On the deprivation, restoration or restriction of parental rights

 

As established from the enclosed judicial acts, the courts fully comply with the above requirements of the law and the guidance provided by the regulatory decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In the vast majority of cases, appeals to the court with this category of cases are related to the termination of the parent's parental duties towards the child. In accordance with article 80 of the Code, the restriction of parental rights entails the loss of all rights based on the fact of kinship with children, including the rights to receive funds for their maintenance, as well as benefits and State benefits established for citizens with children. In this regard, the courts, taking into account the constitutional right of a parent to raise children, correctly applied restrictions on parental rights, due to insufficient evidence to deprive parents of parental rights.

At the same time, in necessary cases, the courts correctly applied the decision to dismiss such applications, since in order to satisfy such claims, as well as claims for deprivation of parental rights, valid reasons established in the law are necessary.

By the decision of the specialized inter–district Juvenile Court of Astana, the satisfaction of the claims of S.M.G.uly against D.V.M.S. on the restriction of parental rights in relation to a minor child, S.va I.A.M.uly, born on June 19, 2005, was denied on the following grounds.

S.ov M.G. filed a lawsuit with the court to restrict the parental rights of the mother of a minor child, S.va I.M.ly, born on June 19, 2005, D.voiM.S., indicating that he married the defendant on January 29, 2005, and have a child with S.va I.M. from marriage. Living together It didn't work out, because since 2006, D.va M.S. has been in a religious sect, she stopped taking care of the child, the hygiene of the child annoyed her, repeatedly left the child alone in the apartment. After four years of persuasion and pleading, he was forced to kick her out of the house, and on April 15, 2011, the marriage was annulled. On August 3, 2011, with D.V. M.S. A settlement agreement was concluded on the issue of determining the child's place of residence. The court's decision of January 27, 2012, which decided to determine the child's place of residence with the father, was violated by her, on March 16, 2012, she abducted the child from school, not allowing her to finish the school year. The state bailiff for violating the court's decision wrote a submission on bringing D.voi M.S. to criminal responsibility under art.362 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Since March 2013, D.va M.S. she began to violate the definition of the guardianship council on the order of communication with the child, after which he filed a lawsuit, which decided to determine the order of communication with the father from Friday to Sunday. But the defendant again violated the court's decision and took the child with documents from school No. 64, where he studied. Currently, the child is not studying anywhere, which is confirmed by the response of the Astana City Office for the Protection of Children's Rights dated January 22, 2014. All these actions of D.voy M.S. regarding the child, as well as the conclusion of the psychologist that the child lives in fear, the child's level of internal anxiety is above average, confirm that it is dangerous for the child to be with D.V. M.S. and her actions fall under Article 79 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family", restriction of parental rights.

Since there was no agreement between the parents: the parties to the dispute, S.M.G. and D.V. M.S., on the place of residence of the minor son of S.V. M.S., the dispute was adjudicated 4 times.

Thus, the specialized inter-district juvenile court of Astana approved a settlement agreement between the parties on the claim of D.voi M.S. to S.ovu M.G., according to which the place of residence of the child was determined alternately by both sides.

By a decision of the same court dated January 27, 2012, on the claim of S.M.G. to D.O. M.S. and the counterclaim of D.V.M.S. to S.V.G. on determining the place of residence of the child, the place of residence of S.V.I. was determined with the father at his residence address before August 1, 2012.

By a court decision on the claim of S.va M.G. to D.voi M.S., the child's place of residence was determined with the mother –D.The howl of M.S.

The latest court decision on the claim of S.va M.G. to D.voi M.S. on determining the order of communication with the child, the court determined the order of communication between the father and the child.

According to Article 71, Part 2 of the CPC RK, the circumstances established by a court decision that entered into force in a previously considered case are binding on the court. These circumstances are not proven again and are not subject to dispute when considering another case involving the same persons.

The decision of the specialized inter-district juvenile court of the court on the claim of S.va M.G. to D.voi M.S. on determining the place of residence of the child established circumstances indicating that: the argument of S.va M. about D.voi M.S. belonging to a sectarian community was not confirmed, there are no grounds for asserting that D.ova M.S. is mentally ill, as well as his high attachment to his mother, Ilyas' own opinion that he wants to live with his mother, which were taken into account by the court when determining the child's place of residence with his mother. These circumstances are not proven again and are not subject to dispute, they have been assessed by previous court decisions.

Evaluating the explanations of the participants in the case in conjunction with written evidence in accordance with the requirements of Article 77 of the CPC RK, the court correctly concluded that the basis for applying to the court was the hostile relationship of the parents arising from long-term litigation between the former spouses that did not correspond to the interests of the child, the complete lack of mutual understanding between them and unwillingness to come to an agreement in the best interests of the child.

At the same time, the plaintiff did not provide the court with evidence indicating that the defendant leads a lifestyle that harms the mental and physical health of the child and his moral development. There is no evidence that the defendant's behavior poses a threat to the life, health, and upbringing of the child. On the contrary, the testimony of witness K.voi Z.K., that the child studied well, behaved well, did not miss lessons, and the child's appearance was neat, attested to the mother's proper care for the child.

Therefore, there is no reason to restrict the defendant's parental rights. Thus, the court came to the conclusion that the claims are unfounded and are subject to rejection.

 

 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases