Brendan Timeline

2019
29/10/2019

Judgement of European Court of Human Rights

2018
05/12/2018

The Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. It found that the twins, who were 11 by that time, had clearly expressed their wish to live with their father and not their mother. The local welfare authority had concluded that the change of custody would be in the best interests of the children, who had strong ties to their father and would suffer from a further change in their place of residence.

05/07/2018

The Ialoveni District Court allowed that application in part, transferring custody of the two younger children to P, but rejecting the application in respect of the older child.

21/03/2018

P lodged a court action, asking for custody of the children.

2017
28/09/2017

The local welfare authorities meet.

18/09/2017

The local welfare authorities meet.

23/06/2017

The local welfare authorities meet.

13/06/2017

P repeats complaint to the DSAFP in similar terms as on 6 June.

09/06/2017

The local welfare authorities met in a working group in order to identify ways of restoring the relationship between NG and her children.

07/06/2017

A new attempt to enforce the final court judgment. P prepared the children’s belongings and NG was ready to take them to her house. Together with a number of officials, NG entered P’s home and talked with the children. The children refused to go with NG, despite being encouraged by P.

06/06/2017

P complained to the DSAFP that NG was not interested in rebuilding her relationship with the children, stating that she had only come to their school once every two months, for thirty minutes each time.

05/05/2017

Government of Moldova notified of the application.

16/03/2017

P brings files her ECHR application.

06/02/2017

A psychologist issued a conclusion concerning the state of mind of the children, who were at that time with P’s parents owing to a protection order preventing him from contacting his children. The psychologist found that all three children had been seriously affected by the separation from their father as a result of the protection order, and that any action aimed at rebuilding their relationship with their mother would be premature, as the children were displaying clear signs of resistance against their mother, who was associated with the “loss” of their father. In the weeks that followed, the reconciliation procedure between NG and P continued, with the involvement of a number of officials. Three meetings between various authorities took place on 7, 14 and 17 February 2017, aimed at identifying solutions for enforcing the judgment of 24 June 2015.

03/02/2017

The local police and the mayor’s office repeat their request of 27 January.

27/01/2017

The local police and the mayor’s office asked NG to show more interest in the children’s psychological state. While they acknowledged that NG was unable to establish contact with them, she was blamed for refusing any form of cooperation, which prevented the mayor’s office from adopting any relevant decision. At the same time, P was not allowed to approach the children and she was the only legal guardian. She was urged to “assume her share of the responsibility”, as the only person able to offer the children protection at that time.

18/01/2017

The court rejected the bailiff’s request for permission to forcibly enter P’s house on the grounds that, as a matter of law a bailiff already has unrestricted access to P’s house.

17/01/2017

Adjourned date of criminal prosecution against P.

2016
19/12/2016

Another attempt to enforce the judgment failed, owing to the children being opposed to living with their mother.

17/12/2016

The deputy mayor of the village where the children lived (who was acting as a guardian local authority) ordered that the three children be placed with their paternal grandparents (P’s parents) on an emergency basis for a period of 72 hours. He subsequently extended the order for the children’s placement with their grandparents for a period of up to 45 days.

16/12/2016

NG and her brother went to the school which all three children attended, accompanied by two police officers. NG stated that the school administration and the local authorities took measures to prevent this action, notably by calling P’s relatives and allowing them to enter the room where the children were and influence them, while they also insulted NG.

15/12/2016

The Ialoveni prosecutor’s office obtained a new court protection order in favour of NG, obliging P to stay away from her and the three children for three months. The court largely relied on the findings in the report of 3 December 2014, and found that the children were being subjected to emotional abuse which could lead to the development of parental alienation syndrome.

11/05/2016

The Chișinău Court of Appeal refused to explain its judgement, as it was clear.

30/03/2016

The bailiff had asked for a court order allowing forced entry into P’s house. Judgement was reserved until January 2017.

22/03/2016

The bailiff asked the Chișinău Court of Appeal to give an explanation for the judgment in NG’s favour.

29/02/2016

The prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation against P after NG complained of domestic violence in the form of his emotional abuse of the children. At the same time, the prosecutor annulled nine previous decisions refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against P, as well as a decision rejecting a complaint by NG’s lawyer. The prosecution was subsequently sent to court on 17 January 2017 and was ongoing when the latest observations by the parties were received in 2018.

19/02/2016

NG continued to complain to various authorities regarding the failure to reunite her with her children, P’s influence on them, and how he had turned them against her. She also asked for the children to be temporarily removed from P’s family and placed in a placement centre, where they would be protected from the influence of both parents.

