In principle, it would seem that continuing jurisdiction would lie at the rabbinical court. However, in the Yosef Petition Case it was held that so long as the rabbinical court has not discussed the question of the children’s good regarding education before it authorizes an agreement by the parents , then the rabbinical court will not have continuing jurisdiction over a plea filed after the divorce on this issue. Furthermore, in the Engelman Case the Jerusalem Family Court held that where the rabbinical court does not hold a hearing on the heart of a subject relating to guardianship before it authorizes the agreement , and no professional report on the ‘child’s good’ is presented to court, then the authorization of the agreement does not give it continuing jurisdiction . Here, it was also held that a child is not bound by his/her parental agreement and his/her right to apply to the family court over education even if the agreement expressly says continuing jurisdiction over this lies with the rabbinical court.