A father to 3 daughters divorced his wife after settling all matters concerning the divorce in a divorce agreement, including the daughters’ child support.
After 3 years, the father, who has a BA in Chemistry and is educated as a biomedical engineer, decided to avoid his duty to payment of child support for his daughters by trying to poison his ex-wife by injecting poison he concocted by himself into the food she had at home and in her office.
Three attempts of poisoning did not succeed and the father was arrested by the police, sentenced and convicted in a plea bargain where he was sentenced to eight and a half years of imprisonment and compensation to the mother totaling in 150,000 NIS.
One year after the he started to serve in sentence, the father filed a claim to reduce the amount of child support claiming that there was a substantial change in his circumstances justifying the reduction.
According to his claim, at the time of the signing of the agreement his gross wages as an employee was 20,000 NIS and nowadays he is serving his sentence he cannot nourish the minors, therefore the sum should be set for the minimum amount, until the end of his sentence in prison.
Furthermore, the father claimed that the mother has a steady and high income and her financial situation improved after receiving the compensations money from him within the framework of the sentence.
Family court judge in Beer-Sheva, Justice Alon Gavison opened the verdict with the statement: “Would criminals be rewarded?” a statement hinting to the judge’s attitude in the future verdict.
In the verdict judge Gavison expressed his disapproval of the grave acts done by the father who endangered the lives of the mother and the minors and he ruled that father’s unacceptable and grave behavior is reason enough to deny the claim for reducing the sum of child support.
With regard to the father’s claim to change of circumstances, the judge ruled that the father did not present any evidence to support his version and did not ask the mother to testify in order to prove his version.
Changing of circumstances created by the father entering prison strengthens, in fact, the mother’s arguments, as currently there are no visitation rights between the father and the minors, which could increase the economic burden on the mother, especially in view of the minors’ need for mental health care, in dealing with the implications of their father’s actions.
With regard to father claims that the mother benefited from the compensation funds awarded in her favor, the judge ruled that this argument should be rejected outright because this sum of money was meant to compensate the defendant and minors for the emotional damage they suffered following the grave actions of the Father: “The compensation was determined as a punishment for the plaintiff’s grave actions and therefore, there is no place for the plaintiff to “benefit” from the determination of compensation in the form of a reduction in child support. “
Finally, Judge Gavison ordered the rejection of the father’s claim and charged him with legal expenses of 15,000 NIS payable to the mother.