Mirimskaya Olga Mikhailovna surrogacy transfer. Difficult child
The divorce of entrepreneurs Alexey Golubovich and Olga Mirimskaya threatens to result in a loss of pocket money for the latter. The court refused to grant her a deferment for the payment of 170 million rubles. debt to her ex-husband. As a result, bailiffs will soon begin the process of selling her four companies, which own almost 80% of BKF Bank.
On Monday, the Moscow Regional Court refused to grant Olga Mirimskaya, the beneficiary of the BKF bank, a deferment and change the method of execution of the decision of the Odintsovo City Court to pay a debt in the amount of 170 million rubles. to former top manager of YUKOS Alexey Golubovich. This debt arose as part of their divorce proceedings. The decision to recover 170 million rubles. the court ruled in favor of Alexey Golubovich on January 19. Enforcement proceedings in this case were initiated on April 12, and on the same day the Federal Bailiff Service (FSSP) seized four companies: Lantres, MKM, Simplex and Stardom Management (the resolution is available to Kommersant ), through which Olga Mirimskaya owns about 80% of BKF. In April, she applied to the Odintsovo City Court to defer the execution of the court decision for three years due to lack of funds. On May 18, the court granted her request, but Mr. Golubovich challenged this determination. Yesterday he confirmed to Kommersant the fact that a decision had been made in his favor, noting that he intends to achieve repayment of the debt through the sale of his ex-wife’s property.
170 million rubles
constitutes the debt of the beneficiary of the BKF bank to her ex-husband Alexei Golubovich, due to which she may lose control in the captive credit organization
Yesterday's decision of the Moscow Regional Court gives bailiffs freedom to sell previously seized property, including companies that control BKF. After evaluation, they will be sold at public auction. The auction must be held within two months from the date of receipt of the property for sale, recalls Vasily Malinin, head of the “Commercial Disputes” department of the company “Rustam Kurmaev and Partners”. Thus, Mrs. Mirimskaya, with a high degree of probability, may soon lose control in the BKF bank, which puts the bank itself in an uncertain position.
BKF is in the third hundred in terms of assets and capital. According to data on the Central Bank website, Olga Mirimskaya owns 100% of the companies Lantress, MKM, Simplex and Stardom Management, which, in turn, own 19.98% of the bank each, another 10.01% is owned by Alexey Golubovich , 9.9% - own shares acquired by the credit institution.
According to experts, BKF is not a very interesting property to purchase, but at a significant discount there will be buyers. “Bank BKF and its assets are of little interest from the point of view of investors,” notes managing partner of the Veta expert group Ilya Zharsky. “The bank has a low level of equity capital adequacy, about 8%, and at the same time it carries out loans and generally banking operations mainly with companies and banks that are subject to major credit risk. As of June, large credit risks in relation to net assets amount to 82%.” The assignment market is now oversaturated with such debts, and they can only be sold at a large discount, up to 80% of the debt amount, concludes Mr. Zharsky. Consultants on M&A transactions in the banking market indicate that demand for small banks is lower than supply. Many owners of small banks are now ready to go out of business, but it is difficult to find bona fide buyers, so voluntary liquidation has recently become a way out of business for their owners (see Kommersant on March 29). “Rather, this asset may be of interest to those who are buying banks to collect deposits and further withdraw funds,” believes one of Kommersant’s interlocutors.
The FSSP does not evaluate the business reputation of buyers of assets put up for auction. But the sale of a stake of more than 10% in a credit institution requires approval from the Central Bank. They do not comment on existing banks. According to Kommersant’s interlocutor, close to the regulator, the legislation does not directly regulate the specifics of obtaining consent in the event of the sale of more than 10% of the bank to the FSSP at auction. “But if obtaining prior consent is not possible, then consent must be obtained afterwards in a manner similar to the acquisition of shares on the open market,” notes Kommersant’s interlocutor.
