- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Ukraine is a worse shithole than Russia. That was true even before the war
Inactive Gonzalo Lira / Coach Red Pill / expat229 - Scam Artist, Male Feminist Pretending to be Alt-Right, Possible Rapist?, Liar, Failed Economist
- Thread starter Bryan Dunn
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2019
Somone made a totally kino CRP documentary. Best CRP related content ever imo.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
Just before KF went down some rando on Twitter posted a Ukranian court document about CRP's divorce dated 2022. I'm not sure if that was the previous wife or the Ukrainian one. I had a post ready to go when the site died so I'll have to redo it tonight when I get back to that PC. There's even a rape allegation a family member mentioned in it. The court decision has a ton of details and is very long. This might already all be known but it was new to me.
EDIT: Found it:
Here's the tweet(s) that pointed me to the doc:
Here's the link to the court ruling that's cut off in the tweet:
Here's the English translation from Chrome, quoted because it's loooong:
The parties are refered to as PERSON_1, PERSON_4, etc but unless there are other Chilean nationals with dual US citizenships in Kharkiv this is Coach.
EDIT: Found it:
Here's the tweet(s) that pointed me to the doc:
Here's the link to the court ruling that's cut off in the tweet:
Here's the English translation from Chrome, quoted because it's loooong:
Dzerzhyn District Court of Kharkiv
DECISION
Case No. 638/3349/21
Proceedings No. 2/638/1878/22
DECISION
IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE
On December 23, 2022, the Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv in the composition of:
presiding judge Semiryad I.V.,
with the participation of secretaries A.O. Podosokorska, V.Yu. Mezhirytska,
with
plaintiff PERSON_1,
representative of the plaintiff PERSON_2,
representative of the defendant PERSON_3
representative of the third person Sakhno E.V.
having considered in an open court session in the premises of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv a civil case on the claim of PERSON_1 to PERSON_4, the third party Children's Service in the Shevchenkiv District of the Department of Services for Children of the Kharkiv City Council on divorce and determining the place of residence of children, counterclaim PERSON_4 to PERSON_1, a third party, the Children's Service in the Shevchenkiv District of the Department of Children's Services of the Kharkiv City Council on determining the method of raising children,
SET UP:
On March 10, 2021, the plaintiff PERSON_1 filed a lawsuit against PERSON_4 to determine the place of residence of the children with their mother, divorce. In the justification of the claim, it is stated that she is married to the defendant, from whom children were born: PERSON_5, INFORMATION_1 and PERSON_6, INFORMATION_2. The children were born in the Republic of Chile and have been citizens of Ukraine since birth. The defendant has citizenship of the Republic of Chile and the United States. Children, in addition to the citizenship of Ukraine, have the citizenship of the Republic of Chile and the USA. In November 2016, she, her husband and two children moved to Ukraine with the aim of further joint permanent residence. However, two places later, the man went, as he said, to Great Britain to work, then, according to him, he worked in other countries. Since January 2017 and until now, the defendant does not live together with the plaintiff and the children in the same family, and only periodically comes to Ukraine. During the defendant's stay outside Ukraine in March 2018, she received a message on her phone from an unknown woman who said that she had been in a relationship with her husband for a year and also asked if it was true that they had broken up. At present, marital relations with the defendant are terminated, there is no mutual understanding, family life did not develop due to incompatibility of characters, quarrels and conflicts arose on this occasion. During the defendant's arrival, his aggressive behavior and imbalance lead to moral and physical violence against the plaintiff and the children. Already after the marriage, she found out that the defendant had problems with the law, a criminal case for attempted rape. During his stay in Chile, there was also a case where the defendant severely beat his young nephew, who has autism. It is not possible to save the marriage, in connection with which he is asking to dissolve the marriage. In addition, the plaintiff indicates that from the end of 2016 until now, she has been raising and taking care of her children on her own, she is registered with the children and actually lives in the apartment ADDRESS_1. The specified apartment is the property of the plaintiff. During 2018-2019, the plaintiff purchased two more apartments, which are currently leased. Since April 2017, the children have been receiving medical care at the Mother's House polyclinic. In order to educate her daughter, the plaintiff entered into an agreement on the provision of educational services with the Kharkiv Private Lyceum "Morning School". Thus, the defendant's participation in the upbringing of the children was reduced only to their material support through money transfers and walks with the children during his short-term visits to Ukraine from abroad. The children have settled in the city of Kharkiv, more than four years have passed since they moved to Ukraine, so there is a rather serious risk that moving the children abroad with their father will put them at risk of physical or mental harm. In connection with this, the plaintiff asks to determine the place of residence of minor children with their mother.
