Case Update (1 Dec 2025): Felberbaum v. Felberbaum; children not returned to Israel; Petitioner did not make out prima facie case

The parties are divorced parents of two children, both born in New York. In about 2019, the family moved to Israel. Thereafter the parties’ stories diverge a bit. It appears that Respondent Father never really intended to make Israel his home, and even rejected Israeli citizenship in 2019, upon arriving there, on the premise that he never intended to remain there. In about March 2020, the family returned to New York for a few months. While there, in May 2020, the parents signed an arbitration agreement, in New York, submitting their marital issues to a New York Rabbinical Court. Both parties identify, as do the children, as Hasidic Jews. When signing the arbitration agreement, the parties engaged in mediation with three rabbis, and the Respondent Father agreed, as part of that mediation in New York, to return to Israel “for three to four months on the condition that Petitioner seek psychiatric help and get better.” This was reduced to writing, signed by both parties in New York in May 2020. It apparently also provided that a bona fide effort be made by both parties to reconcile and seek counseling. Finally, it noted that if a party disobeyed the agreement, they could return to the Rabbinical Court in New York. In August 2020, after the entire family was back in Israel, the Petitioner Mother served the Respondent with a pre-divorce summons from the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court. It included a prohibition on the Respondent leaving Israel, which was eventually lifted in 2021. The parties both lodged complaints against the other about their behavior, including towards the children. Two psychologists testified at the Hague trial. The children’s therapist diagnosed them as having PTSD, and this was confirmed by a forensic expert. At trial, the children were also interviewed in chambers by the judge, who felt that they presented very mature. During their time in Israel from mid-2020, the parties maintained an apartment in New York up through at least July 2022. They also used the New York courts to file for bankruptcy in November 2022, and when discharged in 2023, listed their New York address. On or about April 4, 2023, the Respondent brought the children to New York, and despite having return flights for a few weeks later, he remained. At first, he remained because he was hospitalized and was still in the hospital when the return date passed. After his release from hospital, he spoke with the Petitioner Mother, who made demands, and indicated that their home in Israel had been rented, and his belongings disposed of. Ultimately, they divorced in January 2025.

The U.S. District Court made rulings on three distinct issues. First, the Court found that the Petitioner did not prove that Israel was the children’s habitual residence. The children maintained contact with New York, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate they had acclimatized to Israel, with some testimony even noting that the children did not speak Hebrew, and had difficulty in school (they primarily spoke Yiddish). The Court also concluded that the parties never shared an intention to make Israel their home, with their last agreement in 2020 requiring the parties to attempt to reconcile and be in Israel for 4 months. Separately, the court found that with the children’s PTSD diagnosis, and the testimony about the Petitioner’s behavior, the children would be exposed to a grave risk of harm if returned. The Petitioner presented no evidence of ameliorative measures, and the only evidence that was presented was by Respondent that CPS in Israel had been called once, but did not help. Separately, the court found the children thoughtful and mature, and that they had a strong objection to returning. The court acknowledged that the children exaggerated a bit when talking to the judge, including their outright exclusion of any happy memory in Israel. But, the court also noted that exaggerated testimony presented as outcome-driven was, particularly here, the children’s desire to persuade the court to not order their return, and did not detract from their overall credibility.

The court made a few statements in its footnotes. The Petitioner never presented evidence of a right of custody under Israeli law; the court did its own research, but noted that it is the petitioner’s burden to make out her prima facie case. Further, the children’s precise home in Israel was in an area that had been hit by Iranian missile attacks in June of 2025, and the Petitioner further used this ongoing war as an excuse as to a variety of procedural problems in her case from the first day she filed, adding to the court’s concern that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk. As for the procedural problems: the first nearly 10 pages was all about the Petitioner’s failure to actually follow process, the rules of procedure, and the court’s orders, with constant threats by the court that it would dismiss her lawsuit, and constant continuances.