In Israel, if a young couple do not have children a year after the wedding, they immediately go to doctors and to fertilization clinics. Expensive procedures are paid by the state. In general, with regard to artificial insemination, Israel is ahead of the rest. Partly, this desire to fulfill the commandment “be fruitful and multiply”, given to Adam and Eve after being expelled from Eden, partly - the psychological reaction of people who survived the Holocaust and passed on to the next generations. In general, children in Israel love!
Very few Israeli children are passed on for adoption. And there are practically no such institutions as an orphanage. Rather, they exist, but their function is absolutely the opposite than in Russia.
In the Russian orphanage, the state institution, the kids live a dream: the door will open and mom and dad will enter. That is, they will still be strangers uncle and aunt, but they will definitely become mom and dad. In Israel, an orphanage is most often an intermediate waiting station, where the child waits until the end of a rather lengthy procedure for obtaining the necessary documents for adoption. For kids, this is a family, which, as a rule, has its own children and earns extra care for strangers, for schoolchildren it is a boarding school, also not similar to the Russian one.
Children requiring constant care are kept in hospitals, and volunteers from organizations such as, for example, Hibuk Rishon (“First Embrace”) come to them. These volunteers get priority if they want to adopt children they already know.
The number of families wishing to adopt a child is an order of magnitude larger than the number of children who need a host family. If in Israel, as in 19th-century melodramatic European novels, a bundle with a baby was thrown under the door of the maternity hospital, immediately there would be a dozen families who would immediately, on the spot, arrange a local war for the right to adopt this baby.
One such case even reached the Supreme Court, having passed all lower courts. In resolving this dispute, 7 of the 14 Supreme Judges were present. For comparison: the case of Eichmann dealt with only three members of the Supreme Court.
The question was as follows. Some short-sighted girl gave the child up for adoption. By law, the biological mother has the right within a year after adoption to change her mind and demand the child back. At the same time, the law foresees very few loopholes that allow to bypass the basic establishment: a blessing for a child is his upbringing by his biological parents. In fact, the law here cares not so much for the good of the child, as it protects the rights of biological parents to the detriment of the rights of the adoptive parents.
The meaning of the law is clear - to give the young mother the opportunity to change her mind and change the decision, which, it is supposed, she made without having the means to feed herself and the child, falling into the usual panic in such cases, complicated by postpartum trauma. Another thing is that the law establishes an absolutely draconian framework the length of a year. Anyone who has even started a pet is able to imagine how it does not fit in my head: give your beloved pet a year later. Here it is not about a doggie or a kitten, but about a little man.
And now, after more than six months after adoption, it suddenly comes to the marginal mother that she foolishly missed the possibility of easy money and gave someone a magnificent cash cow for nothing. She found a foster family and began to extort money from them. The same, having paid already a large amount for the right to adopt, did not go in the wake of the extortioner. While the court and the case, from a hole crawled into the light of God also a biological father, who, before the start of the trial, was not at all particularly interested in the fate of the child.
Smelling the smell of light money, this couple began to rackete the adoptive parents through the courts. The whole country, with bated breath, watched the outbreak of drama. Moreover, seeing the adoptive parents sobbing in front of the cameras and the biological parents surrounded by the lawyers, everyone understood that if you focus on that notorious “good of the child”, you should never return it to your mother. Because she is not something about the child - she was not able to take care of herself. If the right to be a parent were required to pass the exam, this lady would have failed miserably. Therefore, all, without exception, sympathy were given to the adoptive family.
But the court remained adamant - lex, as known, fool. With a heavy heart, the judges were compelled to state that the law is the law. Since the year of adoption has not yet passed, biological parents have the right to demand a child back, although if they wanted they could rivet another dozen of their own kind and practice their parental talents on them. And the arguments of desperate childless adoptive parents, lovely and intelligent people, that in their case the doctors' verdict is unambiguous - childlessness, could not incline the court decision in their favor.
However, the adoptive parents did not give up and appealed the appeal. It turned out that the biological father is mortally ill. Also, the fact that the father had waited as much as six months before “discovering” that he, it turns out, has a son, did not escape the attention of the judges. The judges were afraid that the child would be on the street, and decided to leave him with his adoptive parents. 6 against 1 decided that the child, who by then had turned 2, should be left with the adoptive parents. That is, the court decision regarding this child has changed already 3 times. That's it - happy ending!
This short story is able to explain why in Israel, in principle, there can be no such thing as homeless children. Anyone catch up and adopt. Even for disabled children with congenital malformations, there is a loving family. Not receiving any dividends from their decision, because now it’s just their child.
The current situation has led to the fact that there are public organizations in Israel, chasing young girls who want to have an abortion. By hook or by crook, they are trying to persuade them not to interrupt the pregnancy, give birth to and give the children up for adoption, while receiving a considerable reward. What at the time the aforementioned heroine and took advantage.
It seems to me that the current situation, like a litmus test, reflects the health of society, which is able to protect and protect its weakest and defenseless representatives. After all, if it, society, is not capable of this, then it is not society, but a bunch of individuals angry with each other.