The appointment of Justice Shaul Shochat, a family law expert, for a temporary appointment in the Supreme Court, is an important step in changing the general perception regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges in general and judges specializing in family law in particular, and inspires hope regarding permanent Supreme Court appointments.
The discussion on their political positions and their point of view on the constitutional revolution of candidates for the Supreme Court is a worthy one, however, no less than the need to balance conservatives against liberals, or if you want right versus left, the Judiciary Appointments Committee needs to see before it Specializing in the legal field, which has suffered from a significant disadvantage in appointments to the Supreme Court for decades – the field of family law.
Not for nothing, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut pushed for Shochat’s “emergency appointment.” For decades there has been no Supreme Court judge or judge whose main area of expertise is family law, in contrast to the areas of economic, tort and administrative law. The recent storms over the issue of alimony and the right of LGBT people to adopt children are just the tip of the iceberg of a legal field that is constantly bubbling and is expected to occupy the Supreme Court to the top of its head in the coming years.
Recently, the law for the settlement of family litigation came into force, which seeks to reduce the height of the flames in divorce battles and places on the agenda valuable legal questions that are expected to reach the Supreme Court in the coming years.
In addition, the Supreme Court may in the near future be required to make significant decisions on issues on the family law agenda: child support in the state of joint parenting, the presumption of infancy, new families of all kinds, surrogacy, adoption and more.
The situation where the possibility of appointing a permanent judge specializing in family law has not been considered at all until recently, is unfortunate, since the appointment of such a judge to the Supreme Court is bound by reality. There is not a week in which issues related to the issue of family and personal status do not arise in Israel. Only recently has a proposal been made in the Knesset to significantly expand the powers of the rabbinical courts so that they can also decide on matters related to labor law, billing law and more.
Is the family domain not important enough to gain visibility in the Supreme Court? The field of family and personal status is at the core of the conflict in Israeli society, because of the unique control that personal-religious law has, and its impact on the life of the individual and the family in the State of Israel. It is therefore extremely important that the Israeli Supreme Court be able to chart a path in this complex, sensitive and delicate area.
Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court has become a value marker – and not just a decisive factor in the conflicts that come before it – and as such, it should and should have diversity in the political and constitutional perspectives of judges. However, alongside the aforesaid, care must also be taken to ensure that judges who specialize in a variety of branches in the legal world sit there. It is unlikely that such a thorough and sensitive field, sensitive and important as family and inheritance law, will remain unanswered. Shochat’s temporary appointment is a first step in that direction.
The writer is a partner in the firm a. Zisman Shani, who specializes in family and inheritance law