The
Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) prevents Palestinians from the OPT from receiving status in Israel. However, children under age 14 may receive Israeli status to prevent their separation from their parent who is lawfully staying in Israel.
Regulation 12 of the Entry into Israel Regulations – which regulates, inter alia, the type of status to be given to children whose parent has Israeli status – stipulates that the status of a child born in Israel is to be the same as that of the parents; and if the parents have different status, the child is to receive the status of his Israeli parent or guardian, unless the other parent objects.
In 1994, an East Jerusalem resident married a woman from the OPT. The couple made their home in East Jerusalem and had five children. The children suffered from severe neglect on part of the mother, who was later diagnosed with mental issues. When the youngest child was six months old, the parents divorced. The father remarried, and moved to live with his new spouse. But the stepmother abused the children, and the father neglected to intervene and ensure their wellbeing.
In late 2001, the children’s aunt on their father side learnt about their extreme predicament, and applied to the social services for assistance. The children were taken away from their parents and placed in a boarding school. The aunt remained involved in their lives, and would regularly visit them at the boarding school and invite them to her home, becoming their main support. In time, their contact with their biological parents dwindled almost completely. In 2004 the aunt and her spouse decided to raise the children and make them a home. In June 2004 the aunt was given permanent custody of the children by the Jerusalem Sharia Court, based on a detailed report of the Israeli social services. The aunt then proceeded to apply to have the children registered in the Israel population registry according to Regulation 12 – because their biological father hadn’t done so, leaving them stateless, unlike their two older sisters whom he had registered.
Thus began an unending saga of feet-dragging and extreme lack of concern to the children’s wellbeing on part of the Ministry of Interior: for the next five years, the aunt would go to the ministry’s East Jerusalem bureau to find out the fate of her request to register the children but to avail. Finally, in December 2009, the Ministry of Interior responded: the request was denied and the children’s biological father – who meanwhile moved to live in Haifa in northern Israel and rarely spoke with the children – was to file a new application. Even after the aunt managed to convince the father to file the application, the saga continued: the Ministry of Interior transferred the case from the East Jerusalem to the Haifa bureau and back, where it was transferred from one unit to another. Ultimately the application was transferred to the interministerial committee – handling status applications on humanitarian grounds of foreigners who do not meet the ministry’s stipulated criteria – even though the children’s case clearly met the criterion established in Regulation 12, of granting the child the status of his parent or guardian.
On June 4, 2012 – and only after HaMoked submitted a motion to the Ministry of Interior Appellate Committee against the protracted lack of response –
the Ministry of Interior gave its decision: the three children would receive temporary status only – which must be renewed once a year subject to “proof of center of life”. This, despite the fact they have been living on East Jerusalem their entire lives, and that their father, two older sisters and their permanent guardian were all permanent residents.
On June 25, 2012,
HaMoked submitted an administrative appeal to the Appellate Committee against the ministry’s decision, and asked to register the children in permanent status, as required by law. HaMoked asserted that the decision not to register them as permanent residents but as temporary ones was unreasonable and contrary to the Entry into Israel Regulations, the HCJ case law and the ministry’s protocols. HaMoked emphasized that the children were entitled to be registered as permanent residents by virtue not only of their father being a resident, but also their aunt’s status, based on the court ruling that a child must be given the status of his/her guardian, if the guardianship has been proved honest and in the child’s best interests. HaMoked added that their registration in permanent status was also called for based on the principle of maintaining the family unit intact, which underlies Regulation 12 and is entrenched by HCJ case law.
HaMoked is now waiting for the response of the Ministry of Interior to the appeal. The three children have been registered in temporary status meanwhile, and are thus left in uncertainty and an unstable position until their case is decided.
