HomeCategoryСімейне право

The grandmother filed a lawsuit to take her grandson away from her daughter, stating that the mother did not pay due attention to the child’s development, had significant health problems, had recently shown signs of aggression, shouted loudly, banged on the door, used alcohol or drugs, and her mental state was unstable.

During the trial, our lawyers summoned and interrogated more than 20 witnesses, provided evidence to refute the grandmother’s allegations and proved the opposite.

The court noted that the claim did not contain a justification that it was filed in the interests of the child and not in the grandmother’s own interests, and did not provide grounds for a real violation of the rights of a minor child, which requires the immediate application of methods of actual self-defence of the child.

As a result, the grandmother’s claim for deprivation of the mother’s banking rights and removal of the child from her was dismissed, and the mother’s counterclaim for removal of the child from the grandmother was upheld.

A settlement agreement was concluded between the former spouses on the payment of UAH 10,000.00 as alimony for two minor children.

In this case, the man applied to the court to reduce the amount of alimony to UAH 5,000.00, arguing that he had been fired from an IT company and had been unemployed and unable to earn income for more than six months.

Our lawyer proved that during the period of “unemployment” the man had repeatedly left Ukraine for Antalya, Bangkok, Sharm El Sheikh, Warsaw.

In addition, the man took part in financing a new construction project.

As a result, the husband’s claim to reduce the amount of alimony was denied in full.

The ex-husband filed a lawsuit to divide the joint apartment purchased during the marriage with the funds that the Client received as a loan from her employer.

Our attorneys proved that the plaintiff had not lived with the family for a long time, and there was no evidence of financial support or joint household management.

In this case, the court deviated from the principles of equality of spouses’ shares and division of joint property, recognising the Client’s ownership of 3/8 of the apartment.