MivzakLive News All The News From Israel
Claimed that the Buddhist religion to which he belonged forbade him to undergo paternity testing
And a few more articles:
· Update of purchase tax brackets for 2022, in accordance with the change in the index…
· Online State Attorney’s Office – the new project of the State Attorney’s Office
· Bg"A petition was rejected to examine the equal burden of child support
· 106 NIS million in fines for violating the use of the Cash Law
· State witness to a criminal, offenses committed in the United States"B. led to his recruitment as an agent FBI
· The Omicron Wave – An indictment has been filed for breach of insulation
· Supreme against Facebook, will pay court costs and stand trial …
· Indictment in the spam case, sting and impersonation of the Israel Post
The Supreme Court has recently rejected a request for leave to appeal the ruling of the Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court (Judges) S. Shochat, S"N, E. Ravid andN. Sheila) Which was given on 6.12.2021 at p"S. 8754-06-21, which in part accepted the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Tel Aviv-Yafo Family Court (Judge A’ Arbel-Asel) which was granted on 3.6.2021 in Tam"Q 41485-08-19, which ordered the applicant’s immediate imprisonment for twenty days under a contempt of court order, in view of his refusal to undergo a tissue classification examination to determine his paternity in relation to a minor, the respondent’s son, in accordance with an order given by the Family Court on 9.3.2021 . The preliminary ruling stated that after the imprisonment, the respondent will set a new date for the examination to classify tissues, and if the applicant does not appear on that date as well, he will pay a fine of NIS 10,000 within twenty-one days from the date of the examination, and no, the respondent Family Law.
The preliminary ruling as well as the order and the decisions given by the Family Court are based, inter alia, on explicit legislative provisions set forth in sections 28F and 28H (a) of the Genetic Information Law, 5769"A-2000. The applicant refused to comply with the order: first, holding on to the respondent’s religious affiliation – that is: in an interest not his own – and then, in his own religion. In the latter case, the petitioner argued that the Buddhist religion to which he belongs forbids him from undergoing paternity testing while it is intended to prove his paternity to a child while married to a woman who is not his mother. The district court held that this claim of the petitioner was raised by him belatedly and in any case was not proved as conclusive. This is therefore a factual-individual determination that is limited to the poor"The circumstances of the specific case which was adjudicated – and decided as decided – by the lower courts.
The preliminary ruling and the decision of the Family Court approved in it – subject to the replacement of the imprisonment with a fine – do not therefore raise a legal question of principle which goes beyond the individual interest of the parties to this proceeding, and which deserves, by its nature and substance,"Third incarnation". The court also held that granting leave to appeal the preliminary ruling is not necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court rejected the request for leave to appeal submitted to it on the basis of the provisions of Regulation 148A of the Civil Procedure Regulations, Nine"T-2018.
More Noam Koris Holds a master’s degree in law from Bar Ilan University, office Noam Koris Co. Lawyer has been involved in legal representation and class actions since 2004.
