Child support and child support reduction
The duty of parents to care for the needs of their children is not only a moral and social obligation, but also a legal and judicial obligation stipulated in a number of laws.
Section 15 of the Legal Training and Guardianship Law, 1962, states that parental guardianship includes the duty and right to care for the minor’s needs, including his education, studies, training for work and manual labor, and his work, as well as the preservation, management, and development of his assets.
The phrase “needs of the minor, for whom the parents are obligated to provide according to the law,” is interpreted in case law as including needs of every kind and type, both physical and mental, with a significant portion of these needs, such as food and clothing, being quantifiable financially.
Section 323 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977, also imposes on a parent or other person responsible for a minor child of his or her own household the duty to provide for his or her living needs, take care of his or her health, and prevent abuse, bodily harm, or other harm to his or her well-being and health.
In cases Divorce When the parents of a minor separate and there is no agreement between them on the extent of each of them’s financial responsibility for their children, the family courts are forced to decide the issue by conducting a comprehensive assessment of the minor’s needs and finances, called Foods And a clear determination of the payments that one party will make to the other, with most cases requiring the father to pay to the mother.
The Family Law Amendment Law – Alimony, 1959 regulates the law applicable to child support – minors.
The law states in Section 3, Subsection A, that a person is obligated to support his minor children and the minor children of his spouse, according to the provisions of the personal law applicable to him, and the provisions of this law shall not apply to this support.
The meaning of the section is that Jewish couples are subject to Hebrew law – Torah law, according to which a person is obligated to support their children until they reach the mitzvot, age 12 for girls and age 13 for boys.
The Chief Rabbinate’s regulation of 1944 extended the age at which fathers are responsible for the essential needs of their children, from the age of majority to the age of 15.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled in a guiding judgment, A”A 591/81 Portugal v Portugal PD 3-449, that until the minor reaches the age of 6, the Jewish father alone has an absolute obligation to provide all of the child’s support, but thereafter, he is obligated to provide for the child’s essential needs, while the needs that are not defined as essential, called charity law, apply to both parents, according to their financial ability.
In recent years, the trend in case law has been to reduce as much as possible the necessary needs, which fall solely on the shoulders of the Jewish father, to a minimum. The amount currently stands at approximately 1,350 NIS. This is in accordance with the ruling of the Honorable Judge Yehudit Stoffman in the proceeding P.A., Tel Aviv 1895/02 Ben Ami n Ben Ami, compared to 1150 NIS in 2002.
This amount does not include the father’s share of the rent and expenses of the mother’s apartment where the minors live, called child support.
Since in most of the judgments it was given Custody of the children To the mother, the Jewish father is generally obligated to pay child support fees of about 33% of the rent or mortgage repayment for one child, about 40% for two children, and about 50% for three or more children – for example: Tel Aviv 764/87, Ohr n Ohr.
How is the amount of child support determined?
When deciding on child support, the family courts will proceed as follows: First, they will examine the needs of the minors, classifying them as necessary needs or needs under charitable law.
Second, the financial capacity of each parent will be examined and how much will be left for each of them after the payment of the alimony awarded. The court will also consider the standard of living the family had prior to the separation in the proceedings. Case No. 2433/04 Zinovoy v. Zinovoy.
It is important to remember that the amount of child support in the judgment is not an inter-judicial act and may always change, increase or decrease according to changes in the children’s needs, as proven in court. A.A. 363/81 Feiga v Feiga, PD Lu-3 187.
When can child support payments be reduced?
Flexibility in the amount of child support is increasing, along with a judicial trend to divide the child support burden as equally as possible between both parents, and it opens the door to filing a lawsuit to reduce or increase child support payments at any time.
The party initiating the process of changing the alimony payments has the burden of proving, through weighty evidence, that after the amount of alimony was determined, the circumstances changed significantly and a substantial change in circumstances occurred that justifies the change.
