In Israeli family court, expert opinions play a critical role in shaping custody decisions. Judges often rely on court-appointed psychologists to assess parents’ mental fitness, ensuring that custody arrangements serve the child’s best interests. But what happens when an expert overlooks key evidence?

A recent case illustrates the dangers of misplaced trust in expert opinions—and how legal appeals can correct judicial errors. In this case, a mother fought to challenge a flawed psychological evaluation, ultimately proving that the court’s initial ruling put her child at risk.

---

The Case: A Custody Battle with Serious Allegations

The case involved a young couple who separated before their first child was even born. By the time their case reached appeal, their child was already two and a half years old.

During the custody battle, both parents raised serious allegations against each other:

• The mother claimed that the father suffered from paranoia and post-trauma and had exhibited violent tendencies.
• The father, seeking joint custody, alleged that the mother had experienced postpartum depression, making it difficult for her to care for their child alone.

To resolve the dispute, the family court judge appointed an expert psychologist to evaluate both parents and provide a professional opinion on the matter.

---

The Expert’s Initial Report: A Clean Bill of Health

After assessing both parents, the court-appointed expert dismissed the mother’s concerns and determined that:
– Neither parent displayed any pathological symptoms affecting their ability to care for their child.
– The father was not violent and posed no risk to the child.
– Unsupervised visits between father and child should be allowed without restriction.

Based on these findings, the court accepted the expert’s recommendation and ruled in favor of the father’s unrestricted visitation rights.

But then, the mother made a startling discovery—the expert had failed to review critical medical reports detailing the father’s past psychiatric history.

---

The Expert’s Critical Mistake: Ignoring Key Psychological Reports

The mother challenged the expert’s findings, arguing that he had:

1. Ignored crucial psychological reports from multiple professionals who had previously treated the father.
2. Failed to acknowledge documented concerns from mental health providers about the father’s unstable behavior.

After the mother insisted, the expert finally agreed to review the reports—but shockingly, he did not change his assessment. Instead, he dismissed the previous psychologists’ concerns as incorrect.

---

The Appeal: A Higher Court Steps In

Determined to protect her child, the mother appealed the ruling. She argued that:

1. The family court should have disqualified the expert’s opinion rather than accepting his amended report.
2. Supreme Court precedent states that when an expert’s initial opinion is based on incomplete evidence, an amendment does not fix the fundamental flaw. Experts often struggle to reverse their own conclusions, even when presented with new information.

The case reached the Vice President of the Tel Aviv District Court, who conducted a thorough review of the missing evidence.

---

The Overlooked Evidence: A Pattern of Disturbing Behaviour

The missing psychological reports, which the expert initially failed to review, revealed a deeply troubling history:

• The father had made alarming statements about seeking revenge against the mother.
• He had repeatedly referred to his situation as a “state of war”, claiming that his “life’s purpose” was to “destroy her life”.
• He admitted to hatching schemes and feeling that “only the prospect of vengeance keeps me going”.
• Two separate mental health professionals had diagnosed him with acute post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from witnessing a terrorist attack as a teenager, where he lost two close friends.

The court’s vice president ruled that these reports were not minor additional evidence—they were essential to assessing the father’s mental state and determining the potential risk to the child.

---

The Final Ruling: A Victory for the Mother

The appellate court ultimately disqualified the expert’s opinion and ordered the family court to:
📌 Appoint a new expert to reassess the father’s psychological condition.
📌 Suspend unsupervised visits until a new evaluation was completed.
📌 Require the father to cover court costs, awarding the mother 4,000 NIS for legal expenses.

This case highlights a critical lesson: Even expert opinions can be flawed—and when they are, a strong legal strategy is essential to challenge and correct them.

Recommendation of Our Office:

Attorneys do not control the actions and rulings of judges, and consequently decisions may be appealed. Therefore, it is important to trust your chosen attorney, who must be an expert in the field of family law, so that he may appeal irrational decisions.