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.<\/p>\n
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:
\n * The father arbitrarily changed the child’s place of residence without the mother’s consent and objective reasons, which contradicts the child’s interests.
\n * Since the child’s birth, the mother has taken care of her, paid due attention, and was engaged in her upbringing and development.
\n * The mother did not obstruct the father’s communication with the child until he changed the child’s place of residence.
\n * There is no sufficient evidence of domestic violence on the part of the mother.
\n * 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.
\n * The court agreed with the assessment by the court of first instance of the psychologists’ conclusions presented by the father, considering them improper evidence.
\n * 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n