Background
The case involved a couple who met online in 2008. The mother, a Czech national, moved to Israel in 2009, converted to Judaism, and married the father, an Israeli citizen, in a religious ceremony in Israel in 2010. They also had a civil marriage in the Czech Republic in 2011. Throughout their entire marriage, the couple resided in Germany. They have two children, a daughter born in 2013 and a son born in 2018, both born and raised exclusively in Germany. The couple separated shortly before their son’s birth.
In April 2018, the father filed for divorce in the Tel Aviv Regional Rabbinical Court, attaching (or “binding”) claims for property division, child custody, and spousal/child support to the divorce proceedings. The mother, a resident of Germany, immediately challenged the Israeli court’s jurisdiction over these ancillary matters. Despite her objections and non-appearance, the Rabbinical Court asserted jurisdiction in a brief, unreasoned decision in December 2018. The couple formally divorced via a religious writ (*get*) in September 2019, but the legal battle over custody and property continued for years in the Israeli Rabbinical Court, even as the mother initiated parallel proceedings in Germany.
The mother eventually petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ), to nullify the Rabbinical Court’s jurisdiction. After a failed attempt to mediate a visitation agreement, the HCJ ordered the Rabbinical Court to issue a reasoned decision explaining its basis for jurisdiction. The Rabbinical Court did so in March 2026, finding it had jurisdiction based on the parties’ Israeli citizenship and its conclusion that they intended to eventually return to Israel. The mother challenged this reasoned decision, leading to the present ruling.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz granted the mother’s petition, ruling that the Israeli Rabbinical Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matters of custody and property. The Court’s analysis focused on the interpretation of Section 1 of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law, which grants jurisdiction in matters of “marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel.” The Court reaffirmed its precedent that the phrase “in Israel” requires more than just physical presence or citizenship; it demands a sufficient “link” or “connection” (zikah) between the parties and the State of Israel.
The Court found that the mother lacked the required substantial connection to Israel at the time the lawsuit was filed. It noted that the couple’s entire married life was in Germany, their children were born and raised there, the mother’s home and work were in Germany, she does not speak Hebrew, and she has no property in Israel. The Supreme Court rejected the Rabbinical Court’s reasoning, stating that factors like Israeli citizenship (a separate statutory requirement), having married in Israel years ago, or holding an Israeli driver’s license were insufficient to create a meaningful jurisdictional link. Crucially, the Court held that a subjective, “hypothetical” future intention to move to Israel, which never materialized, cannot establish jurisdiction when the objective, tangible center of the family’s life is clearly abroad.
As a secondary and alternative ground for its decision, the Court held that even if the Rabbinical Court had technical jurisdiction, it should have declined to exercise it under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (improper forum). The Court emphasized that in matters of child custody, the primary consideration is the best interests of the children. This generally requires the case to be heard in the children’s place of habitual residence—in this case, Germany. The Court noted that the children’s lives, evidence, and relevant professionals (therapists, teachers) are all in Germany. It rebuked the Rabbinical Court’s speculation that a German judge would lack the “creativity” or willingness to properly consider the father’s desire for his children to maintain a Jewish-Israeli cultural identity.
Key Takeaways
- A Rabbinical Court’s jurisdiction over ancillary divorce matters cannot be based on a couple’s speculative, unfulfilled future plan to live in Israel when their actual center of life is abroad.
- The jurisdictional “link” (zikah) to Israel required by law must be substantial and based on concrete, present-day facts, not merely on citizenship or past events like getting married in Israel.
- For international child custody disputes, the proper forum is almost always the jurisdiction where the children habitually reside, as this best serves their interests by allowing the court to access relevant evidence and understand their environment.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly clarifies and constrains the jurisdictional reach of Israeli Rabbinical Courts in international divorce cases involving Israeli citizens living abroad. It establishes a firm precedent that the “center of life” test is paramount and must be based on objective reality, not on a party’s claimed intentions for the future. By rejecting a loose interpretation of the jurisdictional “link,” the Supreme Court prevents Israeli courts from being used to litigate family matters for those whose lives are firmly rooted elsewhere, a practice often referred to as forum shopping.
The ruling reinforces the international legal principle that child custody matters should be adjudicated in the child’s home jurisdiction. It protects parents and children living abroad from being pulled into lengthy, expensive, and inappropriate litigation in Israel simply because one parent is an Israeli citizen. The decision prioritizes the best interests of the children and the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that cases are heard in the forum with the most significant connection to the dispute.