A judge at the Rishon Lezion Family Court on Sunday morning ordered that two-year-old Sophia, born following an IVF mixup , be removed from her birth parents' custody and turned over to her genetic parents. In his ruling (published in its entirety on Israel Hayom ), Judge Oved Elias insisted that "finances, origin, religion, place of residence, education, and history" of each of the four parents do not play a part in his decision, although these issues were raised multiple times. He also stressed that in either scenario, Sophia needs to know and have relationships with both couples. Elias added: "Given the special circumstances, and noting that any delay in passing Sophia to her genetic parents (if they are found) would increase the difficulty of separation, it behooved the 'childrearing parents' to act in a slightly different fashion immediately upon being informed that they are not the genetic parents of Sophia, and that other couples of parents would like to clarify the matter. The entire delay in all of the processes is due to the opposition of the childrearing parents to carry out the clarification process. It should be emphasized that as I will explain later, this criticism does not play any role in this ruling." It is not clear what "different fashion" the judge would have liked to see: Immediately upon finding that Sophia was not her mother's genetic child, while her mother was still pregnant with her, the Health Ministry and Assuta began seeking her genetic parents. Sophia's birth parents had little say in the matter, although they opposed the matter following threats that if the genetic parents were found, Sophia would be taken from her mother immediately after birth, kept from her in the hospital, and potentially her mother would not even be allowed to hold her in the delivery room. Sophia's mother, as an IVF patient, did not agree to serve as a surrogate, and insisted on carrying Sophia to term even though she was pressured by the doctors to abort due to Sophia's medical issues. During the pregnancy, she risked her own life for an in-utero operation, which was successful, to give Sophia a chance at survival. The judge also noted that Sophia's birth parents are a common-law couple, and that her father was required to affirm paternity in order to appear on the birth certificate. He criticized her father for signing a false affirmation, since he already knew before she was born that he was not her genetic father, but allowed that at the time, the genetic father was unknown. The birth parents' guardianship was approved by the court, which also was aware that he was not Sophia's genetic father. Though the judge unfavorably compares the birth father to the genetic father due to his signature on the document - there is no alternative document for fathers whose partners, for example, used sperm donations - he insists that this unfavorable comparison does not play a role in the ruling itself. The judge also noted the enormous stress and pressure the birth parents are under, and added that this stress is unquestionably detrimental to Sophia. He did not, however, offer steps that would allow the birth parents to breathe freely, insisting only that the genetic parents' lack of stress places them in a better position to raise her than her birth parents. The ruling adds that the birth parents, fighting for custody of their daughter since before her birth, are still in denial about another couple having a claim to her. Explaining his ruling, the judge said that two professional opinions were offered: That of the Welfare Ministry's Department for Child Services, the usual go-to for judges, and that of a psychologist hired by the court to provide a professional opinion on the matter. He claimed that the Department for Child Services "greatly exaggerated" the damage which would be caused by ripping Sophia from her birth family, and added that it is "not up-to-date" since it was written when she was 15 months old. The psychologist's opinion, written much more recently, around Sophia's second birthday, was that she would be better served growing up with her genetic parents, due to physical similarities, feeling more of a sense of belonging than with a family whose genes she does not share, and would also be better served learning her genetic family's traditions, ethics, and values, than those of a family not genetically related to her. The judge then said that both opinions noted the enormous stress placed on the birth family, and insisted that the genetic parents were more capable and could more maturely present Sophia with the story of her early life. It would be better for Sophia, he wrote, to hear, "These good people you meet sometimes are the ones who raised you for the first two years because of a mistake, but then the mistake was corrected and you were returned to us," than to hear, "You are here because of a mistake" - the statement he alleges the birth parents would tell her. According to both opinions, it is in Sophia's best interests to be informed of the story of her early life, especially since the matter has already made headlines. The judge then declared that he finds the psychologist's opinion to be correct. It is not clear why the psychologist was asked to give an opinion so long after the Department of Child Services, appointed by the Supreme Court, submitted their document. It is also not clear why the Department was not asked for an update parallel to the demand for the psychologist's submission. In addition, the judge acknowledged that even a surrogate mother has the right to regret her decision to serve as a surrogate, but went on to say that this law does not apply in this case, since the birth mother never agreed to serve as a surrogate in the first place. The gamete donation law also does not apply, however, since the genetic parents did not agree to serve as donors. Therefore, he added, there is no precedent and he must use his own judgement. Elias also quoted legal precedent stating that "the genetic relationship is the central basis of parenthood," but ignored the legal precedent that any birth mother, including a surrogate, is automatically considered the child's natural mother unless she actively acts to sever that relationship. The ruling does not stipulate what kind of relationship Sophia would have with her birth parents following her removal from their care. It requires the Department for Child Services in Tel Aviv - where her genetic parents reside - to handle the transition period and states that an update must be received by the court within 30 days. The birth parents have promised to appeal, stating: "We will not give up the fight for our daughter until our dying day." Related articles: 'An ethical, medical, and halakhic farce' Health Ministry publishes report on IVF scandal Genetic parents of IVF mixup baby request complete gag order Birth parents of Sophia, IVF mixup baby, appeal to District Court Sophia's parents underwent fertility treatments at Assuta Hospital in Rishon Lezion, and then underwent prenatal genetic testing following indications that Sophia had a congenital abnormality. The tests revealed that Sophia was not genetically related to either of her parents, prompting an investigation into the facility's procedures and a pause on fertility treatments conducted there. Multiple couples believed to have a high chance of being genetically related to Sophia demanded genetic testing, which the court approved. The couple who were at the time believed to have the highest chance of being Sophia's genetic parents were ultimately found not to be related to her. That couple had insisted that they would fight to immediately remove Sophia from her birth mother's care following the birth itself. The court later rejected demands for Sophia to be appointed an independent guardian upon birth. In October 2022, Sophia was born and named by the woman who had risked her own life to undergo an operation to save Sophia, and by the woman's husband. They were soon named Sophia's legal parents by the court. In March 2023, the Supreme Court ordered a halt to the genetic testing, and indicated that there should be no further questioning of Sophia's parents' guardianship of her. Later, a Health Ministry report indicated that one couple had a high likelihood of having a genetic relationship to Sophia. In August 2023, the Supreme Court approved genetic testing for the couple, who were deemed to have a four-times higher likelihood of a genetic relationship with Sophia than the other couples. The decision was made due to the belief that such testing would serve to provide Sophia with genetic and medical history in the future, and that every child deserves to know where he or she comes from. In that decision, the Supreme Court overturned its earlier decision barring further genetic testing for potential genetic parents, due to the high likelihood of one couple to be a genetic match for Sophia. That ruling was made for two main reasons: Firstly, in order to allow all other couples who were potential matches to breathe freely, and secondly, due to the importance of a child knowing her family medical history and genetic origins. The Supreme Court stressed that the results of the genetic tests would not affect her birth parents' custody or guardianship of her. However, after the results were received and the genetic parents were identified, they began fighting for custody of her. It is not clear why the Family Court took up the case following the Supreme Court's clear instruction that the results of the genetic testing would not affect her parents' guardianship.