Victory For Fathers: Israeli Court Rules Both Parents Must Share Child Support With Joint Custody

As a divorced man, I have an ongoing burden. It is child support. I, like many of my divorced brothers, am the sole person responsible for my kid’s financial welfare. The law in the state of Israel, much like other nations, puts that burden on me. A burden which the kids’ mother does not share legally.

My story is maybe somewhat different, yet it shares the same dynamic and narrative of others: I married an epiphany stage girl, who sought out a good beta provider (with some alpha qualities). I was blue as a smurf, and have the scars to show it.

That is why I momentarily rejoiced, upon reading the following news (on July):

The [Israeli] Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that divorced mothers of children aged six to 15 will have to share equally the financial burden of child support with the fathers if their salaries are equal or the woman’s is higher and children are in joint custody.

The ruling, issued by an expanded panel of seven justices, was given in response to an appeal by two divorced men whose ex-wives earned higher salaries than they did but who were still required to pay child support even though their children were in joint custody.

Justice? Could it be?

This sounds fair enough. Yet as we live in the matrix, I decided to read the verdict for myself. Even though I’m not a lawyer, I decided to share the story, the good, and the bad with ROK readers.

The story

The couple, to which the verdict refers, married in 1999. They divorced in 2014, having 3 kids. They agreed to an actual joint custody (equal number of nights the kids spend at any parents over a time period). The mother also makes up slightly more than the father (he makes ~3500$/month and she makes ~3750$/month). That is close enough to be considered equal income.

In late 2013 (during the divorce procedure), she sued him for child support of 2500$/month. I was actually mortified at that number. Does she even understand the consequences of her asking that? As CH states:

When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.

The family court ruled against her. The female judge stated that the principles of justice and equality requires looking at both parents income and mandating child support based on those. However, since it is not according to previous rulings, the judge decided that it is only for the ages of 6-15.

If a female feels that she is entitled to money, she won’t back off that easy. She appealed to the district court, and at the beginning of 2015 a verdict providing her with 800$/month of child support. That was because that verdict was based on the Israeli and Jewish law, as well as fear that father would use joint custody as an excuse for reduction of child support while not “pulling his weight as a parent”.

It seems that there was a contradiction. On one side is the law, which requires the man, and only the man, pay child support first. On the other side is equality and justice which require that both parent share the burden.

The father appealed to the Supreme Court and was able to hold off the verdict until the new verdict (which is final).

The Good

1. The court noticed that there is a gender bias, and this time it’s against men.

That is a good thing as it pushes back on the feminist/SJW narrative that “the oppressor cannot be oppressed”. You want to fight against SJW narrative? Here is a case of applying equalism ideology to its full extent.

2. The court noticed and mentioned that divorced fathers carry a financial burden much greater than divorced mothers.

Next time she tells you that divorced women have it tough, you can say, “Well sweetie, the Supreme Court thinks fathers have it much harder financially. Would you like to switch and carry the financial burden, while the man sits at home and collects child support?”

Maybe not that much of a burden

3. The court quoted the UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child” article 27:

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.

This means that lowering the father’s standard of living is against the UN treaty, that most states are part of. Next time you are in court, try using it (I doubt it, but it’s worth a try).

4. Maybe the most important is the ruling: child support is based on both parents financial ability (ages 6-15).

This means that a frivolous divorcee cannot just claim that the kids need “their high standard of living”. In this case she will need to take ownership of (at least) her part in it. Also, this brings the share custody into the public awareness again.

The Bad

1. The court adopted the common feminist view of the “wage gap”.

Even though it has proven time and again as false, the Israeli Supreme Court still quotes feminist literature and articles and believes that women earn less and it is because they take care of the household. Even our dear attention-whores from Huffpo know it’s false. But as we all know, If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

2. The court adopts a view that fathers seeking joint custody maybe just trying to lower their child support.

Sometime the SJW feminists are tangled in their own web. On one side they want mothers and fathers to be equal parents. On the other side, if a father tries to be an equal parent (joint custody), then he is automatically a suspect. This is exactly what my colleague Ryan Campbell recently titled his recent article: “Men Will Always Be Seen As Evil By Feminists” .

