The Federal Law "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation", introduced by the co-chairs of the working group on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution - Deputy Pavel Krasheninnikov and Senator Andrey Klishas, ​​was supported by the government commission on legislative activity.

According to the authors, the amendments should stop the arbitrariness of custody and prevent the unjustified removal of children from the family, for example, due to the disorder in the apartment.

The new rules should limit the extrajudicial procedure for the removal of children, the fate of the child will be decided by a court held behind closed doors.

As Krasheninnikov stated, the law could be adopted already in the autumn session.

Only by court

As follows from the proposed by the authors of the bill, in order to remove a child from the family, the guardianship and guardianship authorities must apply to the court.

In this case, the court must consider such an application within 24 hours, at a closed meeting with the obligatory participation of a representative of the guardianship and guardianship body, a prosecutor, as well as parents or guardians.

If necessary, the participation of interested persons and the child himself is possible.

The only exception in which extrajudicial seizures are possible are cases when there is a risk of the death of a child within a few hours due to the actions of parents or guardians.

Then the guardianship officers, together with the prosecutor and a representative of the internal affairs body, can pick up the child without a court decision, indicating all the circumstances in the act.

Such actions can then be challenged by parents or guardians.

Since the courts will make the decision on the removal of children, the amendments introduce a new category of special proceedings into the Civil Procedure Code - on the removal of a child from his parents (one of them) or from other persons in whose care he is, with an immediate threat to the child's life or health. ...

This will be reflected in Chapter 38.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Amendments are also made to the Federal Law "On the Police" - it regulates the powers of the internal affairs bodies to apply to the court with an application for the removal of a child in case of an immediate threat to his life or health.

Amendments to the Family Code

At the same time, amendments to the Family Code, prepared by the head of the temporary commission of the Federation Council for the preparation of proposals for improving the Family Code of the Russian Federation, Elena Mizulina, as well as senators Elena Afanasyeva, Alexander Bashkin, Rimma Galushina, Maxim Kavdzharadze, Lyudmila Narusova, are being considered.

This is the Federal Law "On Amendments to the Family Code of the Russian Federation in order to strengthen the institution of the family."

Mizulina's amendments immediately regulate a wide range of problems and introduce more than a hundred changes to dozens of articles of the family codec.

For example, they prohibit the guardianship authorities from refusing relatives who want to take a child from the shelter because of low income, and the owners are given the right not to let guardianship employees into the house.

The removal of children there was also recognized as possible only by a court decision and with a clearly limited range of reasons.

However, these amendments do not talk about "express ships".  

It will be possible to pick up the child only if the parents are guilty on the basis of a court decision that has entered into legal force on deprivation of parental rights or on their restriction.

The bill provides a list of 11 grounds on which a child can be recognized as left without parental care, and documents that confirm this.

Everyone works in the same direction

According to political scientist Pavel Sklyanchuk, since the bills contain similar norms, they should be recognized as alternative.

According to him, the profile committee of the State Duma, in all likelihood, will have to consider them at the same time and make a choice which amendments should be adopted.

In July, when Mizulina's amendments were introduced to the State Duma, Klishas himself assessed them rather favorably.

“I am satisfied that finally, after three years of work, this package has been introduced.

There is a rational grain in a number of positions, ”he then told RIA Novosti.

Later, the media reported that the children's ombudsman Anna Kuznetsova wrote a negative review on them.

Tamara Pletneva, head of the State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, also spoke out against the amendments.

In her opinion, the changes are too voluminous, and in fact are not amendments, but a new Family Code.

The authors of these competing bills, as well as the head of the relevant Duma committee that will consider them, Tamara Pletneva, did not comment on the situation with RT.

Only Senator Alexander Bashkin spoke out and admitted that "in some part, both bills overlap."

“In my opinion, they somewhat complement each other in some way,” he said.

At the same time, the senator stressed that "there is no competitive factor here."

“Even the bills themselves do not compete with each other, and even more so the subjects of the right of legislative initiative.

All colleagues, all are working in the same direction, "the senator said in an interview with RT.

A question about the quality of the judicial system

Pavel Kantor, a lawyer from the legal group of the Center for Curative Pedagogy, noted that these two draft amendments really exclude each other.

At the same time, in his opinion, now the courts do not fully cope with their task when it comes to depriving or restricting parents in their rights.

“The main problem is related to the fact that the guardianship authorities pressure the parents to sign the waiver of the child,” he explains.

“In fact, from the point of view of the parents, the child is removed from the family, but formally this is formalized as“ voluntary ”(that is, according to a statement torn from the parents by deception or threats), the placement of the child in an orphanage”.

As a result, “gray” situations arise when parents are not deprived and not limited in parental rights, but the child is actually taken away from them.

According to Kantor, this can be avoided with an accelerated legal system.

“The court decision is subject to the control of higher courts, and besides, it introduces the situation into the legal field and narrows the scope for manipulation by unscrupulous employees of the guardianship authorities.

They have nothing to put pressure on their parents - the court either made a decision on withdrawal, and then the parents should seek cancellation, or refused the guardianship authorities, and then the issue is closed, ”he says.

At the same time, Kantor recognizes the risk that the courts may take the path of stamping the petitions of the guardianship authorities, which will negate the idea of ​​judicial control over the removal of children.

“But this is a question of the quality of the judicial system as a whole.

In general, I believe that the situation in our judicial system is not so bad and is slowly improving, ”the lawyer said.

In turn, Elina Zhgutova, a member of the Public Chamber, believes that the idea of ​​accelerated courts endangers families in the first place.

Parents will not be able to prepare for the trial in 24 hours, she said.

“It is unclear why the deadline is 24 hours.

If we are talking about the threat of death or damage to health, then it is necessary to save within a few minutes.

A period of 24 hours will not save in such a situation, but there is an opportunity for an unfair trial in relation to the parents, ”Zhgutova says.

She explains that parents often do not know and do not understand that it is necessary to collect documents that confirm their integrity.

“Therefore, they will be brought to trial unarmed and will not be able to defend their good name in 24 hours.

The practice of such express ships is in the west and it has proven itself extremely bad, ”she says.

In her opinion, the main problem is the prevailing law enforcement practice on the ground.

“The problem must be solved systematically.

The amendments are some temporary obstacle, the system absolutely does not care how to create lawlessness on the ground, ”she says.