RULING

On April XX, 20XX the XXXXXXXXXXXXX District Court of Saint Petersburg in the composition of chairperson judge Ms. XXXXXXXXXX

With participation of attorneys at law Ms. XXXXXXXXXXX, Ms. Karina Krasnova, Clerk to the justices Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Having considered in open court session the civil case based on the suit of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming determination of the procedure for meeting with the child,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

The parties have been officially married since January XX, 19XX, in the wedlock they have daughter XXXXXXX born on May XX, 19XX.

The plaintiff applied to the court with the suit claiming dissolution of marriage, he agrees to the child’s place of residence to be the place of residence of her mother, to the size of alimony and procedure for child’s support, agrees to divide the jointly acquired property, and to define the procedure for meeting with the child.

In the course of proceedings it has been established that the parties to the case being citizens of Russia, are permanently residing in the USA, they do not object to the fact that in case of marriage dissolution the child’s place of residence shall be the place of residence of her mother.

The plaintiff asks to lay the defendant under the obligation not to put obstacles to his communication with the daughter, to establish the procedure for his participation in the child’s upbringing. In support of his claims he states that since the separation the defendant is putting the child against him, during joint meetings the defendant starts to clear up their personal relations involving their daughter into discussion of those matters, which has adverse effect on the teenager’s mind. He asks to establish the procedure for his meeting with the daughter, according to which he will be able to communicate with his daughter twice a month without her mother at the place of his residence from Friday evening till Sunday morning, and to spend his annual leave with his daughter during summer period.

The defendant disallowed the claims.

The court considers inappropriate the consideration of this claim jointly with marriage dissolution, determination of the child’s place of residence, separation of the property on the following grounds.

The court finds erroneous the arguments of the plaintiff in support of the statement that this issue should be considered jointly with all other claims pursuant to Art. 24 of the RF FC, since according to the provisions of this article such claims are not listed in the issues to be resolved by the court upon making a judgement on marriage dissolution.

Without contesting the plaintiff’s right to defend his interests upon exercising of his parental rights in case of daughter’s living with her mother, the court believes that the consideration of this issue requires the involvement of guardianship authorities as a concerned party, which is expressly prescribed in clause 2 of Art. 66 of RF FC.

In addition, in order to define the procedure for the meeting with the daughter requested by the plaintiff the court should find out the opinion of the girl, who is 14 years old now, to study the father’s living conditions, for which actions time is required, taking into account the fact that the child and father reside outside Russia.

At the same time the guardianship authorities cannot be involved in consideration of issues concerning marriage dissolution and separation of spouses’ property, and there is no dispute as regards determination of the child’s place of residence.

Pursuant to article 151 of RF CPC the judge should take one or several connected claims as a separate proceeding, if he acknowledges that separate consideration of claims will be appropriate.

Under the circumstances the claims of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX as regards putting the defendant under the obligation not to put obstacles to his communication with the daughter, establishing the procedure for his participation in the child’s upbringing should be taken as a separate proceeding.

On the ground of above stated, being governed by Article 151 of RF CPC, the court

HAS RESOLVED:

To take the claims of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX concerning the obligation not to put obstacles to his communication with the daughter, establishing the procedure for his participation in the child’s upbringing as a separate proceeding.

Judge

Stamp: The copy is true and correct.

Judge signed

Clerk to justices: signed

Seal: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX District Court of Saint-Petersburg