Gennady Prokhorychev: The Klishas-Krasheninnikov Bill Is A Provocation

Health 2023
Gennady Prokhorychev: The Klishas-Krasheninnikov Bill Is A Provocation
Gennady Prokhorychev: The Klishas-Krasheninnikov Bill Is A Provocation

Video: Gennady Prokhorychev: The Klishas-Krasheninnikov Bill Is A Provocation

Отличия серверных жестких дисков от десктопных

The draft federal law 986 679 7 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" was introduced to the State Duma of the Russian Federation on July 10 by Deputy Pavel Krasheninnikov and Senator Andrei Klishas. This bill was announced as limiting the extrajudicial removal of children from the family. However, in fact, the draft law caused a negative reaction both among the expert community and among parents. In early August, a working group consisting of experts, law enforcement officers, judges and public figures of the Vladimir region recommended that the bill be rejected. About why this happened and what exactly confused the representatives of the working group, IA REGNUM spoke with the Ombudsman for the rights of the child in the Vladimir region Gennady Prokhorichev.

- Who was present at the meeting of the regional working group, where the draft federal law 986 679 7 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" was considered?

- Almost everyone who will subsequently implement this bill was present: these are the judicial communities, and parental organizations, and the office of the Ombudsman for the Rights of the Child and Human Rights, and deputies of the Legislative Assembly, and employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - because they are inscribed there, and guardianship authorities, and everyone expressed their rather tough position.

- Why tough?

- Knowing Krasheninnikov and Klishas, ​​I can say that they are very serious lawyers. But then I read the bill and realized that, firstly, of course, it has not been worked out in any point, and secondly, it is rather crude. And most importantly, we have a feeling that this is such a throw-in provocation in order to test society - how it will behave and how professional communities will react to this bill. Therefore, we all, including the judicial community, said that it should be dismissed as conceptually unprepared. That is, he cannot even come out in such a version - this is just a shameful phenomenon for the legal community.

- Why did it happen?

- People who are preparing the latest bills on the topic of family and children - they, in my opinion and the opinion of our community, do not travel to the regions and do not look, do not study how the law enforcement practice of the existing legislation is going on. Before proposing anything, you need to understand: how does the existing legislation work? What are the problems? What are the blind spots for offering what is on offer? This in-depth analysis and monitoring that is taking place in different constituent entities of the Russian Federation, of course, does not exist. Some people sit in Moscow and from the point of view of a certain vision they begin to form their position, transferring it to a legal document. But they do not ask themselves the question: how will this work “on the ground” at all? And in this case, the guardianship authorities and the judicial community say: listen, this is unrealistic, the bill simply will not work! Many have seen legislation that does not work “on the ground”. It is one thing to say and prescribe in the law, and another thing to apply it in law enforcement practice.

- And what exactly confused the regional working group in the Klishas-Krasheninnikov bill?

- We have been talking about the wording for ten years already: in the present edition of Article 77 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation - about taking away - the first thing: the very wording "taking away" must be radically changed, because it is a punitive format. Alternatively, the expression "child placement" or some other similar format, but softer.And here we go back and step on the same rake! What does it mean to "take away a child"? Take away from the family, from parents who are not limited and not deprived of parental rights. The second point is the formulation and interpretation of the concept of "an immediate threat to the life and health of a child." Again: it is blurred in the present edition, and nothing has changed here - the professional communities have been talking about this for a long time. Then why should you invent it if you haven't changed this wording? That is, it is a subjective factor of the prevention organs.

- Can you try to clarify this with a specific example?

- Of course. For example, as it was with us in the Vladimir region. We defended the interests of a large family - four children, the selection of which took place just under Article 77. A certain specialist from the Ministry of Emergencies came, who looked at the wiring and considered that there was a threat to life. We won this trial because the judge asks him, “Are you a professional? Expert? An electrician? ", To which he replies:" No, but it seems to me that a fire could break out. " Or it may not occur!

- And in what order is it proposed to consider such cases?

- In fact, there will be express courts in 24 hours. The problem is that, firstly, none of the parties will have time to professionally prepare for the trial. It will be all fast, on its knees, just to give its reasons, and as for the family, it is not protected at all, because it simply will not be able to defend itself in a lawsuit when an application is filed with the court, and within 24 hours it must a decision to be made. It would be wrong from the point of view of the family. In general, this bill is a child-centered project, not a family one, and it misses the concept of “children are our national treasure”. As an ombudsman for the rights of the child, I protect the child, but together with the family. We are always looking for these ways out so that the child will always remain in the family. Here, in this bill, this is simply not given.

- Is it true that such cases are proposed to be considered behind closed doors? Is the closed regime introduced due to the personal data of minors?