On 04/08/2021, by the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv, proceedings in the case were opened and a preparatory meeting was scheduled.
On November 3, 2021, the defendant's representative filed a response to the lawsuit, in which he indicates that he fully accepts the claims, but he partially disagrees with the grounds of the lawsuit. He lived with his wife and children in an apartment at ADDRESS_2. In 2017, he offered his wife and children to go abroad with him, but she refused. In the period from September 2019 to March 2020, he periodically went to Amsterdam on business, despite the fact that he continued to live together with his wife. Also, the defendant emphasizes to the court that the real reason for the divorce is the plaintiff's reluctance to maintain a generally accepted marital relationship, her quarrels. The defendant believes that further joint life with the plaintiff PERSON_1 is not possible due to the difference in mentalities, different views on raising children, categorical reluctance of the defendant to jointly resolve the issue of the rights and obligations of the spouses. The defendant does not object to the children living with their mother.
On November 9, 2021, the defendant PERSON_4 filed a counterclaim to determine the method of participation in raising children, in the justification of which he stated that the plaintiff can communicate with the children only once a week, but he believes that in order to maintain a full-fledged family relationship between the father and with children, he could spend school holidays with the children and travel with them. In connection with this, the plaintiff in the counterclaim asks to be given the opportunity to personally communicate with the children once a week, every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., provide an opportunity to personally communicate with children around the clock for two weeks during the summer school vacations and around the clock for two weeks during the winter school vacations, including by making trips for tourist purposes within Ukraine and abroad.
03.12.2021 by the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv, a counterclaim by PERSON_4 against PERSON_1, a third party, the Children's Service in the Shevchenkiv District of the Department of Children's Services of the Kharkiv City Council on determining in court the method of raising children (case No. 638/3349/21 , proceedings No. 2/638/6574/21) to be accepted for joint consideration, combining it with the original claim PERSON_1 to PERSON_4, a third party Children's Service in the Shevchenkiv District of the Department of Children's Services of the Kharkiv City Council on dissolution of marriage and determination of place residence of children (case No. 638/3349/21, proceedings No. 2/638/3464/21).
On February 9, 2022, the defendant to the counterclaim submitted a response to the counterclaim, in which it is indicated that the counterclaim is subject to only partial satisfaction, namely in terms of providing the possibility of personal communication of the plaintiff with the children once a week, every Saturday from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m., in the other part, the counterclaim is not admissible.
On September 16, 2022, by the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv, the preliminary hearing in the case was closed and a court hearing was scheduled.
On 21.12.2022, the Department of Services for Children drew up an opinion on determining the place of residence of children, which states that, given the lack of documents provided for by the Regulations of the Commission, the Department of Services, as a representative of the guardianship authority, considers it inappropriate to determine the place of residence of children with their mother, as well as establishing the procedure for the father's participation in raising and communicating with minor children.
The representative of the plaintiff in the original claim noted that he supports the original claim in full and asks to satisfy, on the grounds stated in it, partially recognized the counterclaim, objected to the fulfillment of requirements for travel for tourist purposes within Ukraine and abroad.
The representative of the defendant in the original claim did not object to the satisfaction of the claim, supported the counterclaims, asked to satisfy them, on the grounds stated therein.
The representative of the third person at the court hearing supported the opinion of the Department of Children's Services regarding the determination of the place of residence of the children.
The court, after listening to the representative of the plaintiff, the representative of the defendant, and the representative of a third party, after examining the case materials, comes to the following conclusion:
According to Art. 12 part 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, each party must prove the circumstances that are relevant to the case and to which it refers as the basis of its claims or objections, except for the cases established by this Code.
According to Art. 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the court considers cases no differently than at the request of a person, submitted in accordance with this Code, within the limits of the requirements declared by him and on the basis of evidence submitted by the participants in the case or demanded by the court in the cases provided for by this Code. The party to the case disposes of its rights regarding the subject of the dispute at its own discretion.
Article 81 of the Civil Code of Ukraine stipulates that each party must prove the circumstances it refers to as the basis of its claims or objections, except for the cases established by this Code. Evidence is submitted by the parties and other participants in the case. Proof cannot be based on assumptions.
Thus, the burden of proof rests on the parties, which is one of the principles of adversarial nature of the parties. The court cannot collect evidence on its own initiative.
It was established in the court session and from the case materials that PERSON_7 and PERSON_1 were married on 14.03.2013 in the Civil Status and Identification Office of the Republic of Chile, Vitacura District, record number 220.
The parties have children from the marriage: PERSON_5, INFORMATION_1 and PERSON_6, INFORMATION_2.
According to Part 2 of Article 104 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a marriage is terminated as a result of its dissolution.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 112 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, when considering divorce cases, the court finds out the actual relationship of the spouses, the valid reasons for the lawsuit for divorce, takes into account the presence of a minor child, a disabled child and other circumstances of the life of the spouses. The court issues a decision to dissolve the marriage if it is established that the further joint life of the spouses and the preservation of the marriage would be contrary to the interests of one of them, the interests of their children, which are of significant importance.
The court established that the plaintiff insists on the dissolution of the marriage, and the defendant does not object to the dissolution of the marriage, as further joint life is impossible. The actual marital relationship between the parties has been terminated, the joint household is not conducted, the feelings of love, respect and mutual understanding between the spouses have been lost, therefore the reconciliation of the parties is impossible, as the latter refer to the impossibility of renewing the marital relationship. The parties have no property dispute.
According to Part 3 of Art. 105 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a marriage is terminated as a result of its dissolution at the request of one of the spouses based on a court decision, in accordance with Article 110 of this Code.
According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a person has the right to continue to be called by this last name or to restore his maiden name after the dissolution of marriage.
The plaintiff did not change his surname when registering his marriage.
Thus, evaluating the given evidence, the court comes to the conclusion that it is possible to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
As regards the claims for the initial claim on the determination of the place of residence of the children with the mother.
As established in the court session, the parties have two children who currently live with their mother, which is not disputed by the defendant in the case.
03/19/2019 PERSON_5 received a certificate of registration as a citizen of Ukraine.
From the certificate of registration of the person's place of residence dated August 26, 2020, it can be seen that the minor PERSON_5 is registered at ADDRESS_3.
The extract from the medical card of the outpatient patient dated 02.03.2021 confirms that the minor PERSON_5 is registered at the health care institution "Mamyn Dom" polyclinic, which is located at the address of Kharkiv, str. Pushkinska, 31.
From the contract No. 321 dated 12.05.2020, provided by the plaintiff, on the provision of educational services for oral junior classes, it can be seen that the child PERSON_5 attends the "Ranok School" lyceum, which is located in the city of Kharkiv, ave. Faninskyi, 2, Kharkiv (actual address).
03/19/2019 PERSON_6 received a certificate of registration as a citizen of Ukraine.
Since August 26, 2020, PERSON_6 is registered at ADDRESS_3, which is confirmed by a certificate of registration of the person's place of residence.
The extract from the medical card of the outpatient patient dated 02.03.2021 confirms that the minor PERSON_6 is registered at the health care institution "Mamyn Dom" polyclinic, which is located at Kharkiv, str. Pushkinska, 31.
An extract from the State Register of Property Rights to immovable property on registration of ownership No. 168161985 dated 05/27/2019 confirms that the claimant PERSON_1 owns the apartment ADDRESS_1.
In addition, the claimant PERSON_1 owns the apartment ADDRESS_5, which is confirmed by an extract from the State Register of Real Property Rights on the registration of ownership.
According to part 2, 8, 9 Art. 7 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, family relations can be regulated by agreement (agreement) between their participants. Regulation of family relations should be carried out with the maximum possible consideration of the interests of the child and family members. Family relations are regulated on the basis of justice, good faith and reasonableness, in accordance with the moral principles of society.
According to Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Childhood Protection" every child has the right to a standard of living sufficient for his physical, intellectual, moral, cultural, spiritual and social development. Parents or persons who replace them are responsible for creating the conditions necessary for the comprehensive development of the child, in accordance with the laws of Ukraine.
Father and mother have equal rights and responsibilities towards their children. The main concern and the main duty of parents is to ensure the interests of their child (Part 3 of Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Childhood").
