Last update - 00:00 11/04/2007
After prolonged legal battle, Jordanian meets Israeli son
By Nir Hasson
Last Thursday, Bashar Edris bought a sack of candy and a yellow toy tractor, and went to see his 3-year-old son for the first time in two years. "There is a God in heaven. I never thought he would call me Daddy," he said yesterday, after the emotional meeting. Edris, a Jordanian citizen who married an Israeli, met his son only after a prolonged legal battle and the intervention of retired High Court Justice Tova Strasberg-Cohen.
Edris, a resident of Amman, came to the territories to visit family in 1999. A short time later, he moved to Tel Aviv and began working as a security guard at the Soho nightclub. There he met L., a young Jewish woman, and they wed in 2003. On the morning of their wedding, they went to the Sharia Court in Jerusalem, where L. converted to Islam. They lived in an apartment in Jaffa. "Everything was fine and we loved each other until her parents interfered," Edris says.
In January 2005, L. filed a complaint against Edris, claiming he beat her and their son. "The police called me and told me my wife had been arrested for possessing stolen property, and that I should come bail her out. When I arrived, the police jumped me," he recalls. The police did not file an indictment against Edris. Instead, they deported him to Jordan, despite the fact that his attorneys, Keren Nahari and Hezi Cohen, obtained a temporary injunction from Tel Aviv District Court Judge Uzi Fogelman barring the deportation until further hearings. But Edris says Border Police and Interior Ministry officials refused to hear his claims.
Last week, attorney Miriam Bakshat filed a civil suit on behalf of Edris against the Interior Ministry and the Israel Police, citing damages he sustained as a result of the illegal deportation. However, Edris' legal battles mainly focused on returning to Israel to see his son. He initiated legal proceedings in Jordan through attorney Ronen Dalyahu. The Interior Ministry demanded a ruling from the Family Court stating that Edris had the right to see his son, before it granted him an entry permit. But Judge Gershon German, of the Ramat Gan Family Court, delayed a ruling on this matter for a year and a half, despite recommendations from Child Protective Services.
Edris contacted Judicial Ombudsman Tova Strasberg-Cohen, and she requested the case be transferred from Judge German. The case was given to another judge, who ruled Edris could be granted an entry permit to see his son. Edris entered Israel four months ago. However, for some reason, the case was returned to Judge German, who continued to delay his ruling. Edris does not doubt the judge delayed his decision "because I am a Muslim Arab." Edris continued his legal battle, knowing the expiry of his entry permit would restart the entire process.
The father once again contacted Strassberg-Cohen and, according to a source close to the case, her intervention was the only thing that produced the reunion. The boy's mother, who has since become an ultra-Orthodox Jew, also attempted to thwart the visit and did not cooperate with Child Protective Services officials. The court finally forced her.
The meeting took place in the welfare offices of the city where the mother resides. It lasted for less than an hour, but Edris considered it an enormous victory. "We bonded from the very beginning. He kissed me and told me to play with him," Edris says.
"The wheels of justice turned very slowly, in his case, but we finally succeeded," Dalyahu commented. "Now, we have to fight to ensure he sees the boy on a permanent basis." The attorney said Edris was examined by a social worker, who found he posed no threat to his son.
A judicial system spokesman responded to claims against Judge German, "An individual's ethnicity and/or religion, in and of themselves, do not represent a consideration in a court ruling regarding that individual. The court considers all the circumstances in the matter under deliberation. In this case, in which circumstances were difficult, the complex matter of visitation rights was in question. In order to formulate an opinion, the court required the professional opinion of expert witnesses and demanded they be investigated in light of relevant factors and testimony received from both sides. That is what caused the proceedings to continue."