3. The court says it will not provide a formula for child support. It will be on a case by case basis.

If the law is clear and simple, people know what to do. If it is a “case by case” than it is up to the judge (Israel does not have jury). This makes situations more complicated and creates confusion. It was recently stated that ‘constructive ambiguity’ is good for your game, but it is certainly not good for hedging risks such as marriage.

More than that, article 61 of the verdict mandates family courts to determine a mechanism to handle “other required expenditures” for the kids. It is to be based on one parent who will be compensated by the other or even a joint bank account. This, to me, is somewhat disturbing. Joint bank account is what you had when you were married. It didn’t work than, why should it work now? Also, since women are prone to get into debt, what happens if she uses that account for an “I had to buy it, now you pay it” expenditure?

This is how I feel financially after my divorce

One good thing about divorce that I noticed is that you can hedge your family expenses. Child support is known, and unless a catastrophe happens (and they usually don’t), you have a good idea how much you will need to cough up every month.

Final Thoughts

The verdict itself can be found here (it’s in Hebrew). As I state above, there is both good and bad. I believe that the good (this time) outweighs the bad. Please note that is is relevant only to Israel, but the sentiment may spread to other countries.

Sometimes, when one applies justice and equality, it can favor man (at least compared to what we had until now). We will have to see if other developments in this area will take place. The Israeli DoJ has been stalling or trying (depends on which side of the feminist map you sit) not to change the law, even after several appointed committees pointed out some of the current injustices named in the verdict. I’m semi-optimistic, as Israel has a relatively low divorce rate of 30%.

Read Next: Man Must Pay $30,000 Child Support For Someone Else’s Kid

56 thoughts on “Victory For Fathers: Israeli Court Rules Both Parents Must Share Child Support With Joint Custody”

  1. It’s vital to realize that the purpose of family law is to make money for lawyers, not resolve problems. This is unusual since judges are lawyers who must watch out for their professional pals.

  2. in my -mediterranean- country, thanks god, there is a clear totally income based child support system. both parents have to contribute to the needs of their children according to the relevant ratio of their income. first, the financial needs of children are calculated strictly based on ongoing expenses that can be supported by documents. let’s say 2 children 8 and 12 yrs old without private schools 1200 euros total expenses. yeah expenses are really strictly defined. then, if the mother’s salary is let’s say 2000 e/month and the father’s 1000 e/month and custody is awarded to the wife then the father has to contribute 1200*[1000/(2000+1000)]=400 e/month. of course, if the house where the children live with their mother belongs 50/50 to both the parents a reasonable rent-alike amount will be deducted from father’s child support as it is considered as quasi financial contribution (and that’s totally rational, if there was no house, the parents should contribute for the rent of the home of their children).
    moreover, although the alimony institution is theoretically present, it is in practice reserved only for instances when the former wife is not only unemployed but also objectively unable to work due to severe health issues or age and even then it is strictly limited to the most fundamentals.
    finally, regarding property division after divorce: it only applies to any asset acquired AFTER the wedding and simultaneously not attributed to inheritance or gift from a third party. even then, the party asking for a share on the assets of its former spouse has to prove an actual contribution. there is a 1/3 contribution presumption however it is fully rebuttable for both parties i.e. the plaintiff may prove a larger contribution while the defendant a smaller one.
    prenup agreements are forbidden -and unnecessary-. in practice, there is no financial -at least- motive for initiating a divorce.
    however, divorce rates skyrocket here as well and divorce initiation is totally owned by women. however, here, the financially independent women are the ones mostly divorcing.
    the local curiosity is that this independence is frequently due to the traditional material and immaterial support of women by their families even in a totally unheard for other countries age as well as the fact that women dominate the public sector as state employees. eg it is totally acceptable that the 45 yrs old mother’s father (of 75-80 yrs old) will financially support her after the divorce.

