Family lawyer for contact order in Russia

A contact order court case in Russia:

A US citizen asked Maria Yarmush to help him to return his son to the USA.

The child was taken away from the United States by the mother - a citizen of Russia, who began to hide her son from her father and threaten her ex-husband that he would never see the child again.

After analyzing the situation, namely the fact that the child was born in Russia and only the last six months he lived with his parents in the United States, Florida.

Before that, the child lived with his mother in Moscow. The father came to his wife and son regularly, supporting the family financially in full.

The lawyer suggested the client determine the procedure for his communication with his son and oblige his ex-wife not to prevent her ex-husband from seeing his child in court.

Such a strategy was supposed to eliminate, first of all, the forced separation of the father and the child.In the future, the father could take action to return the child to the United States.

The claim in a Russian court was filed by the lawyer Maria Yarmush.

The case was won. The procedure for communication of the father and the child was established.

In the future, the child expressed a desire to go with his father in the United States and continue his studies at an American school.

At the same time, on the advice of the lawyer, the client filed a claim in the US. A court in Florida handed over full custody of his son to the father.

Thus, the child legally, by a court decision, remained to live with his father in the USA.

The dispute on the procedure for communication with a child
by a father (foreigner):

Difficult family disputes include litigation of divorced parents on the procedure for communication and the procedure for exercising parental rights by a parent living apart.

By virtue of the article 66 of the Family Code of the RF a parent living apart from the child has a right for communication with the child, participation in his upbringing and decisions on matters of education of the child. The parent with whom the child lives should not prevent the child from communicating with the other parent.

The Family Code of the RF guarantees equal rights of parents in relation to their children, but in practice, a parent living apart often loses the opportunity to fully communicate with the child and participate in his upbringing. The second parent, due to revenge or personal hostility towards the former spouse, creates a negative image of a parent living apart from the child.

The family lawyer Maria Yarmush advocated in the following civil case on the side of the claimant - the father of the child. The circumstances of this difficult family dispute were as follows:

- The father, mother and child are citizens of Great Britain. The mother of the child is a former citizen of the Russian Federation. The family lived in London. After the divorce, the mother of the child began to obstruct the father in communicating with her daughter. The dispute on the procedure of communication with the child reached the High Court of Justice in London, which determined the order of communication between the father and the child. The mother of the child, not wishing to execute the court decision, began to accuse the father of the child in sexual abuse of her daughter. This information was checked by the London police and social services, which came to the conclusion that the mother of the child defamed the father.

- Hating the former spouse, the child’s mother took away the girl to the Russian Federation by deceit, where she asked for refugee status and broke off all ties with the UK. The father of the child has unsuccessfully sought a daughter for two years.

- After the application for legal assistance to a lawyer Maria Yarmush, she started to seek for the child. Numerous requests were made to the Directorate of the FMS and the police. The mother and child were found in Moscow, the address of their registration was set. A claim was filed to the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow on the procedure for communication between the father and the child.

- The mother of the child began to accuse the father of sexual abuse of his daughter in court. She filed a counter-claim for the deprivation of the father's parental rights. She went to the police with a criminal complaint against the father of the child. She wrote complaints to the President of the Russian Federation on the actions of the lawyer of her former spouse. She invited to the court session the assistant of P. Astakhov - Anna Levchenko/Agatha Christie (a fighter against paedophiles), who later spread an offensive, defamatory article on the child’s father on the Internet. She invited the television - Channel One "Programma Vremya" on the last court session. Three lawyers defended her throughout the process. After the rendering of a judicial decision, she defamed the judge in the article "Meetings with the nightmare allowed", published in Pravda.ru.

- The guardianship and custodianship body of the Presnenskiy district of Moscow took the side of the mother and asked the court to refuse the father to communicate with the child. It independently sent the child to the OZON Center for psychological research.

- The OZON Center established in its opinion that the child should not communicate with the father. The specialist of the center participated in the court session and insisted on the prohibition of the father to communicate with his daughter in the interests of the child.

The lawyer Maria Yarmush:

- represented the father of the child in the investigative committee, which refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the mother of the child, indicating that the mother of the child defames the former spouse and adversely affects the girl's sanity.

- proved in the court of first and appeals instances that the accusations of the child’s mother have defamatory character, that before leaving the UK the child wanted to communicate with the father and fully communicated, that communication with the father could not harm the child.

The court satisfied the claims of the father of the child and appointed communication with the child in the presence of a psychologist for professional help to the child to overcome the consequences of the negative influence of the mother of the child.

The dispute about the custody.

A citizen of France applied to a lawyer with a request to return his two children to his custody in France.

A mother of the children is a citizen of Russia who took the children out of France several months ago, where they lived with a father after the parents divorced.

In Moscow the children lived in the mother’s apartment together with her cohabitor and the younger by one venter one-year-old brother. The children were unhappy with the living conditions of their mother and were very afraid of their stepfather.

The lawyer Maria Yarmush filed a claim against the mother of the children regarding the determination of the place of residence of the children in France with the father.

The father followed all the pieces of advice of the lawyer and the case was won in the court of first instance. The children were interviewed by the court which found that they were interested in returning to France.

The mother of the children did not appeal against the decision of the court of first instance.

The dispute about the custody.

In another case a father of three children took two sons to the United States where the family had lived together for a long time. A mother of the children is a citizen of the Russian Federation, she remained in Russia with a daughter.

Thus, two children began to live with their father in the United States, the daughter remained with her mother in Moscow.

The mother of the children filed a claim on determining the place of residence of the children with her, obliging the father to return the children.

The lawyer Maria Yarmush acted on the father’s side, who convinced the court that it was in the interests of the boys, as before, to live with their father in the United States. Regarding the youngest daughter, the lawyer established in court a schedule of communication with the father.

The claim of the mother on determining the place of residence of the boys with her was dismissed by the court..

The dispute about international parental kidnapping

A citizen of Romania applied to a lawyer to return her son who was held in Moscow by his father.
The child was born in Romania and lived with his mother. The father of the child is an Italian citizen who lived and worked in Moscow.
For a short time the mother and son stayed at the father's place in Moscow and then they went home. The boy’s father took the child out of Romania by deceit and began hiding him from his mother, holding him in Moscow.
Maria Yarmush initiated a civil case in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow with a claim for the return of the child to Romania to the mother.
The court fully satisfied the claims and decided to return the child to the mother for living with her in Romania.
The child was found, the court decision was executed in full with the help of the lawyer.

An Italian citizen with a legal help from Maria Yarmush started a claim against his ex wife on determining the procedure for communication with his minor child.

He and his ex wife were in a registered marriage and lived in Italy with a son 5 years old.
The mother of the child on September 2017 took the child out to Russia by deceit and has been keeping the child in isolation from his father since then. Later the marriage between them was terminated by the decision of the Russian court.

An USA citizen with a legal help from Maria Yarmush started a claim against his ex wife on determining the procedure for communication with his son.

An USA citizen was married on a Russian woman and then lived together in S., Oregon. When they were married, son S.H. was born into their family. The child has the US citizenship by birth. Since he was born and until he was five years old, the child permanently lived in the USA together with the parents. Since March 31, 2017, the child lived with father, because mother, by court judgment, moved to another residence in connection with their divorce.
The mother communicated with the child in accordance with the schedule established by judge. In October 2018, the mother took the child to Russia illegally where she has been keeping the child in a place unknown to the father, isolating the child from the father and other relatives.