Skip to content
AWARENESS
What is Parental Alienation
The Five Factor Model
17 Alienating Strategies
8 Symptoms of Parental Alienation
EDUCATION
Parental Alienation Conference Dublin 2019
FREE Parental Alienation Reference Material Database
Training For Parents
Training Portal
Training For Professionals
Understanding, Assessment & Intervention Training Seminar
Dr Ludwig F. Lowenstein M.A., Dip. Psych., Ph.D.
Case note on Pisica v the Republic of Moldova
Part 1: Case note on Pisica v the Republic of Moldova
Part 2: Case Note on Pisică v the Republic of Moldova
INTERVENTION
Psychological Support
ONE VOICE
SUPPORT SERVICES
Brian O’Sullivan
Join Our Team
About Us
Work With Us
Media
AWARENESS
What is Parental Alienation
The Five Factor Model
17 Alienating Strategies
8 Symptoms of Parental Alienation
EDUCATION
Parental Alienation Conference Dublin 2019
FREE Parental Alienation Reference Material Database
Training For Parents
Training Portal
Training For Professionals
Understanding, Assessment & Intervention Training Seminar
Dr Ludwig F. Lowenstein M.A., Dip. Psych., Ph.D.
Case note on Pisica v the Republic of Moldova
Part 1: Case note on Pisica v the Republic of Moldova
Part 2: Case Note on Pisică v the Republic of Moldova
INTERVENTION
Psychological Support
ONE VOICE
SUPPORT SERVICES
Brian O’Sullivan
Join Our Team
About Us
Work With Us
Media
AWARENESS
What is Parental Alienation
The Five Factor Model
17 Alienating Strategies
8 Symptoms of Parental Alienation
EDUCATION
Parental Alienation Conference Dublin 2019
FREE Parental Alienation Reference Material Database
Training For Parents
Training Portal
Training For Professionals
Understanding, Assessment & Intervention Training Seminar
Dr Ludwig F. Lowenstein M.A., Dip. Psych., Ph.D.
Case note on Pisica v the Republic of Moldova
Part 1: Case note on Pisica v the Republic of Moldova
Part 2: Case Note on Pisică v the Republic of Moldova
INTERVENTION
Psychological Support
ONE VOICE
SUPPORT SERVICES
Brian O’Sullivan
Join Our Team
About Us
Work With Us
Media
Search for:
Part 1 of Case Note on Pisică v the Republic of Moldova
Brendan Guildea
2020-01-28T13:02:14+00:00
Brendan Timeline
Sorry,You have not added any story yet
Brendan Timeline
2016
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.
Page 3 of 8
«
1
2
3
4
…
8
»
Go to Top