  3. “…will have to share equally the financial burden of child support with the fathers if their salaries are equal or the woman’s is higher…”
    Won`t this be an incentive for women to work less and let men pay more in child support?

  4. Sounds good for now….
    That case by case basis is the monkey wrench, though.
    So either way, men in Israel need to be careful and act like the deck is stacked against them.

    1. Men in Israel need to be careful, and act like the deck is stacked against them, because, just like everywhere, it is.

  5. Divorce is never pretty.
    No one wins. Its a reflection of man failing being a patriarch and a woman failing to be a matriarch.
    It’s a shit show man.
    But it’s a small victory and wish those fellas luck in the future when this situation hits them. But to be honest I’d rather not and just hope that they live with the person they marry for a long time and create kids that will be great contributors to society.
    Red-pilled as I am, I really wish for everyone the very best lives.

  6. For God’s sake, don’t get married. My sister got a child + got married and started treating my brother-in-law like shit. We men need to collude against women, despite women importing immigrants and making our boycott more difficult.

  7. Another aspect to divorce is that you find out that your marriage belongs to everyone else but you. That’s right. If your wife is filing for divorce and you don’t want a divorce, you have no say-so in the matter really. The lawyer on her side gets to weigh in on making your divorce happen. Your wife’s friends, sisters, mother, aunt, grandmother, etc. get to weigh in and influence her to divorce to you as well while they tell her to that “she needs to move on” and take her to a “girls night out divorce party”. The judge gets to dissolve your marriage. Oh, did you not want your marriage dissolved? Oh, you own 50% of the marriage contract? Oh, you’ve invested many years of your life and money to uphold that marriage? Too bad, it’s gone now; no-fault divorce, stroke of a pen.
    So here you enter into a civil contract and also a religious covenant contract between you, your wife, and God. That contract belongs to you. You had an agreement from the other party to be your wife until death. But as soon as she wants out, she and everyone else but you gets to take part in trashing your contract and dissolving it. Makes a hell alot of sense doesn’t it?
    Some might say that if they made divorce laws much tougher or made it such that both parties MUST agree to it for it to happen, then people would just simply abandon the marriage and go off and cheat and hook up with someone else regardless of whether a legal divorce happens or not. However, if that were the case, then the law should make it that any kids or wealth that your estranged wife has with another man becomes legally yours. And since you would still be legally married, then you would owe no child support and the loser that she hooked up with would owe you child support for the kids he had with your estranged wife. THATS HOW MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE SHOULD WORK. It would put an end real quick to some loser trying to take your wife from you.

    1. Easy access to video cameras is the worst thing that can happen to women, crazy bitches are very common but when the police arrives they find a woman crying and arrest the man. They hate it, It seems that there is am internet trend of crazy women caught on video, but that’s normal, there is a trend of women being caught in bad behavior but the number of bitches stay the same. That’s why they are trying to legislate and punish a person who record people without their consent. Try to get video evidence from a camera in a street in London or Paris to prove that your are not a rapist, HA good luck.

      1. “That’s why they are trying to legislate and punish a person who record people without their consent”
        That, plus judges don’t allow any video evidence.

        1. That´s the reason google glass was a failure, people were concern of privacy, hahha we know WHO was concern. Imagine the stress of behaving like a lady 24h. Women privilege to be able to lie is a human right. They will do something about it like when the wymen were mad with the paternity test they change the law to give a small window of time to do a paternity test, past that time it does not matter you are legally the father until you die. I heard the history of a black man who was forced to pay child support despise a paternity test, and the mother is living with the biological father, then they wonder why male suicide is 5 times more than women.

