{"id":7440,"date":"2025-03-27T10:34:09","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:34:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-761-36749-23-dated-13-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:34:09","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:34:09","slug":"case-no-761-36749-23-dated-13-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-761-36749-23-dated-13-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 761\/36749\/23 dated 13\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Establishing Methods of Mother&#8217;s Participation in Son&#8217;s Upbringing and Recovery of Moral Damages for Bodily Injuries.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court proceeded from the principle that mother and father have equal rights regarding the child, regardless of marriage dissolution.<\/p>\n<p>2. When determining the mother&#8217;s participation in upbringing, the court was guided by the best interests of the child, considering her emotional connection with the mother and desire to spend more time together.<\/p>\n<p>3. The court established that the previous decision of the guardianship and custody authority, which limited the mother to only 4 hours of communication with her son per week, contradicts the child&#8217;s interests.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Partially Satisfy the Claim &#8211; Establish an Extended Schedule of Communication for the Mother with Her Son and Recover 10,000 UAH in Moral Damages for Bodily Injuries.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126020995\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Establishing Methods of Mother&#8217;s Participation in Son&#8217;s Upbringing and Recovery of Moral Damages for Bodily Injuries. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court proceeded from the principle that mother and father have equal rights regarding the child, regardless of marriage dissolution. 2. When determining the mother&#8217;s participation in upbringing, the court&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-7440","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\/7440","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=7440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}