Ksenia Dementieva
bankers Mirimskaya, my phone was cut off - people really didn’t understand who was who Vasya and got lost in the names. I figured it out myself only in the middle of the shooting, so after the fact I’m writing an instructive libretto for it. 50-year-old beauty Olga Mirimskaya - the owner of a bank, the mother of three adults and very high-quality children (they were in the studio) - wanted to have a child with her common-law spouse. Husband - Nikolai Smirnov, 20 years younger than Mirimskaya and 20 times richer. The Rublyovsky clinic "DeltaMedClinic", which after all this must be avoided like a plague barracks, found them a surrogate mother - Crimean Svetlana Bezpyataya. This was Bezpyataya’s fourth “surrogate trip”; she supported her husband, daughter, treated her mother for cancer, etc. Her age exceeded the required age for the surrogacy program, but a young doctor from DeltaMedClinic, whom I knew in this business, whose name I heard on the program but couldn’t find in the search engine, managed to conclude an agreement with her. The paradox was that Mirimskaya offered not her own biomaterials for IVF, but her daughter’s biomaterials, which for some reason they try not to talk about - that is, according to the law, she is the child’s grandmother, and Smirnov is the father. The surrogate mother Bezpyataya received a bag of money and ideal conditions for pregnancy, but immediately after giving birth she was taken out of the maternity hospital along with baby Sonya in three tinted cars. By this time, Mirimskaya’s relationship with Smirnov had ended, and Bezpyataya showed up in Cyprus, declaring that Sonya was her daughter, she would not give her up, there was no agreement for surrogate services, she was not paid 2,000,000 rubles, etc. In Cyprus, a genetic examination was carried out and it was determined that Bezpyataya is not the genetic mother, and Mirimskaya could be the baby’s grandmother or sister. Then it turned out that Bezpyataya sold Sonya to Smirnov, although it is not clear why sell if he is the genetic father? Today, Interpol is looking for Smirnov, Sonya, and Bezpyataya, but they are all on the run. You and I have seen plenty of stories in the format “the rich also cry”, “cool dad took away mom’s child”, so I’ll note the exclusive plot. Smirnov, who is young, handsome, and rich, is trying with all his might to hurt Mirimskaya - he took the girl, took a former subordinate from Mirimskaya’s bank as a new wife, and even assigned a lawyer to Bespalova, who previously served Mirimskaya’s bank. Moreover, according to the law, he is Sonya’s father, who stole the child not from the grandmother, but from the mother - Mirimskaya’s daughter, although Mirimskaya is the speaker of the prosecution. But the main character of this story, in my opinion, is Bezpyatova’s attending physician, who was suddenly discovered dead during this chaos right while receiving patients in his office. That is, in a good mood, he went to smoke with a security guard, returned past the line to the office, locked himself from the inside, lifted his trouser leg and injected himself with a lethal dose of sleeping pills, as journalist Oleg Lurie, who saw the case materials, told me on the program. Does this happen in the Rublyov clinic? It may happen, but in the studio they showed printouts of his correspondence with Bezpyatova, where he writes “bring back the child,” and she threatens him. And it is clear that she is not threatening on her own behalf - her resource is only uninterrupted reproductive health. Smirnov-Bezpyatova’s side assures that there was no agreement on surrogacy, especially since after the unexpected death of the doctor, the agreement disappeared from his computer. The chief doctor of the DeltaMedClinic clinic gives one or the other indications. But in the studio they found a copy of the contract, and what the doctor told during interrogation 10 days before his death about the contract and the whole situation. In short, money in the first generation is money in the first generation, and it is quite clear how it is made, and what is behind the strategy and tactics for resolving issues. Whether little Sonya will be found or not, given to Mirimskaya or left with Smirnov, the question is open... The main thing, remember, servants of the rich are expendable human material.
No matter how hard our country tries to achieve democracy and equality before the law, cases covered in the press prove that money rules the roost. And the more of them you have, the higher the likelihood of defending your point of view, even through “the fairest court in the world.” A striking example of this is the trial of the surrogacy case of Olga Mikhailovna Mirimskaya.
What attracts wealthy businesswomen to surrogacy?
A beautiful, confident woman who has made a career cannot always become a mother after 45 years. Even if she manages to get pregnant naturally, she will have to leave her post for a while, and stretch marks will appear, and her appearance will no longer be the same as that of a 20-year-old girl. Especially when your young husband is nearby. Staying in shape requires a lot of effort, and pregnancy is more of a hindrance than a help.