- Yes, they say that this is classified information, although we have a lot of civil cases, where there are many questions regarding the family and the privacy of the parents' actions towards the child. Therefore, I believe that the meetings should be open so that the family can defend itself, including by inviting the media and some public organizations. This wording struck everyone, including federal judges: "In exceptional cases, if there is reason to believe that the death of a child may occur within a few hours." A professional judge should say: “Dear colleagues! Which one of you is a specialist? You are a physician, what do you say that conditionally in 2 hours the child may die? Of course, this is not the case, therefore this formulation is not legal at all, it has a very subjective color, the background is generally unclear what. So it seemed to us that now the child will die! Wait, well then, there must be a medic in such a response team! Who else can speak professionally about this? Nobody else! This wording should definitely be removed.

- Are there any chances of satisfying the appeal in this case?

- Here the system is practically categorical, because as soon as the removal by court decision takes place, the family will prove that they are not guilty for several months, because this will be in the general procedure of legal proceedings. This can last up to several months, and the child will be separated from his parents.

- Could this situation generally affect parental rights and deprivation of them?

- Federal judges say that, unfortunately, the practice of law enforcement is such that as soon as a court decision comes into force, that is, a decision on removal is made, then after that, when the issue of deprivation or restriction of parental rights is decided, a decision will be made unambiguously on "machines". In jurisprudence, this is called "prejudice" - that is, court decisions on the removal of a child from the family, with a further decision to restrict or deprive parental rights, will be a reinforced concrete basis for restricting or depriving parental rights.We talked with our Department of Education, and they also believe that if amendments to Article 77 are adopted in some format, then, of course, the decision should be interdepartmental. Well, one specialist cannot make a decision! A guardianship officer may have one position, a juvenile inspector may have a completely different position, and a social worker may have a third. Therefore, we say unequivocally that in this edition the bill should not be adopted.

- How should it be finalized and should it be done at all?

- It is necessary to study, monitor, what kind of law enforcement practice in the regions, and, most importantly, understand how this happens on the ground. Now the 77th article is not ideal, and this wording - "a threat to life, health" - is blurred. But, nevertheless, there is something to work on. But it is still at least very flexible and soft. The executive power and the prevention system have the opportunity to work with the family, here to work with the family and do something to correct the situation, having studied all the risks that may arise in the family, in this case, when deciding the court, this opportunity will definitely not be: everything, there is a solution, we have selected the child. This, you know, is like a state: it will cross itself, they say, “they have protected the child,” well, and let mom and dad get out of this situation as they want. There is some kind of frivolity and provocation with this bill. We studied who works in prevention - I'm talking about the non-profit sector. We in the Vladimir region and in other constituent entities of the Russian Federation do not have those who directly work with the family, accompany her when she found herself in a difficult life situation, from beginning to end - they took and led! Everything is very vague - including in the executive authorities.

- What about social services?

- They also cannot, they have very few tools for this. This is the same system: education does its job, social protection does its job, the police are the third, the guardianship is the fourth. Who is the person who would work with a family in crisis? Who is the person who will help the family get out of the crisis? Unfortunately, this is a complex design, a complex case. The non-profit sector does this: they are ready to work separately with the child and orphans who are already in the orphanage, to provide legal protection, but no one takes this complex structure, this topic on themselves. This refers to the "from and to" regime of accompanying the family: we took her, accompanied her to the end and put an end to it. That's it, the family is saved, we helped on such and such points, but the children remained in the family, the family develops further. This construction is very complicated, but, unfortunately, it is easier to select and cross - the state fulfilled its task, protected the family. Therefore, I always say that we have a system, including the protection of children, it is child-centered, it is not tuned to protect the family and the child in it. This is the problem with the entire defense system.

- What is your forecast for the further fate of the Klishas-Krasheninnikov bill?

- It will definitely not be adopted in this edition. I think the parental, professional, and judicial community will stand up against this bill. As for the improvements, what is required there, in fact, is minimal: to correct the wording on the threat to life and health, that is, to concretize it. The term "take away" should be removed altogether. For some reason we come up with one, second, third Look - this is the trend of the State Duma over the past year or two towards punitive measures. We must get away from this, we must, whenever possible, use all possible tools to save the family and the child in this family. Alas, for some reason we choose the worst and shortest path towards punitive measures.

- Generally speaking, how can the situation in this area be improved?

- In our country, when a family finds itself in a difficult life situation for one reason or another, it falls into the base of social protection.A rehabilitation map is being developed for this family - when we look, analyze and see that there is no “doing” - there is “speaking”. An inspector comes and begins to speak and convince, a psychologist comes and convinces, the guardianship authorities come and convince. Everyone is talking, but there is no highly qualified, professional, competent specialist nearby. It should not be a person in uniform, but “Marya Ivanovna”, who came and could prescribe these family risks and distribute to everyone. But, unfortunately, there are no “Mariy Ivanovna” who can assess the risks. But if there is a position of the governor or the head of the municipality to support the family, to support in a crisis, then it is difficult to do something. If there is, it's just praise and honor. Then "doing" takes place, not "speaking".

Popular by topic