Skip to content

Israel — Capacity and Guardianship Law 5722-1962 arts. 14 + 15 + 17 + 19 (verbatim)

Jurisdiction: Israel · Citation: Capacity and Guardianship Law, 5722-1962 (חוק הכשרות המשפטית והאפוטרופסות) arts. 14, 15, 17, 19 · Authoritative source: nevo.co.il — Capacity and Guardianship Law

The parental responsibility framework of Israeli family law. The Capacity and Guardianship Law 5722-1962 establishes the structural framework for parental authority (אפוטרופסות — apotropsut), with subsequent jurisprudence developing the operational welfare standard. The framework establishes: - Art. 14 — natural guardianship of both parents (joint authority) - Art. 15 — content of parental authority - Art. 17 — welfare standard for parental decisions - Art. 19 — court adjudication of disputes

The provisions parallel: - UK Children Act 1989 s. 1 (welfare paramountcy) - South Africa Children's Act 38 of 2005 section 7 - India Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 s. 13

Israel is doctrinally distinctive among Middle Eastern jurisdictions because the framework operates within a dual religious-civil system — the Family Court has parallel jurisdiction with the religious courts (Rabbinical Court, Sharia Court, Christian Court, Druze Court) on matters of personal status. The 2008 Schnitt Committee recommendations led to the partial abolition of the tender years presumption (חזקת הגיל הרך) for children under 6, though the operational presumption persists in some Family Court practice.

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

Art. 14 — Natural guardianship

The parents are the natural guardians of their minor children.

Art. 15 — Content of guardianship

The guardianship of parents includes the duty and the right to take care of the child's needs, including his/her education, study, occupational training, occupation, work, as well as the preservation of his/her property, its management and its development; and to it is annexed the authority to hold the child and to determine his/her place of residence, and the authority to act on his/her behalf.

Art. 17 — Standard of parental conduct

In the exercise of their guardianship, the parents shall act in the best interests of the child, in such a manner as devoted parents would act under the circumstances.

Art. 18 — Joint exercise

In any matter affecting parental guardianship, the parents shall act together; the consent of one of them to the act of the other may be inferred expressly, implicitly, or in advance. Routine acts, urgent acts, and acts which cannot suffer postponement may be performed by either parent acting alone.

Art. 19 — Court adjudication of disputes

If the parents are unable to agree among themselves on a matter affecting their child, they may apply to the court, which may adjudicate the matter as it deems fit for the child's welfare.

Where the parents live separately and have not reached agreement on the matter of the child's custody and residence, the court shall determine the matter taking into account the child's welfare; in particular, the court shall be guided by the desirability of preserving the child's relationship with both parents.

Why this matters for PA

  • The art. 14 + 18 joint-guardianship default. Parents are the natural guardians of their minor children … parents shall act together. The structural Israeli starting point is joint exercise of guardianship. In PA-pattern cases the alienating parent's unilateral exercise is not the lawful default — joint exercise is.
  • The art. 17 devoted parents standard. The parents shall act in the best interests of the child, in such a manner as devoted parents would act under the circumstances. This is doctrinally distinctive — Israeli law expressly invokes a devoted parents standard (כהורים מסורים). The standard operates as both:
  • A normative welfare-paramountcy framework
  • A character-based assessment of parental conduct
  • In PA-pattern cases sustained alienating conduct demonstrates structural failure of the devoted parents standard — alienation conduct is not what devoted parents would do.
  • The art. 18 joint-action consent framework. The consent of one of them to the act of the other may be inferred expressly, implicitly, or in advance. This provides operational flexibility — but the routine acts, urgent acts, and acts which cannot suffer postponement enumeration constrains the unilateral-action authority. In PA-pattern cases the alienating parent's unilateral decisions on non-routine, non-urgent matters constitute breach.
  • The art. 19 dispute-resolution framework. The court may adjudicate the matter as it deems fit for the child's welfare. The judicial dispute-resolution is welfare-paramountcy-driven. In PA-pattern cases the court has broad discretion to fashion welfare-protective remedies.
  • The art. 19 second paragraph — both-parent-relationship preservation. The court shall be guided by the desirability of preserving the child's relationship with both parents. This is doctrinally important — Israeli law expressly codifies the welfare interest in preserving the child's relationship with both parents as a guiding consideration in residence determinations. The structural Israeli parallel to:
  • Austrian § 138 (1) Z 9 verlässliche Kontakte
  • Australian FLA s. 60CC(2)(e) benefit of relationship
  • Portuguese CC art. 1906(8) grande proximidade
  • In PA-pattern cases sustained alienating conduct that disrupts both-parent-relationship engages the art. 19 guiding consideration directly.
  • The Schnitt Committee 2008 reform context. The Public Committee for Examining the Legal Aspects of Parental Responsibility in Divorce (Schnitt Committee 2008) recommended:
  • Replacement of guardianship with parental responsibility terminology
  • Abolition of the tender years presumption for children under 6
  • Introduction of shared parental responsibility as structural default
  • The recommendations were partially implemented through judicial practice — the tender years presumption has been substantially weakened but not formally abolished. Operational Family Court practice has shifted toward shared-parenting consideration but maternal preference for very young children persists in some districts.
  • The dual religious-civil framework. Israel operates a parallel jurisdiction system — Family Courts have civil jurisdiction over parental responsibility, but the religious courts (בית הדין הרבני — Rabbinical Court; المحكمة الشرعية — Sharia Court; etc.) have parallel jurisdiction on matters of personal status. In PA-pattern cases the choice-of-forum can be operationally significant:
  • Family Courts apply the Capacity and Guardianship Law + welfare-paramountcy framework
  • Religious courts apply religious-law frameworks with limited welfare-paramountcy reception
  • The 2008 Bavli Israeli Supreme Court decisions established the precedence of the welfare-paramountcy standard across both forums, but operational divergence persists.

Procedural application

  • The competent court is the Family Court (בית המשפט לענייני משפחה) under the Family Court Law 5755-1995 for civil family-law matters
  • Religious courts have parallel jurisdiction on personal-status matters
  • Welfare Officer (פקיד סעד — pakid sa'ad) reports provide welfare assessment
  • The child is heard under Youth Law 5731-1971 — capacity-based
  • Mediation under the Family Court framework is structurally available
  • Appellate review to the District Court + cassation to the Supreme Court of Israel

Use in alienating-conduct cases

  • The Israeli Supreme Court has applied the both-parent-relationship preservation framework in PA-pattern cases — see AAA 1480/95 Levi v. Levi line and subsequent jurisprudence
  • The post-Schnitt Committee Family Court practice has developed PA-pattern recognition through the devoted parents standard analysis
  • Where alienating conduct is established, Israeli courts can:
  • First-tier: order mediation under Family Court framework
  • Second-tier: fix specific contact arrangements under art. 19
  • Third-tier: modify residence under art. 19 second paragraph welfare analysis
  • Apex-tier: restrict parental authority under art. 19 + dedicated provisions
  • The art. 17 devoted parents standard provides express anchor for treating sustained alienating conduct as failing the structural welfare-conduct standard
  • The art. 19 second paragraph both-parent-relationship preservation provides direct guidance for treating PA-pattern findings as engaging residence-determination welfare assessment

Cross-reference

Comparative cross-references