“Any whim for your money,” will say the hypocritical doctors who have worked out a scheme for selling babies. They find young, healthy women who need money, offer them artificial insemination, and when the girls give birth, the babies are taken away by wealthy “foster” parents. In fact, all documentation accompanying the process is illegal in our country. But even under such conditions, they are taken into account by the court of any instance.
Surrogacy: a scandal
Olga Mikhailovna Mirimskaya also got involved in this dirty business. Surrogacy became her cherished dream after marriage (her husband was a young businessman). She can no longer give birth to a child herself (after all, she is 51 years old), and how will she appear in the world with a rounded belly?!
But the public learned about her desire to become a mother only after Mirimskaya Olga Mikhailovna filed a lawsuit demanding that a certain girl Svetlana Bezpyataya from Crimea be deprived of her newborn child. No documents, even fake ones, or any preliminary agreements were previously reported. The only information was the words of Mirimskaya herself that Svetlana allegedly promised her a child.
Daughter's genetic material
According to Mirimskaya Olga Mikhailovna (she has children, and one of them is a daughter, Natalya Golubovich), she had long planned to have a small child, but due to her age she could not do this. Then she asked her daughter to provide genetic material for Svetlana’s surrogate mother. Natatya Golubovich herself does not have children, but she would not mind if a brother or sister were born. This is what exposed her to giving away two of her eggs.
These facts were recorded from the plaintiff's words. As for documents, genetic examination, or at least an agreement (as stated, for 1 million rubles), none of this was provided. It seems that the court was guided only by the words of the rich woman, without relying on evidence.
Hostages of Cyprus
After Olga Mikhailovna Mirimskaya applied to the court with a request to establish maternity, the trial began. Svetlana’s family was vacationing in Cyprus at that time, and they were represented in court by a lawyer. According to him, before giving birth, Mirimskaya began calling Svetlana’s husband with threats and demands to recognize her as a surrogate mother. Unable to withstand the psychological pressure, the family went on vacation soon after the birth of the child.
But it was precisely this opportunity that Olga Mikhailovna Mirimskaya took advantage of. The arrest of Svetlana's family in Cyprus was carried out at the suggestion of a rich woman. Thus, neither Svetlana nor her husband were able to be present in Moscow and defend their rights.
Case in court
The trial began on September 19, 2015, three months after the birth of the child, and lasted two days. During this time, witnesses and participants in the process were questioned. One of them was a private detective hired by Mirimskaya to monitor Svetlana’s family. His task was to prove that the child was a stranger to them and they were not happy about his appearance. The private detective admitted that he personally communicated with Svetlana’s husband, who had never heard anything about surrogacy before. Moreover, the law requires his consent, but he did not sign anything and knew nothing about the existence of an agreement between his wife and the plaintiff until May 2015, when the threatening calls began. Another contradictory fact is that you can become a surrogate mother only before the age of 35, and Svetlana is already 37.
In court, only copies of documents were provided, the authenticity of the signatures on which the defendant denied. The court did not require any originals or evidence. Genetic testing was refused. Svetlana also heard a firm “no” to the request to postpone the case until her family returned from Cyprus.
The decision of the highest court was to satisfy the claim in full, and the child should be handed over to Mirimskaya within five days. The opacity and mystery of the process raise many questions and have been widely reported in the press. The mysteries have not yet been solved.
Riddle about the doctor
And the biggest mystery surrounds the doctor involved in the case. It was with him that the agreement was signed; it was he who was supposed to hand over the child to Mirimskaya. But it was impossible to interrogate him. On September 8, 2015, the doctor died in his office under mysterious circumstances. The official version of death was announced as a drug overdose. Is Olga Mirimskaya really ready to do anything, even murder, to achieve her goal?
What is known is that the clinic where Svetlana gave birth has never engaged in surrogacy and does not have a license for this, and all the documents were drawn up with violations. The clinic was involved in legal proceedings, but no representatives ever appeared. And they simply turned a blind eye to this.
