A Few Facts
The sides met each other in 2001; the plaintiff was a dentist by profession and he, the defendant, was a psychologist. They began to live together soon after meeting. During their shared life, they bore a son.
The parties then agreed to sign a common-law marriage agreement in 2001, which they upheld until their crisis in 2009. The implications of this agreement were that they signed a “Treaty for a Common Life” (“Heskem LeHaim Meshutafim”). This is not classified as a Prenuptial Agreement but there are similarities between the two.
In 2009 when the crisis first occurred, the parties separated and since then have been involved in several different court proceedings; one of which (our case) was regarding their outstanding financial issues.
The sides were primarily in dispute over the nature of the beginning of their relationship together.
The case was decided by the Honorable Judge Mrs. Rotem Yiash from the Beer Sheva Family Court (2625/09) on May 29th, 2012.
The Plaintiff’s Viewpoint
The plaintiff (dentist) claimed that the relationship between them began when she was receiving psychological treatment from him, during which time he encouraged her to have a personal relationship with him. The defendant (psychologist) argued that the relationship had been initiated by the plaintiff when he was her dental patient.
The plaintiff claimed to have been exploited by the defendant. According to her version of events, she had been emotionally exploited, whereby he tried to take full control of her body, emotions and fortune, constituting a crude violation of his professional ethics as a psychologist.
She claimed that during the psychological treatment, she gave him information about her excellent financial situation (he, at the time, was in a poor economic state). She also claimed that he “coerced” her to sign a “Treaty for a Common Life” (“Heskem LeHaim Meshutafim”) and that within that treaty it stipulated that the property she owned prior to signing the treaty was to be considered shared property.
Among many others debts she paid on his behalf, she also claimed that he coerced her to pay towards a verdict against him of 250,000 shekels (to an ex-patient with whom he had a sexual relationship while she was under his treatment).
The Defendant’s Viewpoint
The defendant denied any wrongdoing, including any type of exploitation and all other allegations, claiming that the assets had become shared according to their agreement (the treaty) and by legal means.
The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff was the one who had initiated the relationship and that he had never forced anything upon her.
He also sued her for a large sum of money regarding several unresolved issues between them including extensive dental treatment he received from her (which was later ruled in her favor by the Judge).
The Decision
The final judgment was 17 pages long and did not show bias to either of the sides. They were both found to have engaged in wrongdoing and in poor misconduct including, but not limited to, the use of violence (mutual physical abuse).
The case was decided based on facts that were provided by the parties and their lawyers. Whatever was alleged but not supported by actual evidence was denied representation in court, which meant that it needed to be resolved independently between the two parties, and the judge then ruled on the disputes presented before the court with supporting evidence.
Seeking Unbiased Advice
When a person’s emotions are involved, their ability to assess the situation rationally and with proper caution is greatly hindered. The plaintiff should have been able to notice the warning signs of the defendant’s request to be bailed out of his debts, the previous allegations against him for sexual misconduct as well as a few other issues not mentioned here that were known to her before. In this case where the plaintiff was emotionally involved with the defendant it would have been prudent for her to take further steps to safeguard her assets and to receive further guidance from a third-party professional.
She may have received guidance at some point during their eight years of mutual living together, but it seemed to have no effect on her initial decisions, so it is questionable if further consultation would have practically made a difference. That being said, it is always prudent to remember that when receiving the services of a professional, one should remember to keep a distance and to ensure professional conduct and transparency between the professional and the client/patient.
As a service provider or as a client/patient, if you are uncertain as to whether or not a boundary has been crossed it is wise to seek immediate advice from a neutral legal representative to ensure that your rights and/or that of your patient/client have not been compromised.
It is natural to assume that many times people in positions of power, or people who are highly dependent on the support/care of others will oftentimes cross these borders and even so, a person should not be apprehensive or ashamed to ask for guidance even if they feel that they are at fault. This can prevent further collateral damage if addressed immediately.
