{"id":6517,"date":"2025-03-10T09:14:40","date_gmt":"2025-03-10T07:14:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-583-4410-23-dated-03-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-10T09:14:40","modified_gmt":"2025-03-10T07:14:40","slug":"case-no-583-4410-23-dated-03-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-583-4410-23-dated-03-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 583\/4410\/23 dated 03\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Executor&#8217;s Resolution on Terminating Enforcement Proceedings Regarding Determining the Father&#8217;s Method of Participation in Child Upbringing.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The court considers that the state executor approached the execution of the court decision on the father&#8217;s visitation with children formally.<br \/>\n2. Despite the absence of direct obstacles from the mother, the children consistently refuse to communicate with the father.<br \/>\n3. The state executor did not take sufficient measures to establish relations between the father and children, in particular, did not involve a psychologist and the child services.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave the appellate court resolution unchanged, which cancels the state executor&#8217;s decision on terminating the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125639238\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Executor&#8217;s Resolution on Terminating Enforcement Proceedings Regarding Determining the Father&#8217;s Method of Participation in Child Upbringing. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court considers that the state executor approached the execution of the court decision on the father&#8217;s visitation with children formally. 2. Despite the absence of direct&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}