The Family Dispute Resolution Law

Around 23,000 applications for dispute resolution are filed in Israel every year — the proceeding the law requires before any application to the family court. These are 23,000 people who discover, sometimes belatedly, that they cannot file a divorce action, a child support action, or an application for the division of property — without first passing through a mandatory station that many are unaware of.

But what lies behind that number? Some applicants go through the process and reach agreements — without confrontation in court, without unnecessary legal expenses, and without the children being exposed to a war between their parents. Others discover that the proceeding is essentially strategic — a race for jurisdiction in which whoever files first acquires priority to choose which forum to turn to, and in practice shapes the rules of the game for the entire proceeding.

And the question that each of those 23,000 applicants must answer is this: whether to treat the application for dispute resolution as a genuine opportunity to reach agreement, or as a first tactical step on the way to court?

The idea behind the law — why a consensual resolution is preferable to confrontation

Before we dive deeper, it is important to understand the rationale. Family disputes differ in their very nature from any other civil dispute. When spouses divorce, the tension is not only legal — it is fundamentally emotional. The traditional justice system is built on confrontation: there are parties, there is a winner and a loser, there are considerable expenses. But unlike any other dispute, where the parties can "cut off contact" during the course of the proceeding, in a family dispute the parties are required to continue functioning as parents to their children — under the full emotional burden that a legal proceeding brings with it.

The law offers an alternative path: instead of beginning with a legal campaign, the parties must first examine whether they are able to reach an agreement that would render the court proceeding unnecessary. This approach is sound in essence, and particularly so in family disputes — since hostile family disputes, whether they involve divorce, custody, or child support claims, have severe effects on the children, and these effects worsen the longer the proceedings drag on. That said, it is important to emphasize already at this point: the law itself recognizes that this obligation does not apply in every situation. In cases of domestic violence, child abuse, or an immediate fear of flight from the country with the children — there is no alternative to legal litigation, and the law itself recognizes this.

The first mandatory station — filing an application for dispute resolution

The law does not focus on divorce alone. Section 3 provides that anyone wishing to file an action in family matters — whether before the Family Court or before the Rabbinical Court — is required to first file an "application for dispute resolution" with the Assistance Unit attached to the forum they have chosen. This is a simple form containing only basic details, which can be completed at the registry or downloaded online. The obligation applies to a wide range of family disputes: matters of marriage and divorce, financial relations between spouses, support for a spouse or children, any matter concerning a minor under the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law — including custody, guardianship, and visitation arrangements — as well as paternity or maternity actions that are not by consent, and support for an adult who has not yet reached the age of 21. The practical meaning is that even unmarried parents seeking to arrange custody or support, and even those seeking to establish their paternity of a child, are required to first pass through this proceeding.

It is important to know that the law does not apply to every family dispute. Inheritance disputes are not subject to the obligation to file an application for dispute resolution, and the same is true of proceedings under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Law or the Prevention of Stalking Law, and proceedings to which the State is a party. In addition, a divorce action by consent and a paternity action filed with the parties' consent do not require passing through this proceeding.

Upon filing the application, a "stay of proceedings period" of 60 days begins, during which no action may be filed in court. At the end of the period, the party who filed the initial application is entitled to file an action within 15 days, and if they do not do so — the other party is also permitted to do so. This timeline is critical, as we will see below.

MHUT meetings — the confidential space designed to resolve the dispute without a court

During the 60-day period, the parties will be invited to up to four meetings at the Assistance Unit. The term "MHUT" is an acronym for "information, acquaintance and coordination" — the three substantive components of the process. In these meetings, a professional team of social workers and psychologists examines the full range of the matters in dispute and attempts to forge agreements. The first meeting at the Assistance Unit is held without the presence of the parties' attorneys, in order to allow direct and immediate dialogue between the spouses. This is the purpose the legislature sought to achieve, but reality is more complex: quite a few litigants arrive at the first meeting after rigorous legal advice and detailed briefing, which does not always leave room for honest and willing dialogue.

A decisive principle that the law expressly establishes: everything said in these meetings remains confidential and cannot be used in the legal proceeding. The purpose of this provision is to enable honest and open dialogue without fear of future exploitation of the information — as is customary in any mediation proceeding. The parties can speak freely about their wishes, fears, and proposals, knowing that none of this will enter the court file.

