Court rejects grandfather's request to meet his grandchildren for the first time

The Family Court in Tel Aviv recently rejected a grandfather who sued to meet his three grandchildren for the first time, the children of his son with whom he has been estranged for about a decade. Judge Anat Heller-Karish adopted a professional opinion stating that it is not in the children's best interest at this time to meet a grandfather they do not know.

Due to the crisis in their relationship, the grandfather was not invited to his son's wedding and, in fact, had never met his daughter-in-law until the meeting in court. Naturally, he had never seen their children either. In the lawsuit he filed, he said he longs to renew the relationship with his son and his family, and argued that it is in his grandchildren's best interest to see him regularly. According to him, the refusal of his son and daughter-in-law to allow meetings with their children stems from "a personal vendetta and invalid whims." In his view, the person behind the estrangement is the grandmother, his ex-wife, from whom he separated about two decades ago.

On the other hand, his son and daughter-in-law argued that forcing a relationship between their children and the grandfather is completely contrary to their best interests and could cause them substantial harm. The husband said that the relationship with his father was "destructive to his psyche," and that he tried to force his opinions on him and used to insult him and make comments aimed at crushing his self-confidence. He added that the difficult relationship caused a deterioration in his mental state, and because of this, he decided to distance himself from his father for the sake of his personal recovery and starting a family.

Indeed, a report submitted to the file supported the couple's position. It emphasized that "the minors have no acquaintance with the grandfather, and therefore, under the existing circumstances, at this stage of their lives, it is not possible to provide the basic conditions necessary to create a connection." It was also written that "it is impossible to rule out the possibility that renewing a connection, under the described circumstances, could cause the minors more harm than experiencing a good and positive experience from having a connection with the grandfather."

Judge Heller-Karish adopted the report as written despite the grandfather's strong opposition to it:

"I did not find that in this case there are weighty reasons justifying a deviation from the report's recommendations. On the contrary, I was impressed that the social worker's work was done professionally and faithfully, that considerations related to the best interests of the minors were weighed, and that the conclusions are well-reasoned."

She rejected the grandfather's claim that his son and daughter-in-law are acting out of motives of revenge. According to her, given the young age of the children, the developmental stage they are in, and the firm opposition of their parents to having a relationship with the grandfather, forcing the matter upon them would not serve their best interests. The verdict states that "the focus is on the question of the best interests of the minors, not on the desire or need of the plaintiff, and I found that establishing and maintaining a connection at this stage would harm the minors more than it would benefit them."

Therefore, the lawsuit was rejected and the grandfather was ordered to pay legal expenses and attorney's fees in the amount of 40,000 shekels.

• To read the full verdict – click here

• The article is in collaboration with the Israeli legal website PsakDin

• Plaintiff's counsel: Adv. Nissim Shalem

• Defendants' counsel: Adv. Doron Shiber

• Adv. Livnat Gabsi practices family law

• The author did not represent in the case

• The editorial staff of the PsakDin website took part in the preparation of the article

• Ynet is a partner of the PsakDin website