09/02/2016

After the expiry of the time-limit for voluntarily complying with the final judgment, the bailiff went to P’s house, accompanied by the local social welfare office, a psychologist and the applicant. P allowed them in, but the children refused to leave, stating that they wanted to stay with their father. NG continued to complain to various authorities regarding the failure to reunite her with her children, P’s influence on them, and how he had turned them against her. She also asked for the children to be temporarily removed from P’s family and placed in a placement centre, where they would be protected from the influence of both parents.

19/01/2016

NG submitted a writ of enforcement in respect of the judgment of 24 June 2015 to a bailiff. On the same day the bailiff invited P to comply with the final judgment by handing over the children. P did not comply.

2015
11/11/2015

The Supreme Court of Justice rejected an appeal by P. That judgment was final.

10/11/2015

The applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office, stating that P had managed to influence their children to the extent that they hated her. They suffered from parental alienation syndrome and the authorities had failed to prevent that, despite her many complaints concerning P’s actions. She asked for the children to be removed from P’s family as a matter of urgency and placed in a placement centre in order to receive psychological assistance. She also asked for criminal proceedings to be initiated against P. There was seemingly no response to this complaint, or any steps taken to investigate same.

18/09/2015

NG reiterated her complaint to the police and requested that the children be placed in a placement centre as a matter of urgency, and that P have no access to them while they were receiving psychological assistance.

05/08/2015

NG complained to the police that P was continuing to refuse to allow her to have contact with her sons, despite the judgment of 24 June 2015. She mentioned that P had insulted her and had told her that, while the children were with him, they would not be willing to see her. She asked the police to take urgent measures to remove the children from P’s family and allow specialists in psychology to do their work in assisting the children.

24/06/2015

The Chișinău Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Hâncești District Court, awarding PG custody of the two younger children.

06/02/2015

The Hâncești District Court rejected as unfounded the request made by the DSAFP in its conclusion of 19 November 2014 for the children to be temporarily placed in a placement centre. The Hâncești District Court awarded P custody of the two younger children.

19/01/2015

The DSAFP issued another conclusion, largely reiterating its previous findings

2014
03/12/2014

A psychological report concerning the children found: (1) The children were being involved in the conflict between the parents. (2) Their initially positive attitude towards both parents had clearly become negative as regards NG as a result of P’s influence. (3) Depriving the children of contact with their mother was a form of emotional abuse. (4) Any meeting with their mother would constitute a traumatising event for the children while they continued to live with their father.

19/11/2014

The DSAFP issued another conclusion, for the Hîncești District Court, reiterating its previous findings, but adding that the children’s psychological state was being seriously affected. Although they had had a positive attitude towards both parents earlier, they had radically changed their views after living with their father. The DSAFP recommended that a report concerning the children’s psychological state be produced, and that they be separated from both parents for a period of one month and placed in a placement centre, in order to receive psychological assistance in the absence of influence by either parent.

26/08/2014

The case was transferred to the Hîncești District Court because all the judges of the Ialoveni District Court withdrew from the case because they had previously issued protection orders or been otherwise involved in the proceedings.

08/08/2014

P defaults on his promise to return children. Instead P refuses to permit NG to see the children.

02/08/2014

P asks NG to permit a holiday with all three children, promising to return them to NG afterwards.

16/07/2014

Protection order refused. The court found that the delays were related to the fact that several judges had withdrawn from the case, and that there was no reason to find that the proceedings had been excessively long. NG made a similar complaint to the Human Rights Centre on 16 July 2014, stating that in the previous four months she had lodged many complaints concerning P’s abusive actions and the breach of her parental rights with various authorities.

15/07/2014

PG asks the Ialoveni District Court to accelerate the examination of the case concerning custody of the twins, given that it concerned a sensitive issue and P had caused several unnecessary delays. The applicant also complained to the DSAFP that she was unable to see her sons, and that when she called Child 1 he would talk to her in a way which suggested that there was someone next to him indicating how he should reply.

14/07/2014

NG asked the Ialoveni District Court to issue a protection order in respect of her and the children. She stated, inter alia, that P had acted aggressively towards her, threatening to take the children away, which he had ultimately done. She considered that P’s actions had negative consequences on the children’s psychological well-being.

13/07/2014

NG complains to the local police that Child 1 was being held by P without her permission, despite her having custody of the child. She added that her son was being manipulated by P, who was convincing him that she was a bad mother which resulted in him not wanting to live with her.