The agreement was drawn up with the Moscow clinic "DeltaMedClinic", but, as you know, Bezpyataya had never been to the capital and could not come to sign the documents. At the same time, she gained a good reputation among Crimean clinics. Svetlana has already become a surrogate mother four times and has given birth to healthy babies for rich mothers four times. The detective confirmed that both Svetlana and her husband have the most tender feelings for the newborn baby, he is breastfed and there is no obstacle to believe that the child is indeed Bezpyatikh.
Olga Mirimskaya: brief information
This is not the first high-profile case of a businesswoman. During her career, she has become accustomed to defending her rights, and sometimes using not entirely legal methods. In England, Mirimskaya became involved in the case of owning a mansion on the banks of the Thames, which she could not share with her ex-husband Alexei Golubovich. Another incident that shocked the European public also happened in London. The woman chose a ring worth $3.6 million from D&M Capital Group. But she decided not to pay for it and quickly flew home. The owner of the company had to personally go to Moscow, but even there the businesswoman did not want to pay for the purchase. It was possible to return the money only after a trial.
Study and activities
Mirimskaya was born in 1964. Her biography is poorly covered; it is only known that in 1986 the woman graduated from the Faculty of Economic Cybernetics of the Moscow Institute of Economy. G.V. Plekhanov. Then she was a graduate student in 1993 in the USA, graduating from the Higher School of International Politics, after which she successfully completed an internship at the regional office. For some time she worked as a consultant to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, after the collapse she was the founder of the publishing community “Menatep-inform”. Since 1994, she became vice-president of the bank of the same name, and a year later she opened a trading house with the same name. Now Olga Mikhailovna Mirimskaya is the chairman of the board of directors of BKF Bank and one of the richest female entrepreneurs.
Criminal case
The matter with Mirimskaya did not go unnoticed. It caused a deep public outcry, many stars and experts expressed their dissatisfaction. The decision is openly contrary to the law, because the child does not even have a genetic resemblance to the adoptive mother. She was not a donor and, from a legal point of view, cannot be a mother, much less defend her rights. But this case once again proves the fact that everything is about money. If you can bribe judges, then the truth is yours. The saddest thing is that a child can be taken away from any woman, and nothing can even be proven.
Continuation of a story
With the court decision and the surrogacy agreement, Mirimskaya went to Cyprus. There she appealed to the highest authority on the island after Svetlana Bezpyataya refused to give up the child. But Mirimskaya’s hopes were not justified, and the court declared the documents to be fake, and therefore an arrest warrant was issued for one of the richest businesswomen in Russia.
Now Mirimskaya is going through a difficult period. At work in her office on the outskirts of Moscow, she began to appear less and less often. She spends almost all her time abroad, trying to buy her “happiness.” Six months have passed, but even now the press cannot leave the life of a businesswoman alone. There are too many interesting events happening in it.
One of the richest women in the country, Chairman of the Board of Directors of BKF Bank Olga Mirimskaya, based on a copy of the surrogacy agreement, intends to deprive the mother of a 9-month-old girl of parental rights. For many Russian families, the Supreme Court's decision will be significant - it could become a catalyst for re-examination of similar cases across the country.
Surrogate agreement
The mysterious story is as follows. Olga Mirimskaya- customer of a newborn. A resident of Crimea acted as a surrogate mother Svetlana Bezpyataya(aka Svitlana Bezpyata). A corresponding agreement was concluded.
During pregnancy, Svetlana regularly took money from Mirimskaya. I lived in an expensive apartment and was examined in the best clinics. Olga Mirimskaya spared nothing to make Svetlana Bezpyata’s life as pleasant as possible. She took in and supported not only the surrogate mother, but also her unemployed husband and 15-year-old daughter, who permanently lived in Sevastopol.
1.5 months after the birth of the child, the chairman of the board of the BKF bank laid claim to the newborn. But citizen Svetlana Bezpyataya refused to hand over the girl. The family stated that they intended to keep the child.