According to Art. 12 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Childhood" each parent is entrusted with the same responsibility for the education, training and development of the child. Parents or persons who replace them have the right and obligation to raise a child, take care of his health, physical, spiritual and moral development, education, create appropriate conditions for the development of his natural abilities, respect the dignity of the child, prepare him for independent life and work.
The upbringing of a child should be aimed at the development of his personality, respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, language, national historical and cultural values of Ukrainian and other peoples, preparation of the child for a conscious life in society in the spirit of mutual understanding, peace, mercy, ensuring the equality of all members of society , harmony and friendship between peoples, ethnic, national, religious groups.
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 18, Part 1 of Art. 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child dated November 20, 1989, ratified by the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dated February 27, 1991 No. 789-XII (hereinafter - the Convention on the Rights of the Child), the participating states make all possible efforts to ensure recognition of the principle of general and equal responsibility of both parents for the education and development of the child. Parents or, in appropriate cases, legal guardians bear the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child are their primary concern. The participating states recognize the right of every child to a standard of living necessary for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
Part 1 of Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that States Parties shall ensure that a child is not separated from his parents against their wishes, except in cases where the competent authorities, pursuant to a court decision, determine in accordance with the applicable law and procedures, what is divorce is necessary in the best interests of the child. Such a determination may be necessary in one or another case, for example, when the parents abuse or neglect the child, or when the parents live separately and a decision needs to be made about the child's place of residence.
According to part. 2, 4 Art. 29 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the place of residence of an individual between the ages of ten and fourteen is the place of residence of his parents (adoptive parents) or one of them with whom he lives, a guardian, or the location of an educational institution or health care institution, etc., in which he lives, if another place of residence is not established by agreement between the child and the parents (adoptive parents, guardian) or the organization that performs the functions of the guardian.
According to Art. 141 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the mother and the father have equal rights and obligations towards the child.
According to part. 1, 2 Art. 161 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, if the mother and father, who live separately, do not agree on which of them the minor child will live with, the dispute between them may be resolved by the guardianship authority or the court.
When resolving a dispute regarding the place of residence of a minor child, the attitude of the parents towards the fulfillment of their parental duties, the personal attachment of the child to each of them, the age of the child, the state of his health and other circumstances of significant importance are taken into account.
The guardianship authority or the court cannot transfer a child to live with a parent who does not have an independent income, abuses alcohol or drugs, or may harm the child's development with his immoral behavior.
Part 1 of Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that in all actions regarding children, regardless of whether they are carried out by public or private institutions dealing with social security issues, courts, administrative or legislative bodies, primary attention is paid to the best possible protection of the interests of the child.
In the decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated July 11, 2017 in the case "M. S. v. Ukraine", application No. 2091/13, the court noted that when determining the best interests of the child in each specific case, two aspects must be taken into account: first, the child's interests are best served by preserving his ties with the family, except in cases , when the family is particularly unsuitable or dysfunctional; secondly, it is in the best interests of the child to ensure that he or she develops in a safe, secure and stable environment that is not hostile (paragraph 76).
In paragraph 54 of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights "Hunt v. Ukraine" dated December 7, 2006, application No. 31111/04, it is stated that there must be a fair balance between the interests of the child and the interests of the parents, and while maintaining such a balance, special attention must be paid to the most important interests of the child, which by their nature and importance should prevail over the interests of the parents. In particular, Article 8 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not give parents the right to take measures that may harm the health or development of the child.
The analysis of the cited norms of law and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights gives grounds for the conclusion that the equality of the rights of parents in relation to the child is derived from the rights and interests of the child itself for harmonious development and proper upbringing, and the interests of the child must be determined and taken into account in the first place, based on from the objective circumstances of the dispute.
International and national legal norms do not contain provisions that would give either parent the priority right to live with the child.
When determining the child's place of residence, the courts must, through the prism of taking into account the best interests of the child, establish and provide a proper legal assessment of all the circumstances of the case, which are important for the correct resolution of the dispute.
Therefore, when considering cases regarding the child's place of residence, the courts should, first of all, proceed from the interests of the child himself, taking into account permanent social ties, place of education, psychological state, etc., and also maintain a balance between the interests of the child, the rights of the parents to raise the child and parents' duty to act in her interests.