The change must be significant and ongoing and go down to the root of the charge or amount, and must be unexpected, i.e.: not foreseeable at the time of the judgment – above, Feiga case, p. 188.
In addition, the initiating party must generally meet three cumulative conditions: One is to prove that due to the material change in circumstances it would not be fair to leave the judgment in place. The parties expressly or impliedly left room for a change in circumstances, that the party requesting the change acted in good faith, A”A 442/83 Kam n Kam, PD LH-1 761.
Proving a material change in circumstances is based on factual elements. The ruling stated that a material change in circumstances could be, for example, a significant deterioration in the health of the child or parent, manifested in an increase in the costs of treatment or a significant reduction in the parent’s income.
See for example the procedure: Tamesh Kfar Saba 23761/07 A.A. and others N. A.A. 2010.
However, even in cases where Jewish fathers had 100% functional disability and were supported solely by the disability pension, they were still required to pay child support, even if minimal.
See in this regard Tel Aviv Housing Development Authority 82411/97 2.D. n 2.Y. 2002 and see also: Building code 25361-11-10.
Joint custody will generally be considered a material change of circumstances, see TAMSH 1707/03 S.M. N. A.S.A. From 2008.
In cases of joint custody, due to the increased time the child spends with the father, which burdens the father with additional costs, it is generally customary to reduce the amount by about 25%. Food Children In which the father is obligated, see this matter Haifa 318/05 So-and-so n So-and-so.
It is important to note that in the past year there have been a few cases in which the amount of child support was reduced or canceled altogether, which caused a public outcry.
Read more and in detail: Reduction of child support in light of joint custody of the children
Among the most notable rulings is the TAMSH 49165-10-10 T.S. and others n. E.S. of Judge Yehoram Shaked of the Family Court in Ramat Gan and TAMSH 16785-09-12 of Judge Yitzhak Cohen of the Family Court in Rishon LeZion.
In those cases there was Joint custody And the mother’s income was similar to or even higher than the father’s. All the children were over the age of 6, otherwise the father’s duty was absolute.
The children’s residence times with both parents were similar, and therefore it was ruled that the burden of child support should be divided equally between the parents. As a result of the rulings in practice, the fathers stopped paying child support to the mothers.
At the same time, family courts have often rejected claims to change the amount of alimony, for reasons they determined did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances that justified the change.
For example, the courts will generally not view the father’s birth of new children as a reason that justifies a reduction in child support payments, at least not significantly – see the procedure. A”A 381/86 Avin v Avin.
Dismissal or unemployment are also not generally recognized in case law as reasons justifying a reduction in alimony, both out of concern for encouraging unemployment as part of a legal tactic to reduce alimony and because it is a relatively temporary episode and not a permanent situation.
It is important to note that the courts examine the income of the parties not according to actual income but according to earning potential and can even rule on alimony not only from income but also from property, as was the case in the hearing of the proceeding. A”A 378/80 Yitzhar v Yitzhar, PD La, 1, 328.
There have been cases where Jewish fathers have filed claims for a reduction in child support payments due to their children’s refusal to cooperate. These claims have been accepted only in rare cases and only when the child has passed the age of 14.
The only reason for canceling child support is extremely and severely rebellious behavior by a child towards his father, including a complete refusal to meet with him, verbal violence, disdain, and demonstrated disrespect.
In court rulings, such a child is referred to as a rebel or a rebellious son – a concept that has its roots in Jewish law, but the law of course also applies to rebellious daughters, for example: A.A. 1880/94 Small n Small P.D. Matt. 1, 215, 220.
The courts do not recognize a mental crisis that leads to a decrease in income, and it will not be recognized in the ruling as a substantial change in circumstances that justifies a permanent change in child support payments, and this can be seen as an expression of this in the proceedings. TAMSH 17732-07-12 Y.A. N. H.K.A.
This is both because most of them are usually time-limited and do not constitute a lasting change, and also in order not to encourage Jewish fathers to evade the burden of child support, through manipulations such as an intentional mental crisis.