Little evidence
Olga Mirimskaya went to court. The proceedings on her claims against Bezpyataya have been going on since the summer. Mirimskaya stated that the child should be transferred to her on the basis of a surrogacy agreement. But here a number of interesting details emerge. First of all, the clinic in which the IVF program was allegedly implemented denies the existence of such an agreement, as well as documents confirming the examination of the woman as a surrogate mother.
The doctor mentioned in the case materials died in his office during the trial under unclear circumstances. In turn, Svetlana Bezpyataya claims that she could not have signed this agreement, since she was not even in Moscow at that time.
According to the mother’s lawyer, Mirimskaya only has a copy of the surrogacy agreement allegedly concluded with the woman. During this time, the original document was never presented to any of the authorities.
As a result, the parties went to court. And first, the Presnensky court, based on the words of the plaintiff, recognized Olga Mirimskaya as a mother, then the Moscow City Court confirmed this decision. The hearings were closed because in this case the case involved a minor. Although Svetlana Bezpyataya and her lawyers insisted on public hearings, apparently wanting to attract as much public attention as possible.
An unprecedented solution
Experts point out that according to Russian law, the transfer of a child is possible only with the consent of the mother who gave birth to him. This is also stated in the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 880-O of May 15, 2012. Thus, the mother who gave birth to the child has the right to keep it. It turns out that the decision of the court of general jurisdiction, providing for the transfer of the child to Mirimskaya against the will of the woman who gave birth to him, contradicts the decision of the constitutional court?
In addition, lawyers point out that there is no genetic examination in the case. There is also no agreement on the rights and procedure for transferring a child from one person to another. The testimony of the head physician of the clinic where the fertilization procedure was carried out boils down to the phrases “the surrogacy agreement ... was not concluded in the interests of Mirimskaya and other persons. The clinic does not have the original of this agreement. This agreement is not listed in our register of agreements. We did not receive payment for it."
On this topic
Children's Ombudsman Pavel Astakhov Even on the eve of the meeting of the Moscow City Court, he said on REN TV that the child should stay with the mother who gave birth to him.
“Our legislation establishes the priority of the woman who carried and gave birth to a child,” Astakhov. It is known that the office of the Commissioner for Children's Rights sent an appeal to prevent violations of the girl's rights.
But the Moscow City Court did not listen to the children's ombudsman.
The arrest warrant
After failure in the Russian courts, Svetlana Bezpyataya decided to hide in Cyprus. But at the end of last year, the chairman of the Limassol District Court issued an arrest warrant for Svetlana Bezpyata.
The warrant was issued in accordance with the law and the Convention on the Extradition of Fugitives. The court found that the crimes of which Svetlana Bezpyataya is accused are also a violation of the laws of the Republic of Cyprus, for which punishment is provided for up to 20 years in prison. In deciding to arrest Bezpyataya, who is hiding in Cyprus, the Chairman of the District Court noted that there was sufficient evidence to justify issuing an arrest warrant.
In January 2016, the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Cyprus ordered the police to open a criminal case against Svetlana Bezpyataya and Andrei Bezpyaty under articles of “human trafficking” and “kidnapping of a minor.” An investigation is underway and Cyprus police are searching for Bezpyataya and the missing child. At the end of January, the lawyer of Svetlana and Andrei Bezpyatyh filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Cyprus to cancel the arrest, but it refused and confirmed the decision of the city court.
Svetlana herself, the mother who gave birth to the child, stated in an interview with Channel One that she intends to go all the way. From the moment of birth, she breastfeeds her daughter, takes care of the child and raises her in her family, as other mothers do.
Family squabbles
There is another version of what is happening. Perhaps the child became a bone of contention with Olga Mirimskaya’s ex-husband Nikolai Smirnov. The media expresses the opinion that “after the birth of the child, Bezpyataya sold him to Mirimskaya’s ex-husband Nikolai Smirnov, the chairman of the board of directors of the Zolotaya Korona payment system.” This may explain how a young mother from Crimea decided to fight with a capital businesswoman, while confusing her tracks and hiding In Cyprus.
Double interpretation
At the same time, the difficulty of solving this problem is due to the fact that in Russia there is no law that would sufficiently regulate the relationship, rights and responsibilities of the surrogate mother and biological parents.