At the end of the last meeting, a recommendation will be issued by the Assistance Unit — private mediation, couples therapy, mediation through the welfare bureau, or continuation to legal litigation. The parties have a period of five days to decide how to proceed.

The race for jurisdiction — the decision made even before the first hearing

One of the most complex issues in the Israeli justice system in family matters is the race for jurisdiction between the family courts and the rabbinical courts. Filing an application for dispute resolution does not determine final jurisdiction — rather, it grants the applicant priority to file an action within 15 days before any forum that has subject-matter jurisdiction. Only the action itself, filed at the end of the stay period, is what determines jurisdiction. This priority is available to the applicant whether they chose to turn to the Family Court or to the Rabbinical Court.

The position of the courts — how the case law interprets the law in practice

The case law that has developed around the law establishes clear principles for its practical application. In Rabbinical Case 1121808/1, the Grand Rabbinical Court took a substantive position: the stay of proceedings expires on the date set by law, whether or not MHUT meetings took place. The practical meaning: even if the Assistance Unit failed to hold the meetings in time — due to overload or organizational difficulties — the right to file an action is not impaired. The parties are not penalized for an administrative failure that is not their responsibility.

On the other hand, the forums emphasize that the obligation to appear at the meetings cannot be waived. In Rabbinical Case 1493044-1, it was held that parties who did not appear at a scheduled meeting are not permitted to file actions without filing a new application for dispute resolution and appearing at an MHUT meeting. The balance is clear: the system will not delay the parties due to an administrative failure, but the parties themselves cannot bypass the process.

Exceptions — when you can turn directly to the court and when you can skip a new application

The law recognizes that there are urgent situations that cannot wait 60 days. In cases of domestic violence, one can turn directly to the court to obtain a protection order; where there is a fear of flight from the country with the children, one can request an exit prevention order without delay; and where there is an immediate danger to the children — abuse, neglect, or exposure to physical or mental danger — an immediate proceeding can be opened.

Another exception, established in a 2020 amendment to the law, allows skipping the filing of a new application. Under Section 3(j)(1) of the law, a person who has already filed an application for dispute resolution within the past year, attended the MHUT meetings, and the periods prescribed by law have elapsed without agreement being reached — is permitted to file an action directly, without repeating the process.

What is important to know before acting — early planning as a starting point

Anyone who enters a family dispute without early planning loses twice: once in the choice of forum, and once in the shaping of the entire proceeding. Preparation for the process begins long before the application is filed, and it includes an informed choice of forum, precise timing of the filing, and the preparation of complete documentation.

Even if filing the application is done as a strategic step, it is advisable to approach the MHUT meetings seriously. The confidential space enables honest dialogue that is not always possible in pleadings or in the courtroom, especially when it comes to matters of custody and visitation arrangements. The ability to distinguish between a situation in which mediation is the right path and a situation that requires immediate legal proceedings is one of the critical considerations at the outset.

In summary

The Family Dispute Resolution Law changed the way Israel deals with family disputes — not only divorce, but also custody disputes, child support claims, matters concerning minors, and paternity and maternity actions. It requires a pause before confrontation, opens a window for agreements, and grants the parties a genuine opportunity for a resolution that does not leave unnecessary scars — especially when children are at the center. Knowing the proceeding and its stages, understanding the race for jurisdiction, and being aware of the exceptions and legislative amendments — all of these make it possible to enter the process from a position of control rather than reaction.

Early planning, even before the dispute reaches a boiling point, is what makes it possible to choose the appropriate forum, to use the MHUT meetings as a genuine opportunity, and to protect the interests of all family members. A professional consultation that examines the strategy and the first steps is the most worthwhile investment.

The information presented in this article is based on the Family Dispute Resolution Law, 5775-2014, its amendments, and the case law that has developed around it. The figure of approximately 23,000 applications for dispute resolution per year is based on reports of the Ministry of Welfare to the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. The information is general and intended for enrichment only, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for it. Each case is examined on its own merits in accordance with its specific circumstances, and it is advisable to consult an attorney specializing in family law before making legal decisions.