The norms of Article 19 of the Civil Code of Ukraine establish that when considering disputes regarding the participation of one of the parents in raising a child, determining the child's place of residence, deprivation and renewal of parental rights, seeing the child of the mother or father who are deprived of parental rights, taking the child away from the person holding her own, not on the basis of the law or a court decision, the parents' management of the child's property, the cancellation of the adoption and its recognition as invalid, the participation of the guardianship body is mandatory. The guardianship authority submits to the court a written opinion on the resolution of the dispute on the basis of information obtained as a result of the examination of the living conditions of the child, parents, other persons who wish to live with the child and participate in its upbringing, as well as on the basis of other documents that relate to the case.
On 21.12.2022, the Department of Services for Children drew up an opinion on determining the place of residence of children, which states that, given the lack of documents provided for by the Regulations of the Commission, the Department of Services, as a representative of the guardianship authority, considers it inappropriate to determine the place of residence of children with their mother, as well as establishing the procedure for the father's participation in raising and communicating with minor children.
The court does not agree with the opinion provided by the Department of Children's Services, because it is not sufficiently substantiated and does not conflict with the interests of the child.
In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, when choosing and applying a rule of law to a disputed legal relationship, the court takes into account the conclusions on the application of the relevant rules of law, set out in the Supreme Court's rulings.
In the decision of the Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation dated February 14, 2019 in case No. 377/128/18 (proceedings No. 61-44680св1it is stated that "the interpretation of the first part of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine indicates that during the resolution of a dispute regarding the place of residence of a minor child takes into account the attitude of the parents towards the fulfillment of their parental duties, the personal attachment of the child to each of them, the age of the child, the state of his health and other circumstances of significant importance. Other significant circumstances include: personal qualities of parents; the relationship that exists between each of the parents and the child (how the parents fulfill their parental duties in relation to the child, how their interests are taken into account, whether there is mutual understanding between each of the parents and the child);
The decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated October 17, 2018 in case No. 402/428/16-ts (proceedings No. 14-327ts1
As evidenced by the case materials, the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 owns real estate and a stable income.
As established in the court session and not disputed by the parties, the children live with their mother.
According to international and national legal norms, the rights of the child include, in particular, the right to take into account his opinion on issues affecting his life.
In particular, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 12 Part I of the UN Convention of November 20, 1989 "On the Rights of the Child" (ratified by Ukraine on February 27, 1991), the participating states provide a child who is capable of formulating his own views, the right to freely express these views on all matters concerning the child, and the views of the child are given due consideration according to their age and maturity. For this purpose, the child, in particular, is given the opportunity to be heard in the course of any judicial or administrative proceedings concerning the child, directly or through a representative or the relevant body in the manner provided by the procedural norms of national legislation.
Children were not interviewed at the court hearing, due to the martial law declared throughout Ukraine and the threat of rocket attacks on the territory of the city of Kharkiv, which could pose a threat to children's lives.
The family is valuable for a child's development, and when it breaks down, separated parents must find ways to protect the child and ensure that the child has what it needs to grow up in a safe environment, develop fully, and not be negatively impacted. A situation in which parents are unable to find such ways by mutual agreement requires the intervention of public authorities, in particular the court, in order to ensure proper relations between the child and the parents, which are fundamental to the well-being of the child. A child needs the attention, support and love of both parents. The child is the most vulnerable party during any family conflicts.
When deciding this dispute, the court assumes that the mother of PERSON_1 ensures the development of children in a safe, calm and stable environment, which is prosperous and does not require a change of the children's place of residence.
Regarding counterclaims for determining the method of participation in raising children.
In accordance with Art. 150 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, parents are obliged to raise their children in the spirit of respect for the rights and freedoms of other people, love for their family, their people, their Motherland. Parents are also obliged to take care of the child's health, his physical, spiritual and moral development.
According to Art. 155 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, parental rights cannot be exercised contrary to the interests of the child. Parents must respect the child's rights and human dignity.
Article 157 of the Civil Code of Ukraine stipulates that the issue of raising a child is decided jointly by the parents. The parent who lives separately from the child has the right to communicate with the child, and the parent with whom the child lives does not have the right to prevent such communication.
