Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 "Дело "XXXXX (XXXXX) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

proceedings for revocation of the adoption order.
... According to a medical certificate issued by a psychotherapist and dated 10 November 2003, E. showed symptoms of schizoid personality disorder. In this connection, and with E.'s consent, the court ordered that she undergo a forensic psychiatric examination, which she failed to attend...
... Under Article 141 of the Family Code, the adoption of a child may be revoked for failure by the adoptive parents to fulfil their parental obligations, for abuse of parental rights, abusive treatment of the adopted child or if the parents suffer from chronic drug or alcohol addiction...
... The Family Code does not provide a definition of the term "abuse of parental rights". This is to be found in the Ruling of the Plenary Supreme Court of 27 May 1998 N 10 "Application of the legislation by the courts in disputes concerning the upbringing of children". The ruling defines the term as "making use of these [parental] rights to the detriment of the children's interests, in particular, creating obstacles to their education; inducement to beggary; theft; prostitution; abuse of alcohol or drugs etc." The list of possible adverse consequences of abuse of parental rights is not exhaustive, since these consequences may vary. However, as can be seen from the definition, abuse of parental rights constitutes a use of... [those]... rights... that will entail harm to their children. In other words, this is a use of parental rights contrary to their purpose, defined in Article 63 of the Family Code as the parents' obligation to raise their children, to take care of their health, physical, psychological, mental and moral development and to provide for their basic educational needs.
In reaching its decision the court has recognised that by obstructing the child's medical treatment the defendants created a situation in which her life and health were endangered. After her removal the child's medical condition improved, resulting in her recovery. According to the medical examination carried out by the Russian Children's Hospital, the treatment provided by the Kirov Regional Children's Hospital fully corresponded to the child's diagnosis and medical condition.
In accordance with the requirements of the law, in reaching its decision the court was guided by the best interests of the child, particularly her right to life, and took into account the specific circumstances of the case. The evidence at the court's disposal, in particular the psychological examination of the child, reveals that her removal did not entail any negative consequences for her health and emotional development. On the contrary, there is evidence that she does not want to return home.
The court revokes the adoption order in respect of both defendants since they acted in concert, a fact which they did not dispute."
54. The applicant appealed against the judgment. In his appeal submissions he alleged that the trial court had erred in establishing the relevant facts and that, contrary to the court's findings, the parents had not been negligent. He also complained about the removal order; the authorities' failure to involve him in the decision-making process and to grant him access to A.; and the poor wording of Article 77 of the Family Code. The applicant also relied on Article 8 of the Convention and the Court's case-law in support of his complaints.
55. By a decision of 28 December 2004 the Kirov Regional Court partly set aside and partly varied the District Court judgment. In particular, the court quashed the decision to revoke the adoption but upheld the decision to transfer custody of A. to the local Custody and Guardianship Agency. The court also placed restrictions on the parents' parental rights as defined by Article 74 of the Family Code.
56. The court held, in particular:




> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet