Our client (for example, Ivanova) was legally married to her husband Ivanov. The marriage was registered by a registration 2000. The marriage was dissolved by the decision of the Moscowsky district court.
The parties have minor son who was born on 2001.
During the proceedings in the Moscowsky district court the parties concluded an amicable agreement Art. 2 of which is an essential condition. According to the mentioned Art. 2 “son shall reside with his mother”. The mentioned amicable agreement was signed by representatives of the parties, it was not appealed and it came into legal force. It means that the child shall follow his mother when the latter changes her place of residence.
On June 2008, Ivanova legally married U.S. citizen who permanently resides in U.S., where the family lawfully moved for permanent residence. Ex-spouses as well as their minor son are the citizens of the Russian Federation, they divorced and determined place of child's residence in the Russian court as requested by ex-husband. Ivanova decision to change the place of her residence together with the child didn’t violate either the amicable agreement signed by the parties or any applicable laws.
Pursuant to the law (Art. 63, 64 (par. 1), and 65 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation) Ivanova must take care of her child. As a custodian parent she is responsible for upbringing and development of her minor son. She must take care of his physical, mental, intellectual and moral development. She must ensure that her child goes to school. She is a legal representative of the child and protects child's rights and interests without any special authority.
Ivanova temporarily resided in France. She didn’t have a place of permanent residence in France. She wasn’t a citizen of France neither did she have a residence permit in France. According to the laws of the Russian Federation citizens of the Russian Federation are entitled to choose a place of residence in their own interests and in the interests of their minor children. Moreover, according to the decision of the Moscowsky district court the child shall reside with his mother and according to the laws and the effective agreement the mother bears full responsibility for the child.
Since the date of divorce the father hasn’t participate in his son’s life. He doesn’t abide by the visitations schedule established by the amicable agreement. He doesn’t provide regular financial support and eludes purchase of an apartment in Moscow according to the conditions of the signed amicable agreement, i.e. he acts carelessly, abuses his rights and evades obligations imposed on him by the laws and the agreement.
Ivanova doesn’t hinder any communication between the child and the father. Moreover, the father is a citizen of the Russian Federation and UK due to which he doesn’t need a visa to enter the USA which means that he may easily take parting the child’s life. Nevertheless, he doesn’t communicate with the child. He doesn’t call his son, doesn’t send him any letters or e-mails, doesn’t wish him happy birthday or happy new year, he is not interested in his son’s academic progress, i.e. the father demonstrates absolute indifference to his son’s life.
Based on the above, I have come to a conclusion that the laws of the Russian Federation haven’t been violated; actions of Ivanova are legal, lawful, and reasonable and serve the interests of minor Ivanov.