s Freedom Re Maintenance Filing
Question:
Just how free is a Jewish wife to choose whether the question of her maintenance is to be decided at the rabbinical court or the family court ?
Answer:
As parallel jurisdiction exists a Jewish wife has been regarded as free to choose between filing for her maintenance at the family or rabbinical court. However, it has generally been accepted that her path to the family court may be blocked if the husband wins the jurisdictional race and binds the issue to a divorce plea at the rabbinical court.
However, a decision made by the Tel Aviv Family Court is January 2003 challenges this and says that Israel is bound by its commitments under the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and must counter discrimination against women regarding their freedom to file for maintenance .
While Israel chose not to fully accept the sections regarding family law because of the need to allow its recognised religious faiths to apply their religious law, freedom of choice about filing pleas was a separate issue, it held.
“ The jurisdiction of the rabbinical court to adjudicate on a wife’s maintenance when bound to a wife’s maintenance to a divorce plea is the fruit of civil legislation and of section 3 of The Rabbinical Courts’ Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law –1953- and it has nothing to do with Jewish substantive law”, it said.
Israel was under an obligation to “ prevent discrimination against women regarding the binding of the issue of their maintenance to a husband’s divorce plea”, the decision stated, adding that the convention obliged the court to “ avoid lending a hand to discrimination like this” and “to enable the woman to check out her maintenance claims at the qualified legal instance that she chooses”.
Child Support Plea Filed Before Birth – Jurisdiction
Question
My relationship with my husband began deteriorating during my pregnancy. I moved back in with my parents and filed for child maintenance at the rabbinical court shortly before the birth – as I know it takes several months to get a hearing. My husband attended the first hearing shortly after the birth of our baby boy. I heard from friends that a woman gets a better deal at the family court. Can I stop proceedings at the rabbinical court and start them at the family court ?
Answer:
Once the baby is born he becomes a side to the maintenance plea, even though he was unborn at the time it was made. However, to make a plea in the name of an unborn child the mother must be appointed guardian for the foetus according to the Legal Capacity & Guardianship Act of 1962 . Now, if both parents attend the child maintenance hearing and no mention is made about disputing jurisdiction, there is effectively mutual parental consent to the rabbinical court’s jurisdiction over the issue. The rabbinical court can only gain jurisdiction over child maintenance outside of divorce by mutual consent of both parents. Thus, once both parents have attended a hearing on child maintenance the mother is barred from trying to stop proceedings at the rabbinical court and starting them at the civil court.
These are the conclusions to be drawn from an unusual case before the Supreme Court in the eighties . The mother had filed the father for child maintenance at the rabbinical court a month before the birth of their son.
At the hearing – after the birth – both parents attended and presented an agreement regarding child maintenance for authorisation. The mother then went back on the agreement before the father had signed and filed for child maintenance in the civil system. The Supreme Court held that although the plea was made before the birth, once both parents attended the hearing at the rabbinical court on child maintenance, it gained jurisdiction over the issue and was entitled to authorise the agreement. Most importantly, it held, the way was barred for child maintenance in the civil system.
tel: 03-5234133, 077-3500000
fax: 03-5232251