the Pervomayskiy District Court revoked A.'s adoption. However, the decision has not yet acquired final force. Consequently, the issue of termination of the applicants' parental rights has not been resolved as the negligence on the part of applicants has not been established...
... In the present case the court is unable to find that the applicants deliberately harmed the girl's physical or psychological health (Article 65 of the Family Code).
The court finds it established that throughout A.'s entire stay at the hospital the applicants attempted to visit her several times a week, despite the fact that they were not allowed to see her and that they were not provided with any information about her. They brought her food, clothes, toys and other things. Taking account of the fact that the applicants still enjoy parental rights until otherwise determined by a final court decision, the court considers the defendants' refusal to grant [the applicants'] access to A. and participation in her upbringing to be unacceptable. Taking into consideration the child's interests, the court finds it necessary to provide the applicants with a genuine possibility of enjoying their right to participate in her upbringing and to communicate with her.
61. The court ordered the defendants not to interfere with the parents' right to communicate with A. and participate in her upbringing.
62. The administration and the hospital appealed. On 25 January 2005 the Kirov Regional Court dismissed their appeal and upheld the judgment of 23 November 2004 in full.
63. On 26 January 2005 the deputy head of the Kirov municipal authority provided the applicant with a schedule of meetings with A. According to the schedule, the parents were allowed to visit A. for one hour every two weeks. The applicant was also told that A. had been removed from the hospital and placed in a children's foster home.
64. It does not appear that the applicant brought any court proceeding to contest this schedule.
65. On 28 January 2005 the applicant went to the foster home. The head of the home did not allow him either to see A. or to speak to her by telephone.
66. The applicant submitted that she had also told him that he had been excluded from the girl's upbringing.
67. According to the Government, on 28 January 2005 the applicant and his counsel visited the foster home and talked to the head of the home. The conversation was taped.
68. On 2 February 2005 the bailiff responsible for execution of the judgment instituted enforcement proceedings.
69. According to the report on the enforcement proceedings (акт проверки исполнения исполнительного документа) dated 4 February 2005, the foster home's management refused the applicant access to A. on the ground that an influenza quarantine had been introduced on 2 February 2005. It appears that the applicant could speak to A. on the telephone. The report also indicates that the head of the foster home flatly refused to allow the possibility of the applicant's participation in A.'s upbringing.
70. According to the Government, on 4 February 2005 the applicant, his counsel and two bailiffs visited the home and talked to the head. The whole visit was taped. The applicant was allowed to take a photo of A. through the glass window.
71. On 11 February 2005 the head of home met the applicant and his counsel. The applicant was given an opportunity to take A.'s photograph through the glass window and to see A. waving him goodbye.
72. On 14 February 2005 the bailiff issued a request (требование) calling on the Kirov municipal authority to annul the schedule of meetings between the applicant and A. In particular, she pointed out that meetings of one hour every other week were clearly inadequate for proper execution of the judgment.
73. It ap
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
