1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the child’s place of residence after the dissolution of the marriage between the parents.
2. The court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence with the mother, was guided by the following arguments:
* The father arbitrarily changed the child’s place of residence without the mother’s consent and objective reasons, which contradicts the child’s interests.
* Since the child’s birth, the mother has taken care of her, paid due attention, and was engaged in her upbringing and development.
* The mother did not obstruct the father’s communication with the child until he changed the child’s place of residence.
* There is no sufficient evidence of domestic violence on the part of the mother.
* The child’s opinion about wanting to live with the father may be a consequence of isolation from the mother and the father’s influence.
* The court agreed with the assessment by the court of first instance of the psychologists’ conclusions presented by the father, considering them improper evidence.
* The court noted that creating obstacles by one of the parents in raising the child and communicating with him/her for a long time destroys family ties and contradicts family values.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, confirming the decision on determining the child’s place of residence with the mother.