According to the requirements of Art. 159 of the Civil Code of Ukraine if the parent with whom the child lives obstructs the parent who lives separately in communicating with the child and in its upbringing, in particular if he evades the implementation of the decision of the guardianship authority, the other parent has the right to appeal to the court with a claim to eliminate these obstacles. The court determines the methods of participation of one of the parents in the upbringing of the child (periodic or systematic visits, the possibility of joint rest, visits by the child to his place of residence, etc.), the place and time of their communication, taking into account the age, state of health of the child, the behavior of the parents, as well as others circumstances that are of significant importance. In some cases, if it is caused by the interests of the child, the court may condition visits with the child to the presence of another person.
The guardianship authority submits to the court a written opinion on the resolution of the dispute on the basis of information obtained as a result of the examination of the living conditions of the child, parents, other persons who wish to live with the child and participate in its upbringing, as well as on the basis of other documents that relate to the case (Part 5 of Article 19 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
At the same time, the court may not agree with the conclusion of the body of guardianship and care if it is insufficiently substantiated and contradicts the interests of the child (Part 6 of Article 19 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
The court does not agree with the conclusion of the guardianship authority, as it is unreasonable and contrary to the interests of children.
In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dated February 27, 1991, in all actions concerning children, regardless of whether they are carried out by state or private institutions dealing with social security issues, courts, administrative or legislative bodies, primary attention is paid to the best possible provision of the child's interests.
According to the third part of Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine "On Childhood Protection", father and mother have equal rights and obligations towards their children. The subject of the main concern and the main duty of parents is to ensure the interests of their child.
According to the first and second parts of Article 15 of the Law of Ukraine "On Childhood Protection", a child who lives separately from his parents or one of them has the right to maintain regular personal relations and direct contacts with them.
Parents who live separately from the child are obliged to participate in his upbringing and have the right to communicate with him, if the court has recognized that such communication will not interfere with the normal upbringing of the child.
The court established that the child's father shows a desire to communicate with the children and take part in their upbringing. The child's father is a healthy person, who actively and consistently shows a desire to participate in raising and communicating with his child, which is confirmed by the case materials.
The court did not establish any circumstances that would make it impossible for the father to communicate with the children, and the defendant in the counterclaim did not prove it.
Taking into account the established circumstances and evidence contained in the case file, the court comes to the conclusion that the claims of PERSON_4 are subject to partial satisfaction.
At the same time, the court takes into account first of all the interests of the child and takes into account the fact that each parent has the right to communicate with the child on weekends and during school holidays, in addition, the court takes into account the fact that martial law has been imposed on the territory of Ukraine at the present time.
According to international and national legal norms, the rights of the child include, in particular, the right to take into account his opinion on issues affecting his life.
In particular, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 12 Part I of the UN Convention of November 20, 1989 "On the Rights of the Child" (ratified by Ukraine on February 27, 1991), the participating states provide a child who is capable of formulating his own views, the right to freely express these views on all matters concerning the child, and the views of the child are given due consideration according to their age and maturity. For this purpose, the child, in particular, is given the opportunity to be heard in the course of any judicial or administrative proceedings concerning the child, directly or through a representative or the relevant body in the manner provided by the procedural norms of national legislation.
However, as already mentioned, children were not interviewed at the court hearing, given the state of war declared throughout Ukraine and the threat of rocket attacks on the territory of the city of Kharkiv, which may pose a threat to children's lives.
The court considers it necessary to establish a schedule that will not disturb the child's daily routine and education, will not tear them away from the normal, usual environment for children and will not interfere with normal existence.
Therefore, the court, acting in the best interests of the children, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff in the counterclaim needs to establish the following method and order of his participation in communication and upbringing of the children: around the clock for two weeks during the summer school holidays without the presence of the children's mother and around the clock during one week during the winter school holidays without the presence of the children's mother, with the possibility of traveling for tourist purposes within Ukraine, with the mandatory return of the children to their place of permanent residence.
At the same time, the legal claim about the possibility of traveling for tourist purposes outside of Ukraine cannot be satisfied, because martial law has been imposed on the territory of Ukraine, hostilities are ongoing, and therefore the separation of children from their mothers, i.e., taking children outside of Ukraine, may have severe consequences and psychological trauma for children.
