Court Rejects Mother's Alimony Claim for Four Children, Orders Her to Pay Father's Legal Fees
Translated & summarized from Ynet by baba
A family court in Hadera dismissed a mother's alimony claim for her four children, ruling that her disposable income is similar to her ex-husband's. The mother was ordered to pay the father NIS 14,160 in legal fees. The court cited equal time-sharing and insufficient proof of hidden income by the father. The mother's claims for a larger share of marital property were also rejected, though overseas investment profits are to be split equally.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- A mother's alimony claim for four children was denied by a Hadera family court.
- The mother was ordered to pay the father NIS 14,160 in legal fees.
- The court found the ex-couple's disposable incomes to be nearly identical.
- Equal time-sharing with the children was a key factor in the ruling.
- The mother's claims of hidden income and a larger property share were rejected.
A family court in Hadera has dismissed an alimony claim filed by a mother of four against their father. Judge Einat Gilad Meshulam ruled that the ex-couple's disposable incomes are nearly identical, meaning each parent should bear the children's expenses when they are with them. The mother was also ordered to pay the father's legal expenses, totaling NIS 14,160.
The couple married in 2009 and divorced officially in 2024, agreeing to equal time-sharing with their four children, an agreement that was granted legal validity. Previously, a temporary order required the father to pay NIS 1,000 monthly for two younger children until they reached age six, with no alimony for the older two due to their age, time-sharing arrangements, and financial data. Exceptional education and medical expenses were to be split equally.
The mother had claimed her ex-husband earned NIS 32,750 monthly from all sources, while her income was NIS 12,000 gross. She sought NIS 3,180 in monthly alimony and an 80-20 split of exceptional expenses, alleging the father hid income by inflating business expenses and benefiting from capital gains and family support. The father denied these claims, arguing no wage disparities justified alimony and that her financial analysis was based on incorrect data.
Judge Gilad Meshulam found the mother failed to substantiate her claims of hidden income, noting her difficulty explaining submitted tables, her failure to request an expert, and her not summoning the father's accountant. The requested sums for the children's needs also lacked sufficient documentation. While family support from parents was not considered income unless legally obligated, a regular NIS 2,500 monthly mortgage payment from his parents was factored into his housing costs.
The court estimated the mother's net income at NIS 13,100 and the father's at NIS 10,500. After deducting reasonable living costs and fixed expenses, the mother's disposable income was calculated at NIS 6,600 and the father's at NIS 6,500. Given the equal time-sharing, neither parent was ordered to pay alimony to the other, and non-custody-related expenses, as well as exceptional education and medical costs, were to be divided equally.
The mother's request for 60% of the marital property due to alleged professional development harm was also denied, as no dramatic earning capacity gap or "homemaker" versus "careerist" dynamic was proven. She was ordered to transfer NIS 2,933 to the father for asset balancing, per an expert's opinion. However, her claim regarding overseas investments was upheld; profits from investments mixed in joint accounts were to be split equally, with the father ordered to provide updated information and transfer her share.
The mother's obligation to pay the father's legal fees was influenced by the proceedings' outcome and her "burdensome procedural conduct." She must pay the NIS 14,160 within 30 days. The ruling also mentioned a prior NIS 750 cost order against her following the rejection of an asset seizure request related to apartment sale funds.