Yes, surrogacy has acquired a commercial basis since the law “On the Fundamentals of Protecting the Health of Citizens of the Russian Federation” came into force. It is also regulated by certain articles of the Family Code and other by-laws, but it is obvious that these norms are not enough.
The problem is that the legislation on surrogacy can be interpreted differently by different courts. As a result, today none of the parties who enter into surrogate agreements can feel protected.
The Supreme Court must have the final say in this story. And his decision will provide guidance for future surrogacy cases.
For the first time in Russian practice, the Moscow City Court decided to take a child away from the mother who gave birth to him. According to the verdict, the baby should be handed over to the plaintiff - the woman who allegedly entered into a surrogacy agreement. The basis for the court verdict that amazed experts was a certain agreement worth one million rubles, but no one has seen the original of this agreement. It turns out that by its decision the Moscow City Court simply determined the price at which a child can be taken away from almost any woman?
[...] 51-year-old businesswoman, chairman of the board of directors of one of the capital's banks, Olga Mirimskaya, in her lawsuit, demanded that her newborn daughter be seized from Crimean Svetlana, claiming that this child had been promised to her in advance.
True, she could not imagine either a surrogacy agreement or a genetic examination confirming her motherhood. As the banker herself states, she wanted to have another child, but could not do it. Then I purchased a ready-made embryo, which was to be implanted into the surrogate mother.
[KP.ru, 06.11.2015, “The capital's banker takes away the daughter of a Crimean woman”: According to the businesswoman, by the age of fifty she really wanted another child, but could not give birth herself. The daughter “gave” her eggs to her mother. Natalya Golubovich claims that she did not want her own child, but dreamed of a new brother or sister. Therefore, without hesitation or thinking about the fate of the baby, she gave her genetic materials to her mother. [...]
The Presnensky court, in which the case was heard, did not take into account the lack of originals referred to by “grandmother” Mirimskaya, and did not demand them, but took into account the financial situation of the plaintiff and decided to transfer the baby to the grandmother, recognizing the grandmother as the mother of the granddaughter. - Insert K.ru]
In light of these circumstances, as well as the fact that the judges took into account Mirimskaya’s financial situation, the decision of first the Presnensky District Court and then the Moscow City Court looks something akin to child trafficking. And at a very affordable price.
“The decision is contrary to the law. First of all, it is contrary to the interests of the child who was born to this woman. She is the mother of this child. And, naturally, they cannot be separated. Therefore, I believe that the child should continue to live with the mother who gave birth to him,” said Children's Ombudsman Pavel Astakhov. “This is nonsense in the legal practice of modern Russia, when the court of first instance suddenly recognized motherhood for a woman who was not even a donor of biological material, that is, not her egg was used. Our legislation establishes the priority of the woman who carried and gave birth to a child,” the ombudsman noted.
A representative of the medical institution in which the procedures necessary for surrogacy were allegedly carried out, as part of the process to invalidate the agreement, denied the fact that such an agreement had been concluded. And the doctor, allegedly mentioned in the contract, was found dead some time ago. The cause of death, as determined by experts, was “medication overdose.”
“We know for certain that to date no such agreement has been concluded between my trustee and the plaintiff, and any person representing her interests,” testifies Svetlana’s lawyer Renat Kurbanov.
It is significant that the trial took place without a defendant - having gone to Cyprus to relax with her husband after giving birth, Svetlana found herself trapped there. Mrs. Mirimskaya, this time through a Cypriot court, achieved an official ban on mother and baby leaving the island. And it turns out that the decision of the Moscow City Court, which takes the child away from the mother in the absence of any documents and the mother herself, can theoretically be applied to almost any family that has small children. To do this, it is enough to simply declare an allegedly concluded surrogacy agreement and file a claim in court.
Reference
Olga Mikhailovna Mirimskaya - Chairman of the Board of Directors of BKF Bank, former wife of the top manager of YUKOS Alexey Golubovich.
