Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
📁🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
Judge from Kharkiv region Yevhen Bolybyok — cases about termination of parental rights in the context of mobilization
The UGF paid special attention to the candidate’s practice in cases about terminating mothers’ parental rights and determining children’s place of residence (cases No. 619/3399/23, No. 619/3916/24, No. 619/4431/23).
In these cases, decisions were made quickly, often in absentia or without the parties present, with the claim being upheld by the mother, without directly hearing children of nearly ten years of age, sometimes without a recorded opinion from the guardianship authority in the decision. In one case the court relied on “identical” written statements of witnesses who, judging by the text, were not questioned at the hearing.
The UGF explicitly points to the context: after amendments to the mobilization law, decisions to terminate one parent’s parental rights or to establish that a child is being raised solely by one parent provided grounds for a deferral. The Council emphasizes that it does not review the legality of the decisions, but assesses the judge’s thoroughness and conscientiousness in a category of cases where there is an increased risk of abuse.
Other systemic problems
🔸More than 300 of Bolybyok’s court decisions in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions are presented in Russian. 27 of them are after 10 August 2012, when the new edition of the procedural law already required drafting court documents in the state language.
🔸On days when the candidate was officially attending training at the National School of Judges (in particular on 2013, 2014, 2020, and 2021), rulings were entered into the register on his behalf.
🔸Systematic violations of case review deadlines were recorded in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2020.
The final decision will be made by the High Qualification Commission of Judges. But the document records an accumulation of issues of different kinds: from security and reputational risks related to trips to the Russian Federation after 2014 to questions of financial transparency, procedural discipline, and conscientiousness in sensitive family cases.
At a time when society is paying especially close attention to judges’ integrity, especially candidates for appellate courts, such a concentration of remarks from the UGF creates a serious barrier. The candidate will have to provide convincing explanations practically for each point — from the purpose of trips 2014 and 2016 to the sources of funds for the car and the rationale for decisions in parental-rights cases.
💬 ABleaks_bot
💕 Join
Telegram publication
