Children division rules - 1BiTv.com

Children division rules

The Supreme Court determined the main thing in disputes about where the child will live after the divorce.


Children division rules


Important clarifications were made by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation when it reviewed the outcome of a dispute between parents about which of them the child will live with.
Judging by today's judicial statistics, such claims - about determining the place of residence of minor children - are among the most numerous. But the matter is not even in quantity, these disputes are morally complex and affect only the plaintiff and defendant. And the number of such litigations continues to grow. It is no secret that often such disputes about determining the child’s place of residence do not focus on the interests of the child, but on the way of settling adult accounts.
But even if, when going to court, parents worry solely about the interests of the child, what should be the main thing for such disputes? The Supreme Court answered this question, studying the complaint against the decision of the local courts.

So, the parents went to court to determine with whom the child should live.

Both father and mother provided the court with good characteristics. But the two local courts that examined this case took diametrically opposed decisions. So, the district court decided that the baby is better with his mother. Even despite the fact that her living conditions were worse than that of her father, there was a problem with money.

Disagreeing with this decision, the father protested the verdict. The appeal with the findings of the district court did not agree, they were canceled and a new decision was made - now in favor of the father.

And now about this matter in more detail. Our story began with the fact that the mother went to court, who asked to determine with whom the child will live, if the woman broke up with her husband, but did not divorce. The father, in turn, believed that the son should stay with him. Both parents were positive, and at the time of the trial there was a bad situation when the child literally changed hands: first he lived with his mother, then with his father, and then the mother asked the court to give her son to her.

In the first instance, the court, after hearing the parties, left the child with the mother, reducing the time for father and child visits to four hours on weekends and holidays. The first instance motivated this decision by the fact that the child is only one year old and you can’t separate him from his mother.

The appeal took the opposite decision. They said that the living conditions of his father are better. The father is a businessman, lives in a large house, where the child has his own, separate room and everything necessary. And also, the second instance said, the father is engaged in raising his son.

About the mother, the appeal stated the following. The woman does not work, lives on alimony, which she receives for the older child, plus allowance, plus help from relatives. The mother of the child lives in an old house with stove heating, and the toilet is on the street. From all of the above, the appeal concluded that the mother does not have the possibility of the normal upbringing of the child. And he had already become attached to his father.

A desperate mother went to appeal such a verdict. She appealed to the Supreme Court. There they studied the complaint and disagreed with colleagues in the appeal.

Here are the results of the dispute parsing by a high court.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, said that the mere advantage in the material situation of one of the parents was not an unconditional basis for satisfying the requirements of that parent.

When considering such disputes, the Supreme Court said, one must proceed from the interests of the child in the aggregate of circumstances characterizing the situation that has developed in the place of residence of each of the parents. However, in order to find out what this situation is, evidence will be required. The findings of the court “should not be general and abstract,” is emphasized in the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court. The court must invoke regulations and evidence. They were not enough, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted.

What to do is said in article 78 of the Family Code. The article emphasizes: if the courts consider disputes related to the upbringing of children, guardianship authorities must be involved in the case - regardless of who brought the claim in defense of the child. Guardianship should conduct an examination of the living conditions of the child and those who want to raise him. The inspection report and the conclusion based on it on the merits of the dispute are submitted to the court. "The opinion of the guardianship authority must be signed by an authorized official of the guardianship authority or local government," - recalls the Supreme Court. However, there was no such conclusion in the case.

In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized: the courts did not order the examination requested by the father of the child. Failure to designate an examination by a local court is a material violation of procedural law.

Source: Russian newspaper


25.12.2019 06:09:57
(Automatic translation)






11.08.2020 10:06:52

Apple CEO Tim Cook became a billionaire

Tim Cook owns 0.02% of the shares of the apple corporation.
28.07.2020 16:11:53

Remote in the law

Employers around the world are deciding how to leave work from home for good.
13.07.2020 16:11:44

What to do state structure in social networks?

12 hour and a half live online lessons.
16.06.2020 09:13:33

US will allow US companies to work with Huawei

The permission will concern the joint work on the development of standards for new generation technologies.
11.06.2020 11:31:41

Save the wings of France

In Paris, announced a plan to support the aerospace industry.


Advertisement

Advertisement

Themes cloud

tax offer judge emission a bag Crimea The Code of Justinian assassination attempt architecture cinema FIFA 2018 soccer shoes compromising evidence private banking intellectual property legate diabetes freedom derivative heir Job mail 3G democracy beer recreation will Kerch money issue a restaurant client moderation CCTV mushrooms Syria product organization turnover snake live conversion Contract bimetallism citizenship legislation Viber pension marriage apple Road accidents juice real estate test air transportation trademark Rome bill festival planning own report fideicomass divorce car dismissal Moscow transfer 4G role straw Submarine lawyer aircraft easement coffee jackpot sanctions Sochi co-packing a toy WTO Olympic Games song QR Code Israel pact note medicine gas China action elections export paint bank payment study Tax Free hotel monopolist CIS channel content logistics fraud drink quasi-agreement arbitration court inheritance S-300 football accompanying regulations doctor Taxi Greece integration acceptance mortgage customs causa pharmaceuticals economy VAT dollar adoption ban child rocket cargo transportation slavery poisoning USA transgender counterfeit mark testosterone treachery internet tyranny memorandum bite Germany business cession a family investment Colour trade murder the tablet alcohol monetary system selling money philosophy Kazakhstan medicines finance GLONASS monometallism court investigation IFRS Gazpromneft digitalization import Neurotechnology tort will baby premise cargo the death penalty dog justice food provider Plato lottery head Paralympic Games arson marketing law bridge Socrates currency unit seller reward agent undeclared goods cat rating security liquidation money supply pledge devaluation UN confiscation a laptop monetary aggregate succession insulin reform policy gold-coin standard currency theory credit control staff nullification Bocharov Creek law treaty finger dictionary crocodile coffers bravery theft FMCG gold shipping ATM conference Belarus coin Ukraine exchange parturition LTE timocracy music debt extortion mortgage revaluation order delivery smuggling oligarchy female consultation Russia ruble Iran denomination

Persons

Companies


1BiTv.com   © 2011-2020    |    Privacy Policy    |   Created by Technologies for Business    |   en@1bitv.com
Реклама