Case Number
CA 3798/94
Date Decided
10-3-1996
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The appellant and his wife were married for many years but remained childless. The appellant began a relationship with a 15 year-old girl, the first respondent, in order to have a child by her, and she did indeed become pregnant and bear his child. When the child was born, the girl wanted the child to be adopted by a third party, but the appellant wanted to raise the child with his wife.
The main witness in the trial court was Mr Rami Bar-Giora, an expert psychologist, who testified that if the child were raised by the appellant and the appellant’s wife, he foresaw major risks to the emotional health of the child because of the circumstances of the child’s birth, whether these were revealed to the child or concealed from him.
The trial court held that the child was adoptable for two reasons: under section 13(7) of the Adoption Children Law, the appellant was ‘incapable of looking after the child properly because of his behaviour or situation’, and under section 13(8) of the Law, his refusal to give his consent to the adoption derived ‘from an immoral motive’ or was ‘for an unlawful purpose’.
Held: (Justices D. Dorner, I. Zamir, G. Bach) The case fell within the scope of section 13(7) of the Adoption of Children Law. The appellant was incapable of looking after the child properly because of the unique circumstances of the case, as described by the expert in his opinion. Section 13(8) of the law was not applicable, since the refusal to consent to adoption was in itself not immoral or unlawful.
(Vice-President S. Levin) The case did not fall within the scope of any of the grounds in section 13 of the Law that allow a child to be declared adoptable. Nonetheless, the law should be read to include an additional rule, which provides that a parent may not object to his child being declared adoptable if this is contrary to reasons of public policy with respect to acts which led to the birth of the child.
(Justice M. Cheshin) The case did not fall within the scope of any of the grounds in section 13 of the Law that allow a child to be declared adoptable. Nonetheless, a fundamental and independent principle of Israeli law is the principle: ‘Have you committed murder and also taken the inheritance? (I Kings 21, 19). Under this principle, which has the same status as statute, a person may not be allowed to benefit from his misdeeds.
Appeal denied.
Keywords
Contracts -- Promise of Marriage, Family Law -- Adoption, Jewish Law -- Criminal Law
Recommended Citation
Dorner, Dalia; Zamir, Itzchak; Bach, Gavriel; Levin, Shlomo; and Cheshin, Mishael, "A v. B" (1996). Translated Opinions. 5.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/5
