The authority to discuss child support - the family court or the rabbinic court?

A mother filed a binding divorce action with the Rabbinical Court, and after the dispute settlement procedure, her file was closed.

About a week and a half later, the father applied to the Family Court with a claim for minor alimony and a request to determine temporary alimony.

When the lawsuits were filed, the parties lived under the same roof.

The parties were required to respond to the issue of jurisdiction before both courts.

According to the father, there is still Shargai rule. This is because the court has no authority as long as he did not express his consent to discuss the issue of child support before the Rabbinical Court.

The mother claimed that under the Feldman rule (the principle of mutual respect between the courts), the claim was presented to the court for the first time, and the court discussed it, and therefore, the court acquired jurisdiction.

The position of the High Court - the question of authority in matters of child support is now placed at the door of the High Court. Still, in any case, according to the ruling of the High Court and in accordance with the binding tests, the High Court has the authority to discuss child support. However, as long as the parties live under the same roof, the court does not see the need to rule on alimony.

Court of Family Matters position - was that the court is reserved from establishing a position and stated that as long as the relevant authority has not been decided in the court, the claim is not "ripe" for further investigation.

Therefore, due to the question of authority, the father applied for permission to appeal to the district court.

Honorable Judge Shohat agreed with the father's claims, chose to accept the appeal, and stated that the authority to discuss child support rests with the Family Court for several reasons;

1. The father's claim for child support was submitted to the court, and there is nothing wrong with this conduct. The father has the right to discuss his children's support in the court he chooses to discuss.

2. The fact that the claim was filed when the parties lived under the same roof is irrelevant and does not make the father's claim an "idle claim". Children need support even when their parents live together but cannot agree on child support.

3. The father never consented to a court hearing, so the question of mutual respect between the courts (Feldman rule) is redundant. Also, the fact that the alimony claim was tied to the divorce claim does not mean that the court "heard" it.

4. The fact that the court considers the Shargai rule to be a rule that the High Court canceled should not be a consideration before the court. The decision is subject to the Supreme Court and not to the findings of the High Court - as long as the Supreme Court did not decide that the Shargai Law is annulled - "neither a phlegm miracle nor a glowing nation, and it is still strong and existing, and it is right and proper that it is so."

The Honorable Judge Shohat also stated that-

There are judges in Jerusalem. Hearings will take place at the aforementioned High Court at the appropriate time and according to their busy schedules. Meanwhile, there are minors in Herzliya who need alimony, and there are judges in Tel Aviv. According to the current legal situation, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, alimony claims for minors are subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. This court must exercise this authority even if there is a possibility that the Supreme Court will change its laws in the future.

Therefore, following the excellent judgment of the Honorable Judge, as long as the Shargai rule is not repealed, substantive authority is given to the High Court in the absence of consent for hearings in the Rabbinical Court.