The appellant went to court to deprive the defendant, her husband, of parental rights of their children. According to her, the defendant was not paying sufficient attention to the upbringing, health, and development of their child as well as failed to pay child support. Furthermore, there were conflicts between the spouses that had a negative impact on the child.
The mother of minors (the plaintiff) had been convicted for committing a criminal offense. After serving her sentence, the plaintiff asked the child services agency to return her children to her; their grandmother had been appointed as their guardian as a way of protecting the rights and interests of the children. According to the plaintiff, after her release she got a job and a room in a dormitory, and she wanted to be allowed to raise her children on her own.
The plaintiff asked the court for a restraining order to protect herself and a child she had with her ex-husband (the defendant). According to her, the defendant would often resort to insulting her, using physical force on her in the presence of a small child (allegation supported by a forensic expert’s report), using obscene language regarding her, and systematically engaging in psychological violence that involved intimidation and stalking of her and their child.
The spouses were officially divorced. The appellant (the father) sued the defendant, his ex-wife, to remove obstacles to communication with his child and his participation in the child’s upbringing, as well as to determine the method of his involvement in the child’s upbringing. According to the appellant, after their divorce the defendant started trying to prevent him from fulfilling his parental duties and to turn the child against the appellant.
The plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit against the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, asking to cancel paragraph 3 of the Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Guidelines for the Change (Correction) of Gender Identity adopted by the Ministry’s Order No. 60 dated 3 February 2011 (Order No. 60), specifically the part that lists the presence of children under the age of 18 and serious problems with social adaptation (unemployment, absence of permanent residence, etc.) as arguments for denying the procedure.
