The Family Court in Petah Tikva recently granted a father of two sons’ petition to expand his parenting time, rejecting his ex-wife’s opposition. Judge Oren Eliaz criticized the mother’s arguments and described the father as “a good and loving father.”
The couple divorced in 2020, and their court-approved agreement set custody and visitation terms. The boys were to remain in their mother’s custody until age 18, but once the younger child turns 6, the father may seek shared parenting and custody, and the mother cannot object without substantial reason. Under the agreement, the children stayed with their father on Tuesdays, including overnight, and on alternate weekends.
In his lawsuit, the father asked for equalized time with the children, proposing Mondays and Wednesdays from the end of school until the next morning, alternate weekends, and, in the week they are with their mother, also Thursdays with overnight stays. He said the mother had periodically agreed to expand the schedule and that during a settlement process they had agreed to one additional weekday, including overnight, but she later withdrew that consent. The mother denied any agreement, claimed he had not shown a material change in circumstances, and argued the case was filed in bad faith. She also said he had been away for a long period on reserve duty and the children had become accustomed to her as the sole parent.
A welfare officer’s report recommended adding one midweek day with the father, on condition that he move to the city where the children live with their mother. He first objected to that condition, then later moved there. A supplementary report said, “I am impressed that the plaintiff is a good and loving father and recommend one additional day in which the children will be with him,” and the judge said that sentence captured the case.
Eliaz ruled that the children have a good relationship with both parents and rejected the mother’s claim that they are uncomfortable with their father or do not feel at home with him. He said the father is closely involved in their lives and routines, and that he did not need to prove a material change because the broader arrangement had been expressly anticipated in the agreement. The judge added that the father’s reserve service should be commended given the country’s challenges, and ordered the mother to pay 7,500 shekels in costs after finding her objections were not substantive.