In addition, the legal requirement that the father be able to spend two weeks of the school winter vacation with the children is also inadmissible, since the winter school vacation lasts only two weeks, and therefore, if the specified requirement is met, the rights of the mother of the children to spend time with the children will be violated during the holidays.
The court considers that, taking into account the age changes of the children, their development and needs, the attitude towards the father, the plaintiff in the counterclaim is not deprived of the right in the future to change the method of participation in the upbringing of the children established by the court, which will correspond, first of all, to the interests of the children.
At the court hearing, the parties did not insist on the collection of court costs.
According to Art. 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the court considers civil cases only upon the appeal of individuals or legal entities submitted in accordance with this Code, within the limits of their stated requirements and based on the evidence of the parties and other persons participating in the case.
Under such circumstances, the court considers it necessary to not apply the provisions of Art. 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which provides for full reimbursement by the defendant to the plaintiff of the court costs incurred.
On the basis of the above, guided by Art. Art. 12,13, 81, 141, 247, 263-265, 280 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Art. Art. 51, Part 3 of Art. 56, Part 2 of Art. 104, Part 3 of Art. 105, Part 1 of Art. 110, Art. Art. 112, 150, 160, 161, 181, 182, 184 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Art. 9, 18, 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dated February 27, 1991, the court, -
DECIDED:
The claim of PERSON_1 to PERSON_4, the third party Children's Service in the Shevchenkiv district of the Department of Children's Services of the Kharkiv City Council on divorce and determining the children's place of residence - to be satisfied.
The marriage between PERSON_7 and PERSON_1 was registered on 14.03.2013 in the Civil Status and Identification Office of the Republic of Chile, Vitacura District, deed record No. 220 - to dissolve.
The court decision on the dissolution of marriage, after it has entered into legal force, should be sent to the body of state registration of acts of civil status of the registration service of the Kharkiv City Department of Justice, for entering information into the State Register of acts of civil status of citizens and making a mark in the act record of marriage.
Determine the place of residence of children PERSON_5, INFORMATION_1 and PERSON_6, INFORMATION_2 with mother PERSON_1 at ADDRESS_3.
Counterclaim PERSON_4 against PERSON_1, the third party Children's Service in the Shevchenkiv District of the Department of Children's Services of the Kharkiv City Council on determining the method of raising children - to partially satisfy.
Determine the order in the education and communication of PERSON_4's father with children PERSON_5, INFORMATION_1 and PERSON_6, INFORMATION_2 as follows:
- around the clock for two weeks during the summer school holidays without the presence of the children's mother and around the clock for one week during the winter school holidays without the presence of the children's mother, with the possibility of traveling for tourist purposes within Ukraine, with the mandatory return of the children to their place of permanent residence .
The satisfaction of the other part of the counterclaims - to refuse.
The decision may be appealed by filing an appeal to or through the Kharkiv Court of Appeals within thirty days from the date of its announcement, as determined by the Provisions on the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System and/or the provisions defining the procedure for the functioning of its individual subsystems (modules).
If only the introductory and final parts of the court decision were announced at the court session or in the case of a case review (resolution of the issue) without notice (summons) of the participants in the case, the specified term is calculated from the date of drawing up the full text of the decision.
The court's decision takes legal effect after the expiry of the period for filing an appeal by all parties to the case, if no appeal has been filed.
In case of filing an appeal, the decision, if it is not annulled, takes legal effect after the return of the appeal, the refusal to open or close the appeal proceedings, or the adoption of the decision of the appellate court as a result of the appellate review.
Parties:
The plaintiff is PERSON_1, INFORMATION_3, RNOKPP NUMBER_1, registered ADDRESS_3.
The defendant is PERSON_4, INFORMATION_4, identification code NUMBER_2, place of residence ADDRESS_2.
JUDGE: I.V. SEMIRYAD
Date of decision 23.12.2022
Published 27.12.2022
Court register for case 638/3349/21
Decision Court Form
Decision dated 12/23/2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 14.12.2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 06.12.2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 06.12.2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 06.12.2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 05.12.2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 10/28/2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 10/28/2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 10/25/2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Resolution dated 10/20/2022 Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv Civil
Opendatabot
Opendatabot is a service for monitoring registration data of Ukrainian companies and the court register for protection against raiding and control of counterparties.
