{"id":22153,"date":"2020-07-20T12:47:09","date_gmt":"2020-07-20T17:47:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ifamnews.com\/?p=22153"},"modified":"2020-07-20T12:47:13","modified_gmt":"2020-07-20T17:47:13","slug":"protecting-the-family-by-politicians-can-be-false-an-example-from-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ifamnews.com\/en\/protecting-the-family-by-politicians-can-be-false-an-example-from-russia","title":{"rendered":"Political Moves Under Guise of “Protecting” Families Can Actually Be an Attack: An Example from Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Recently, some pro-family amendments were made to the Russian Constitution<\/a>. But it\u2019s not only family advocates who are trying to use them. On July 10, Russian legislators Pavel Krasheninnikov and Andrei Klishas introduced to the Parliament a bill that would change the procedure for taking a child from his or her parents<\/a> in case of a direct threat to the child’s life.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors widely publicized their initiative, presenting it in the best possible light. Mr Krasheninnikov tried especially hard. Speaking to reporters<\/a>, he stated that his bill “stems from the [updated] Constitution,” is “dedicated to traditional values,” and “protects the family.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It will be more difficult to remove children from parents without a trial,”<\/a> claimed the official website of the State Duma of the Russian Federation (lower chamber of the Russian Parliament). And the official page of the Duma in the Russian social network VKontakte<\/em><\/a> even called it “a bill against the abuses of CPS.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is fine language. But not all that glitters is gold. The thing is, all of these claims are false. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the problem of unlawful and unreasonable removal of children from their parents – like the problem of abuses by the CPS – is very real. This is well known to all organizations involved in protecting the family and the rights of parents that, with varying degrees of success, are helping parents recover children that were taken away from them illegally or without due grounds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Krasheninnikov-Klishas <\/em>bill will not solve this problem at all. In fact, if it is adopted, it will become even more difficult for families to protect themselves than it is today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does the situation look like today? Someone tips off the CPS (which in Russia is called \u2018guardianship and custody bodies\/authorities\u2019) about a \u2018problem\u2019 in a family. The CPS carry out an inspection. If, based on its results, they consider that there is a \u2018immediate threat to the life of the child or its health\u2019, then, on the basis of Article 77 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, they immediately remove the child from the parents (this is subject to later judicial review, if the parents complain). To do this, CPS needs a written approval of the relevant regional authority or the head of the municipality.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are several problems with this algorithm. First of all, the concept of \u2018immediate threat to life or health\u2019 is, without exaggeration, an extremely elastic one. It can mean \u2013 and does so in various regional instructions and in the heads of CPS officers and judges \u2013 practically anything. Often the real reason for the removal of a child is the family\u2019s financial circumstances. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to the threat to health, the current Federal Law on the Fundamentals of Protection of the Public Health<\/em> defines health (Article 2, paragraph 1) as \u2018a state of physical, mental and social well-being of a person in which there are no diseases, as well as dysfunctions of organs and body systems.\u2019 With such a wide definition of health, anything can be considered a threat to it – from a simple cold to any manifestation of \u2018social ill-being\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It will come as no surprise, then, that with norms like these, the only thing that has kept CPS from constant excesses is the vigilance of organizations protecting families, and the fear of public opinion (which, in recent years, has become less and less supportive of the violent destruction of families under dubious pretexts). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, what would the Krasheninnikov-Klishas <\/em>bill change in this regard? What would it do to protect the family? The true answer to that is: nothing. It would only make things worse: <\/p>\n\n\n\n