Several years ago, Mirimskaya sued Golubovich for the right to own a mansion on the banks of the Thames worth $10 million. Then British journalists who followed the process wrote that the ex-spouses “became the first foreign dynasty, two generations of which turned to the English courts for help in divorce proceedings.” A little earlier, their son Ilya was there in London sued his ex-wife, who eventually received $4.5 million from the oligarch’s heir.
Another incident, widely reported in the foreign press, linked to a $3.6 million ring. Having received jewelry from D&M Capital Group during her visit to London, the businesswoman did not pay for it, but hastily returned to Moscow. The head of the jewelry company had to come to Moscow in person, but even then he was not able to get his money back right away.
"Squeeze" the child
The mother who gave birth is “imprisoned” in Cyprus, the doctor died under strange circumstances
Original of this material© TC "360 Moscow Region", 09/22/2015, The owner of a Moscow bank is trying to take a child away from a surrogate mother
The chairman of the board of a Moscow bank, the ex-wife of one of the high-ranking ex-YUKOS employees, Olga Mirimskaya, filed a statement of claim with the Presnensky Court of Moscow on July 2. The woman contacted the authority to establish maternity. As the lawyer of the defendant’s husband told 360 Moscow Region, the plaintiff claims that the resident of Sevastopol became a surrogate mother of her child and then refused to give him up.
The child was born on May 14, 2015. The parents of the child in the birth certificate indicate the defendant as the woman who gave birth to the child and her husband, with whom she is registered in marriage. Before giving birth, the plaintiff began calling the man, and he also began receiving threats. According to the lawyer of the defendant’s husband, in order to cope with psychological pressure, the family left for Cyprus after the birth of the child.
However, the plaintiff, who is trying to take the child, filed an appeal to the family court of the city of Limassol on the territory of the republic. The authority decided to prohibit the woman and her child from leaving the territory of Cyprus. Accordingly, the defendant was unable to take part in the trial in the Russian Federation.
[NG.ru, 11/09/2015, “It’s not difficult to take away a child”: In the absence of Svetlana, the Presnensky court surprisingly found that the family did not live together and Svetlana did not have maternal feelings for her daughter. This was “established” on the basis of the testimony of a detective hired by Mirimskaya in Cyprus, who admitted in court that he had never even seen Svetlana’s daughter. Despite the fact that the official authorities of Cyprus conducted an examination of the child’s living conditions and came to the conclusion that the child lives in a full-fledged family and Svetlana is breastfeeding and caring for the child. The pediatrician who has been monitoring the child since birth also confirmed that the child is breastfed by Svetlana and she provides full care for him. - Insert K.ru]
The plaintiff also organized surveillance of the family: a private detective was questioned in court at her request. The defendant’s husband did not know about the existence of the woman claiming the child and about the surrogacy agreement until 2015. By law, the spouse had to agree to participate in such a program. In addition, the defendant is 37 years old, and you can only become a surrogate mother until you are 35 years old. He did not give any consent, and when his wife told him that she was pregnant, he was sure that this was their common child.
“She [the defendant] herself denies her signature on the documents. The originals of any documents were never presented to the court, the court did not try to demand them,” said the lawyer of the defendant’s husband.
The court hearing in the case lasted from September 16 to September 21 inclusive. Participants in the process and witnesses were questioned. The capital court refused to satisfy the request for a genetic examination and to postpone the case for the presence of the defendant. Yesterday, the court issued a decision in which it upheld the claim in full and decided that the child should be transferred within five days after the appeal was considered by the Moscow City Court. This information was confirmed to the TV channel 360 Podmoskovye by a source in court. [...]
It is impossible to establish what actually happened in the clinic. The agreement was concluded with a doctor who was found dead in his office on September 8. According to preliminary data, he died from a drug overdose. However, it is certain that the clinic did not have a license to provide surrogacy services, and the documentation provided by the clinic does not comply with the requirements of the law. A representative of the medical institution did not come to court, although the clinic was involved in the investigation as a third party.
It is known that the defendant actually underwent treatment in this clinic; in 2013, she was an oocyte donor there. The woman spent the summer of 2014 at her place of residence in the city of Sevastopol, where she stayed until August 26, therefore, she could not sign documents in Moscow. We note that the plaintiff and her representatives refused to give any comments on this case.