Venice Juvenile Court

In the sitting which took place in the conference chamber with the participation of the following representatives:

• Chairman - Dr. (Mrs.) Graziana Kampanato

• Report Judge - Dr. (Mrs.) Alisa Pikaroni

• Private representative - Dr. (Mrs.) Luciana Dala Justina

• Private representative - Dr. Savio Stucco

The committee made the following decision:

Decision

After perusal of the documentation regarding the minors, Deborah and Daniella, who were born 19.9.1985 and 13.6.1989 respectively, whose welfare is the subject of a pending hearing according to sections 317B, 330 and 333 of the Civil Law, the result of an action by the father of the minors, Mr. Dolberg, Moshe, brought on 2 April 1996, against the mother, Mrs. Pikan, Tali, who at that time resided with the minors in Venice;

After examination of the interim orders issued by this Juvenile Court on 13.5.1996 and 16.1.1997, which at first gave custody of the children to the mother and arranged the visiting rights of the father, and provision was made for CTU supervision in order to secure a deeper knowledge of the familial condition of the minors, and after, in consequence of the deviation of the mother from the norms which had been stated in order to ensure the visiting rights of the father, and in consequence of the transfer of place of residence of the mother to an unknown address, and after the intervention of the State (which requested acceptance of the appeals lodged by the father of the minors and the transfer of the custody of the minors to the father in accordance with his appeal) custody of the minors was awarded to their father;

After hearing the report of the additional occurrences which changed the circumstances of the minors (who, after a police search, were found last spring in Israel) and in accordance with the order of the Tel Aviv Court which was confirmed by the Israeli High Court in Jerusalem, the minors were placed in the custody of their father, and in consequence of this ruling, the minors returned to Italy, to the town of Genoa:

After it was learned that the mother applied for receipt of custody of the children to the Juvenile Court of Genoa, and that on 9.8.1999, the said Juvenile Court in Genoa issued a final ruling that custody of the minors shall be with the father, while providing for contact between the minors and the mother (as is apparent from examination of the documentation of the attorneys of the parties);

In the light of the concluding requests made by the attorneys of the parties regarding the announcement of the lack of authority of this Juvenile Court;

In the light of the opinion of the State Prosecutor who insists on acceptance of the appeal;

Concludes that there is no proof which warrants transferring authority from this Minors Court, in view of the fact that Section 5 of the Ceremony Law determines that this authority shall be determined in the light of the facts of the situation prevailing at the time of lodging the appeal, while subsequent changes are of no consequence, and there is no doubt that the minors lived in Venice at that time and the case was rightly judged in that Minors Court (the Law explicitly states that court authority in matters of custody of minors is vested in the judge of the place where the minor permanently resides, in the light of the case precedents 4126 of 28.9.76, 4983 of 13.7.1979 Cass Court and the light of the appeal of the Juvenile Dept. of Torino of 11.11.1986);

In the light of the fact arising from consideration of the component factors which were gathered in view of the circumstances of the minors, their relations with each other and with their parents - as has come to light in the abovementioned CTU reports which are regarded as being up-to-date - and in view of the behavior of the mother after the court decision wherein the visiting rights of the father were explicitly determined (the mother, as heretofore said, took the children out of the borders of Italy, without their father’s consent, while announcing ex post facto that she has permanently transferred to Israel and her intention is not to return to Italy, which effectively prevented all contact between the minors and their father for two years and forced the minors to make basic changes in their way of life, in the context of their environment and school life), the court unanimously determined the inability of the mother to fulfill her role as a parent to the children;

In view of the gravity of the deviations from due parental duties as evinced by said behavior, in respect of deviation from the character of the rights of custody, the implication of which was a real attempt to absolutely separate the minors form their father, and this amid serious damage to the healthy and balanced development of the minors’ personality, which conditions still exist not only for the purposes of ratifying the interim ruling which places custody of the children with the father, but also the declaration of the recision of the parental authority of the mother over her daughters;

Since no factors have been brought forward which will detract from the rights of the father and qualify him to have custody of the minors, and no facts and acts have been brought forward to justify the behavior of the mother, it only remains to decide that the choice of the way of life which the mother chose for the minors, choices which exerted a profound influence on their paths of development, were made from personal considerations - without doubt acceptable for an adult - but certainly aberrant from the point of view of the role of a parent, which under the laws of this country warrant respect for an optimal link between minors and a parent who does not have custody (such was the status of the father when the right of custody was given to the mother beyond the borders of Italy), in view of what was agreed regarding preservation of custody and contact with both parents (and provided this link will not cause damage) and this in order to assist the construction of the personality of the minor.

Therefore

In accordance with the sections of the Law 317B and 330 - we hereby ratify the temporary decision of 16 January 1997, which gave right of custody of the minors, Deborah and Daniella Dolberg, to their father, Moshe Dolberg; announces that the parental rights of Mrs. Pekan, Tali over the children are null and void.

This decision should be passed on to the State Prosecutor, the parents and the Mayor of Genoa.

Venice, 2.12.1999

(stamped and authorized with four official stamps)

• Dulberg Case Information Center

• Dulberg Case in Brief

• OU.ORG Front Page