Sep 15, 2020
0 0

A woman’s child was taken away because of a small salary

This story became known and can have a positive outcome only because State Duma deputy Nikolai Nikolaev drew attention to it. And because the correspondent of Constantinople Darya Yushchenko did not pass by and made a story about her.

A resident of the tiny village of Biskamzha in Khakassia, Marina Zueva gave birth to her third baby at a late age. Marina is a cleaning lady at the railway station. She works for a penny - only 4,500 rubles a month. And for a year now she has not been able to see her son, because he was "saved" from her. Now the woman is awaiting trial to deprive her of her parental rights.

Marina belongs to, perhaps, the most powerless and most vulnerable part of women in our country. The husband left the family because he was tired of being responsible. It is incredibly poor, even though it serves three huge state territories. She is not very educated and legally illiterate. In our country, this is everywhere, despite the billions poured into education, and the cheerful reports of officials.

This woman works in the system, turned to this system for help, and this ultimately ruined her.

So, her first-grader child began to be bullied at school, and they brought it to such a state that the boy began to have enuresis. Marina turned to the prosecutor's office and the polyclinic for help. And they began to "help" her, as they often "help" the likes of Marina. Namely, they told how to raise a child, and took him to an orphanage.

Or did you think that, logically, they would check the school principal or those who organized the persecution? No, the director of a school in Khakassia knows how to correctly translate the arrows in case of danger. And such cases, when the director turns parents' requests for help against the parents themselves, alas, is a common thing.

Why did Marina sign the papers and transfer the child to the institution? And because she firmly believed that she was giving him to some kind of analogue of a sanatorium, where her child would be treated for enuresis. She believes the system! She, powerless and illiterate, could not have imagined that beautiful and competent aunts "help" in a very specific way.

Let me remind you that keeping a child in state institutions costs from 30 to 200 thousand a month. Why couldn't this money go to Marina directly to help, if the representative of Khakassia was so worried about the poverty of the family? Because beautiful and literate aunts also want to eat, and this money goes to them in salary. And they are a system that can protect themselves and their appetites. And the poor cleaning lady does not have such large-scale resources to protect herself.

And then it turned out that Marina's baby was golden by the standards of Khakassia. Earlier, she cashed out the capital and bought a room for her son. The son's guardian, apparently, estimated the wealth that had fallen on him and decided that he would perfectly replace the boy's mother. Yes, officially he will not own this property, but it can be great to live in, for example. Or rent a room, and use the money supposedly in favor of the child under guardianship.

Why does the Khakassian system encourage the desires of the guardian, and not the mother of the child, although orders have recently appeared in a number of regions to encourage reunification with the blood family? The question is interesting and with a riddle. I propose to dream up on your own.

Further more. Marina has a salary of 4,500 rubles, but the system imposes alimony at the subsistence level, and her alimony debt at the moment is more than 300,000 rubles.

Yes, people with limited or no rights pay child support. And yes, if a person does not pay them, then he violates the rights of the child. In a reinstatement trial, this will be a strong argument against the parent. You can fulfill any wishes of the relevant authorities, but if you have been drawn such an overwhelming debt, then ...

I will tell you responsibly: Marina and her son have almost no chances in ordinary life. Because the guardianship and child ombudsman in her region is what we see. And Marina is poor, uneducated and naive.

A chance appeared only when a State Duma deputy, a good lawyer, the public and the federal media got involved in the case. Nobody will help those families who could not organize such a thing.

Disputes over legislation

Under the new law, which was proposed by the deputy Krasheninnikov (express courts at 24 hours), the decision on Marina Zueva would be made as follows: the guardianship, which placed the child in an orphanage and appointed a guardian, would collect documents against Marina, from which the lawyer's hair is on end now, and would write a statement to the court. The court under the law 2K (Krasheninnikov - Klishasa) should have made a decision within 24 hours. Marina will be in time for the trial or not - it doesn't matter. The trial is closed, and the public, the deputy and the media would not be present at it.

Can a woman with a salary of 4,500 rubles a month and a debt of more than 300,000 rubles hire a lawyer, even if she has time to find one? The court would have looked through the documents brought by the competent and beautiful aunts of the system, and ... what do you think, what would have been the solution? Right! Marina would have been deprived of her parental rights long ago and immediately.

And it is possible that we would now appeal against the court's decision. Perhaps the decision would have been canceled for years. The court is such a leisurely affair. Or maybe they could not, because it is possible to appeal the decision within strictly defined terms, but how does the cleaning lady Marina know about this?

Moreover, the judges of Khakassia are residents of Khakassia. And you and I see that once they have already limited Marina's rights on the basis, in fact, of her poverty and the fact that she angered the systemic person - the school principal.

I immediately remember the Karelian school director, thanks to whom six children were returned to the Kiselev family for a year, and hundreds of cases when families, thanks to the director's activity, were fined under Art. 5.35 of the Administrative Code.

When you read a beautiful bill, it is very useful to try it on the fate of such Marin Zuevs, of whom, alas, there are a lot in our country.

And yes, do you know what formulations the participants in this story used? "Inappropriate parenting" and "a threat to the life and health of the child", of course. All those formulations that, by a strange coincidence, were introduced into our legislation by those who today support and promote express courts for the removal of children in 24 hours. And which we are trying to remove from our legislation as "improper performance of official duties" and "a threat to the life and health of the family."

Alexandra Mashkova-Blagikh

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply