The question presented to the judge in court was if there is a direct correlation between child support and the actual relationship between the child and the father.
The case (Case Number 37893-02-13) was decided in the Family Court in Jerusalem by the Honorable Judge Mr. Shlomo Elbaz on January 11, 2015.
The participants
The plaintiff, a father of 8 – of whom 2 were minors — was paying 4,000 shekels in child support for these minors, one of whom was his 16-year-old daughter.
The defendant was the mother, who, as we will learn, was instrumental in turning her daughter against the father. As a result, since the divorce in 2012 the child has refused to be in touch with her father.
The mother – amongst others – claimed that neither she, nor the daughter, was to blame, because the father had made absolutely no attempt at rapprochement. The mother also claimed that all the father wanted was to evade paying alimony.
The question
The plaintiff asked the court to exempt him from paying child support for his daughter until she chooses to be in touch with him again. However, at the same time, the father offered to deposit the monthly payment with a third party and claimed that the mother could receive the money as soon the daughter renewed contact with him.
The judge
In the judge’s decision, he clearly preferred the father’s version, mainly because he offered a fair solution in good faith.
The judge explained that child support can be scrapped, or reduced, when a child is alienated or refuses to be in touch with the parent who is paying child support. Of course, attention and consideration must be given to the child’s age and economic status when making such a drastic decision. This is especially true when the parent who is receiving the child support is responsible for the child’s refusal to be in touch with the other parent.
The judge was persuaded that the defendant – in this case, the mother – had a substantial role in blotting out the image of the father to the child. And that it was her duty to take action to renew the relationship between him and the child – even though the daughter was very “opinionated.”
The judge believed the father did everything possible to reconnect with his daughter. He also noted that this was an extreme case, and that it is rare for a child to banish her father completely and consistently.
In the judge’s decision, it was explained that the rule is as follows: Children are not responsible for their parents’ behavior during a divorce, or the results thereof. However, a parent is not an “ATM” that issues funds without asking questions and regardless of the child’s behavior.
As a result of the defendant’s and the daughter’s behavior, the Honorable Judge decided to halve the amount of the alimony until the daughter renewed the relationship with her father.
A word of wisdom
I’ve met a few parents who have made the same mistakes – involving the children in a process with which they should not be concerned. Children have more than enough on their hands when their parents split; sometimes, even more than they can handle.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter how angry you are – but don’t involve your child.