        2. “. I heard the history of a black man who was forced to pay child support despise a paternity test, and the mother is living with the biological father, then they wonder why male suicide is 5 times more than women”
          Yes this still goes on and I remember these kinds of cases got written about in the msm – but no more. Literally these fuck face judges make it up as they see fit, do whatever the hell they want. Their goal is not to dispense justice, but rather to destroy mens lives one at a time. This is why I see the system establishing a simple turn key solution to be sure they have their way: and that is to simply pass a law prohibiting any video evidence the accused might have, even if the accuser knew she was being recorded.

        3. Another case, also from the black community, woman get pregnant, the father is an unemployed loser, she leaves with the child and marries another black guy, the father never meet his son and he is not legally the father. 20 years later, the father becomes rich, now the mother wants all the child support he owns her. Of course 18 years of child support based in his actual millionaire income. Female judge agree.

    2. Interesting video.
      Jew bitches are the naggiest of them all. Look at the history of the Semite. Feminism has been with them for a long, long time. It’s in their blood.

    3. Fuckin a….. Israel seems to be in equally shitty as the west. One jewish guy said he is jealous of arabs because they can do what they want, and that some jewish females are actually jumping ship and being with arabs.

      1. Good let the Arabs doggy style Jewish women. Jews promote miscegenation in the West, they want our women sleeping with Latrelle and Shante.

    4. So this is why Israel keeps importing Eastern European prostitutes? LOL. I notice the Orthodox Jews keep their women in tight line, but they get special treatment from the Israel government, and local governments in the US with large Jewish populations do the same.
      Good they will go for Arab cocks, just like too many European women went for giant Muslim cocks.
      Some fool told me Israeli women are beautiful but from this video they are just as ugly as the Jewish women in America.

  8. These very same Jews that are doing it the right way, are also the very same Jews who promote feminism and take away a man’s children in court here in the States. Well I’m done with whitey, it was nice knowing you, I’m going to turn into a wannabe Jew Shabbos Goy and move to Israel, at least they’re not cucked beyond words like us Europeans are now.

    1. Problem is they will stop you at the front door and will ask for your DNA to prove you are really Jewish.
      Jews are for only Jews. Even if you wanted to kiss their ass, they won’t let you into their promised land, because you are not one of them. Anyway Israel is not such a nice place, I would go mad living in a place like that, even in places with large numbers of Jews in the States you notice something just is not right about them. If you are white consider Eastern Europe, or Argentina/Chile, even some of the “Brown” Latin American countries are actually pretty good.

      1. You would have to convert to Orthodox Judaism. Also, unless your mother was certifiably Jewish, you would still have an up hill battle to immigrate to Israel.

  9. Meh. Israel. That’s the country that takes extra measures to protect themselves from terrorists and even build walls, and the politicians who champion that then tuck their junk and say “nooooo that’s racist!!!” when we ask to do the exact same things in the United States.
    So I fully expect something like “Hey how about that case in Israel where they ruled that…. ”
    “NOOOOOOOO!!” screams the republicuck, “That’s misogynist!!!”
    When it’s happening in the United States then I’ll care.

    1. The Jews say it’s racist when we want to do 25 percent of what Israel does, Trump doesn’t want to change the immigration laws so only certain races of people can come to the US, Israel restricts itself to Jews, now they demand DNA from any prospective immigrants because they want to weed out “fake Jews”. What a sick joke.

      1. You should tightly control immigration otherwise you don’t really have a country. It’s certainly not racist just common sense that you pick who you let into your country.

      2. Frankly I think it’s hilarious that the Israelis are addressing the “Fake jew” thing. Finally someone is doing it and it needed to be done.