Follow the case 638/3349/21
Install Opendatabot and confirm your subscription
Opendatabot for phone
All materials on this site are placed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license , unless otherwise indicated on the relevant page.
© 2016—2020 Opendatabot
The parties are refered to as PERSON_1, PERSON_4, etc but unless there are other Chilean nationals with dual US citizenships in Kharkiv this is Coach.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
@SaidNoOneEver ah, beating his kids, now there you see that south american gusto. I wait patiently for the postmorten once he is confirmed dead. There is no way in hell he is getting out of there alive, or if he does, he will probably be crippled in multiple ways.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
If you are in a country that is getting invade and you are supporting the invading party, don't be shocked that you will get arrested for it.
Smashed & Slamed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
There are niggers out here acting surprised the Kharkov Kulak got in trouble when the US did the same thing to Tokyo Rose and at least she was smart enough to do it from outside the US.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2021
She also wasn't even really doing the same thing as what CRP's doing here, nor was she still in Japan at the time by choice. She'd reportedly slip in little America references that got by the censors but didn't get by the listening soldiers, given most of them saying they liked the broadcast and that a lot of them thought she was secretly not really on Japan's side to begin with. She was even cleared at the time by DOJ, they mostly got her conviction because journalists caused an uproar when she tried to go back home to the US and the means of doing it involved reportedly threatening other witnesses with the same charges if they didn't toe the line.
Given this, and that despite all these mitigating factors and that even the government didn't really think she did it she was labeled as a traitor for years, I have no idea how on earth CRP thought legitimately just supporting an invader in the country getting invaded was ever going to fly. Even Japan didn't literally have people marching down American streets.
Given this, and that despite all these mitigating factors and that even the government didn't really think she did it she was labeled as a traitor for years, I have no idea how on earth CRP thought legitimately just supporting an invader in the country getting invaded was ever going to fly. Even Japan didn't literally have people marching down American streets.
Malayalam
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2023
A criminal case for attempted rape, beating up his own family, not being involved in his children's life more than once a week since 2016... This is hilarious.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
That random tweet with CRP's divorce court documents is super weird. Who could've found that? You'd need to speak Ukrainian (Russian?), know they exist and the case numbers since the identities are protected.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
Propagandists have no value, as they would be considered "useful idiots" by the warring faction. The closest example to CRPs situation can point to is the morons who published pro-axis rags in the US during WW2.
Unless someone is angry enough to kill him, CRP will likely be imprisoned until the war is over, and then released with a utterly humiliated reputation in the community.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
You really underestimate what some bored holols that come from an area ravaged by war will do to a big mouthed retard to pass the time.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2021
So while CRP getting crucified by AZOV approaches ever closer and I hope its shot in HD. I must remind everyone that Lazerpig's dumb drunk faggot ass lied again about shit when he said that CRP was living in Switzerland in his cabal of grifting twinks round table podcast.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2020
Ukraine maintains an open online database of court cases that is searchable by, among other things, last names. Last names may be redacted from court decisions, yet they are included in case details. It is trivial to search this database for any cases anybody with the last name ‘Gonzalo’ (spelt ‘Гонсало’ in this case) is or was involved in.
Speaking of, CRP was put in a pre-trial detention centre and was assigned a 402600 UAH bail to leave for house arrest. Pre-trial investigation should be done by the 29th of June.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
So he's back out of jail again on bail? 402600 UAH is about $11k USD. The Duran guys mentioned him yesterday saying nobody knew anything about his status in detention and that the US had "washed their hands" of him and probably weren't even giving him basic legal assistance from the embassy.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2019
Hey, you can be a Ukranian simp all you want, but dont act shocked when those worthless faggots will get kicked out for being worthless leeches like their whole shithole country is.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2020
No clue. This would not be in the database, and no media reported on him since his detention. Judging from his Patreon income, he should be able to pay the bail.
Speaking of his Patreon income, all that money — and he still did not bother to hire a cleaner to scrub his dirty hovel. He looks and lives like he has given up on life.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
As addicted as he is to internet attention I can't imagine he'd be able to stay offline for long if out on bail.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2020
If his property had been provisionally seized or attached, he would not be able to post online. Until buying a new computer or smartphone, at least, or getting his electronic devices back. Considering they are the means by which he committed his criminal offences, I doubt he would be granted access.
Abowaffen
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
Just going to leave this here.