08/06/2014

P took one of the twins to his house and refused to return him to NG.

08/05/2014

NG permitted to see Child 1 for 20 minutes on a day when he had an exams. Child 1 told NG that P took him in his car all day long instead of taking him to school. NG found out that P was trying to turn Child 1 against her.

08/05/2014

NG complains to police.

29/04/2014

P takes Child 1 to his house and prevents NG from seeing him. Child 1 misses several days of school.

19/04/2014

NG complained to the police about P’s abduction of Child 1.

01/04/2014

P took Child 1 to his house and refused to return him to NG.

30/01/2014

At the Ialoveni District Court’s request, the DSAFP issued a conclusion regarding who should have custody of the twins. The DSAPF noted that both parents were able and willing to bring up their children. The children loved both parents equally and wanted to be close to both of them.

13/01/2014

NG complained to the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office about events of 26 December 2013 and 10 January.

10/01/2014

P met the children in the street and tried to convince them to go with him, telling them nasty things about NG. NG allegedly sought enforcement of the protection order.

2013
26/12/2013

P allegedly went to the twin’s kindergarten and took them, despite NG’s protests, promising to bring them back on 1 January 2014.

20/12/2013

NG obtained a three-month extension of the protection order.

15/12/2013

The twins were returned to NG.

10/12/2013

The Twins Were Returned To NG.

10/09/2013

NG obtains a protection order with P being ordered not to approach NG or the three children for three months. P Refuses To Return Children To NG. The Protection Order Was Not Enforced. P Returns Children. P Allegedly Went To NG’s House And Forcibly Took The Twins To His Own House Without Her Permission.

04/09/2013

NG states P continued to follow and insult her, threatening her with violence.

04/09/2013

By agreement of NG and P, the DSAFP recommended a schedule, according to which all three children would stay with their father every second weekend and the rest of the time would stay with their mother.

03/09/2013

P returned the twins to NG.

19/08/2013

NG complains to the Ialoveni Department for Social Assistance and Family Protection (“the DSAFP”). She mentioned that, since the children had been taken away from her, she had been able to talk to them only sporadically, always in P’s presence, and for short periods of time. During those meetings P had been aggressive towards her, had in an authoritarian manner prohibited her from asking certain questions which he perceived as being detrimental to his position, and had prohibited the children from speaking about certain things. She was convinced that P was manipulating the children and turning them against her.

31/07/2013

NG asks the Ialoveni District Court to examine the case urgently, stating that she was certain that P was manipulating the twins and using various means to turn them against her. She submitted that since their abduction she had not been able to speak to them, and asked the court to order P not to keep the children away from her.

31/07/2013

NG complains about the incident of 29 July 2013 to the local police, who allegedly failed to respond.

29/07/2013

P went to NG’s house and forcibly put the twins in his car, driving them to his house without the applicant’s permission. NG quickly files for custody of the twins.

2012
26/12/2012

NG leaves family home with her three children and claims financial maintenance from P.

28/01/2012

NG claims P started being aggressive towards her.

2007
28/12/2007

Child 2 and Child 3 born (“the twins”).

2006
28/10/2006

NG and P resume intimate relationship.

28/01/2006

NG obtains divorce from P. NG awarded custody of Child 1. P remains in family home.

27/01/2006

NG Born

27/01/2006

NG married P

NG married P

27/01/2006

Child 1 born

27/01/2006

First breakdown in relationship between P and NG.

Brendan Timeline

2019
29/10/2019

Judgement of European Court of Human Rights

2018
05/12/2018

The Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. It found that the twins, who were 11 by that time, had clearly expressed their wish to live with their father and not their mother. The local welfare authority had concluded that the change of custody would be in the best interests of the children, who had strong ties to their father and would suffer from a further change in their place of residence.

05/07/2018

The Ialoveni District Court allowed that application in part, transferring custody of the two younger children to P, but rejecting the application in respect of the older child.

21/03/2018

P lodged a court action, asking for custody of the children.

2017
28/09/2017

The local welfare authorities meet.

18/09/2017

The local welfare authorities meet.

23/06/2017

The local welfare authorities meet.

13/06/2017

P repeats complaint to the DSAFP in similar terms as on 6 June.

09/06/2017

The local welfare authorities met in a working group in order to identify ways of restoring the relationship between NG and her children.

07/06/2017

A new attempt to enforce the final court judgment. P prepared the children’s belongings and NG was ready to take them to her house. Together with a number of officials, NG entered P’s home and talked with the children. The children refused to go with NG, despite being encouraged by P.