        1. The Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve was the Governor of the Bank of Israel before he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. How fascinating that someone who worked for a foreign government got a high ranking job at the US Federal government. He just resigned, but still Obama appointed him in 2014. The left was disheartened that Obama was a Wall Street and Zionist shill. That being said Trump hasn’t done much to convince me that he is different.
          The media is going nuts over him rescinding DACA, all the bankers of all people were criticizing the move. But then Trump said he chose not to renew and will “revisit” the issue in 6 months if Congress hasn’t resolved the matter. In other words despite the media uproar, its likely the 800,000 “Dreamers” will ultimately stay in the US, so once again, young people born in the US mean nothing.
          Why do these rich bankers show concern for “dreamers”? Its not virtue signaling, its the fact they want open borders to keep wages for working people low. These people are afraid if the “Dreamers” are deported than Trump will follow with more tightening of immigration, which goes against their agenda of cheap labor. Open borders immigration has done a lot to lower wages and further divide the American population. In all honestly blacks would be much better off today if America never opened its doors to non European immigration.

        2. Nice try. Stanley Fischer was recruited by Netanyahu for the job because a. Netanyahu is a Chicago-school economics fan and is known to habitually evangelize the Laffer curve (he talks about it constantly with foreign leaders). He was, of course, an acolyte and close friend of of Jack Kemp. As such, when he needed to reform the Israeli banking system and make some other changes, he needed to go outside of Israel to recruit someone who wasn’t already committed to socialism and wasn’t beholden to any Israeli political faction. Hence, he recruited Fischer.

  10. If the state just *has * to involve its nagging, bitch ass self with everyone’s personal lives, here’s a simple solution for lowering divorce:
    Create laws that discourage people (women mostly) from getting divorced, or on the flip side, toss laws that encourage divorce. Kicking the no fault divorce law to the curb is a good start.

  11. So why is it Israel can do things that make sense for everyone involved but in America and Europe men are treated unfairly?

    1. It’s because they want feminism for us and not them. Even in the US, Orthodox Jews never follow US divorce laws, their women need permission to divorce from their husband. Courts look the other way because it’s a freedom of religion issue but other religious groups with an unfavorable view of divorce don’t have this privilege.
      Now with major civil rights groups aligning with Muslims they will let Muslim men get away with forcing their wives to wear burkas and beating them. Muslim men will claim in courts that it’s their “religious freedom” to hit women because “Allah” commands them to beat their wives. This is the two faced liberal ideology destroying all Western nations.

      1. We need to assert that “freedom of religion” only applied to Christianity rather than the religions of the world.

        1. Its mainly the Jews and Muslims pressing their religion on Western countries, the other religions mostly stay out of Western politics. For a while Jews fooled us into thinking they are like us Christians, they are nothing of the sort.
          Years ago Jews kept their influence on non Jews reserved to a few mostly urban areas with large Jewish populations, and now its all over America. They added Muslims to the mix and now things are really screwed up.

        2. Jews hijacked many Protestant/evangelical church and cucked their religion. Those churches are little more than large shill houses for Israel.

      2. Israel men have it just as shitty if not worst than America and Europe with women. Don’t start this whole “Jews control shit agenda” again. Muslim men apparently are having it easier there than Jewish men.

  12. In general…..does any state or even country have any laws regarding how child support money received is actually used? Not that I know of, hence why many call it back door alimony.

  13. The system in my country is not bad compared to others by the sound of it. An amount for living is deducted from your post tax income, then a formula is applied. Both parents income is considered and costs apportioned according to the number of hours each looks after the children. Of course, it can be fiddled. My ex simply worked part time, so the whole cost fell to me. She also sold a piece of real estate but didn’t settle until after the child support finished! On the bright side, we only pay spousal support in exceptional circumstances and only short term. Only the rich men get lumbered with that.

  14. Marriage is a losing game for ANY man in ANY country…..even Israel. Unfortunately, men will still be stupid. Won the day in two World Wars, went to the moon, built skyscrapers, and even harnessed the power of the atom. Yet, STILL…….with all of the irrefutable evidence out there that marriage is against their own best interests, they still take the plunge into ruin. Such a waste of intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *