We will not talk now about evolutionary or biological factors. Let's talk about the psychological attitudes that drive people who make the decision to have a child in various situations. And since only a woman is given responsibility for his birth in our population, we will analyze her motivation.

From century to century, society carries over social attitudes that motivate the continuation of the human race. And almost every family has its own traumatic circumstances, which also tend to pass from generation to generation - from parents to children. No matter how much young parents repeat that they will raise their children differently from the way they were raised, this does not protect them from the same mistakes, in addition to which they are prone to make their own. For what reasons does childhood become such a traumatic period from which a person carries problems into his subsequent life?

What lies behind the desire to give birth

Common Cause The reason why a woman decides to become a mother is the pressure of society, especially the immediate environment. It makes you feel like you're not a complete woman if you don't have children. Under the pressure of this pressure, a woman feels simply obliged to have them, the question of desire already becomes secondary.

Reason two, which logically follows from the above, is a manifestation of a certain herd feeling. All the friends around have already learned the joy of motherhood, it’s time, it’s time. There is even a certain competitive moment that pushes you to do it faster.

Third reason– the desire to grow up quickly and become independent, living without parents. If the expectant mother is still too young, this entails the opposite consequences - suddenly she finds herself in an even deeper dependence on the environment and parents.

Reason number four- desire to keep the groom. Contrary to the undeniable assertions that it is impossible to tie a man to you as a child, some women are persistent in their attempts. Pregnancy in this case is used as a means to manipulate the chosen man.

Fifth reason, no matter how trite, is the fear of loneliness. A woman thinks that her own child will always be with her, will not leave her and will not betray her, like men from whom one cannot expect good things. An insecure, not very happy woman needs a child in order to love, understand and stay close.

A little aside stands a completely healthy, seemingly healthy situation - two people met, decided to start a family out of mutual love, live in harmony and, finally, understand that the time has come to become happy parents.

And everything would be just fine if not for a certain “but”. All these reasons are based on attitudes towards satisfying one’s own needs and wants. If you analyze them, it turns out that future parents are driven by the desire:

• for someone to love and be near;
• self-realization (they try to “mold” a child into a likeness of themselves);
• gain satisfaction from the new status of a parent in society;
• have a secure old age;
• to control someone, subjugate;
• to continue oneself (as they say - to extend one’s lineage, leaving a piece of oneself on Earth).

These are not the saddest reasons; there are also much less harmless ones. Perhaps it is precisely because the decision is dictated from the outside that depression often occurs during pregnancy and childbirth. And all this needs to be compensated for somehow.

Compensation

And this is compensated when a child appears by the fact that it becomes the personal property of the parent. From birth, a child is deprived of recognition of an autonomously existing personality who makes independent decisions. Perceived by parents as a part of themselves, it is at their complete disposal. They give themselves the exclusive right (out of good intentions, of course) to invest their thoughts, goals and desires in it.

Driven by such attitudes, parents begin the process of education. Both the child’s survival and adaptation to environmental conditions, which is determined by nature, directly depend on them. And only a human being wants to subjugate his child, breaking his will and imposing his desires on him as early as possible, even at a tender age. For this purpose, various kinds of tricks and manipulations of the consciousness of a small person, dependent in everything on the parent, are used. Techniques are used that cause a constant feeling of guilt in the child. Parents are trying in any way to shift the responsibility for their happiness onto the fragile, fragile shoulders of their children, and this is an unbearable burden for them.

Every person has childhood traumas. This can easily be explained by the fact that only too few parents understand what they are doing and how they are causing harm to the child’s psyche, which has irreparable consequences for him. Such injuries, as a rule, are transmitted from parents to children, and further along the chain. It is they who do not give the grown child the opportunity to feel his own, real needs and desires, getting rid of imposed fears and complexes.

True motives

The real reason for the desire to have children of your own is the need to sincerely and selflessly take care of someone. And not at all because this someone needs to reciprocate. Not because you are afraid of a lonely old age. Not in order to reshape him at your own discretion, creating a person who is perfect by your standards. But only because you absolutely need to give all your care, attention and love to this little man. Because you sincerely, without demanding anything in return, want to teach him what you know yourself. This desire is inherent deep within nature itself.

Having these needs, you are already ready to give birth to a child. You have the right motivation. Unlike the attitudes mentioned earlier, your desire to have a child is not dictated by selfish considerations. You understand that sharing experiences and information with your child is a process that will mutually enrich you. You are ready to give away your knowledge and skills without demanding compensation from your child, just because he needs to get this experience from somewhere. It is absolutely clear to you that the more skills and knowledge you can enrich him with, the better he will adapt to life. This means that he will be able to use more opportunities and become more successful and happier.

How much life could change if it were realized that a child is not the property of the parents, but a separate person. He has his own path in life. He must grow up and go his own way, and the task of his parents is to help him adapt to existing realities and prepare him as much as possible for life in this world. How fully a child can realize the abilities inherent in him by nature, whether he can become happy - all this depends on the parents. He must learn to live independently in order to easily go free swimming. And his future well-being directly depends on how much his parents respect his full personality.

3. Rights of minor children and parents

In 1990, Russia became a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention is part of Russian legislation; its provisions that have not been incorporated into domestic legislation are subject to direct application. In case of conflict between the norms of the Convention and other internal acts, the norms of the Convention are applied. In accordance with this international document, Russia assumed numerous obligations to ensure the rights of the child, due to which domestic legislation in this area had to be brought into line with the Convention in order to avoid contradictions. The Convention considers the child as an independent person, endowed with rights and capable, to one degree or another, of independently exercising and protecting them. The same approach to the problem of children's rights was used in the development of the SC.

The definition of the concept of “child” is given in Art. 1 of the Convention and in paragraph 1 of Art. 54 SK. According to Russian law, a child is a person under 18 years of age. Recognition of a child as fully capable before reaching the age of majority, including his emancipation, does not affect, with the exception of cases specified in the law, the possibility of considering him as a child. The Convention prohibits discrimination against a child on any grounds: race, gender, language, religion, national, ethnic origin, social origin, political opinion. Ensuring these rights is the task of constitutional, not family law. Family law is designed to prevent discrimination against a child in family relationships. Article 53 of the Family Code, in particular, prohibits discrimination against a child depending on whether he was born in a registered marriage or out of wedlock. Regardless of the method of establishing paternity, children have the same rights in relation to their father and his relatives as children born in a registered marriage.

Every child, in accordance with the Convention, has the right to preserve his or her individuality (Article 8 of the Convention). Individualizing features are first name, last name, citizenship, family ties. The child’s right to a name is enshrined in Art. 58 SK. The child's name is given by agreement between the parents. In this case, parents can give the child any name they wish. The child's middle name is determined by the father's name. However, new family legislation places the issue of assigning a patronymic to a child within the competence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The fact is that not all peoples inhabiting Russia have a tradition of calling people not only by name, but also by patronymic. During the Soviet period, patronymic names were artificially imposed on many of them. Currently, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have the right to establish that the assignment of a patronymic on their territory is optional and can be carried out at the request of persons registering a child, if this is consistent with their national traditions. The child's surname is determined by the surname of the parents.

If parents have different surnames, then the issue of the child’s surname is resolved by agreement between them, unless otherwise provided by the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In this case, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation also have the right to establish other rules for choosing a surname for a child in accordance with their national traditions. However, the norms they adopt must not violate the principle of equality of spouses in marriage. Such a violation could be, for example, the rule that the child’s surname is always determined only by the father’s surname. If the parents cannot come to an agreement regarding the choice of the child’s first or last name, the dispute between them is resolved by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. However, these bodies themselves may find themselves in a difficult situation. Only in some cases does the preference of one of the parents have any objective basis. Let's say, if another parent wants to give the child a rare and strange name, the wearing of which in the future may create difficulties for the child, especially in a children's group. If each of them wants, for example, to give the child the name of his father, then the guardianship and trusteeship body, apparently, will have no choice but to cast lots.

If paternity of the child has not been established, the child’s name is given according to the mother’s instructions, the patronymic is assigned according to the name of the person recorded as the father at the mother’s direction, and the surname is assigned according to the mother’s surname.

Parents have the right to change the child’s first or last name only until he reaches the age of 16. Upon reaching 16 years of age, only the child himself can, in the usual manner provided for changing names and surnames, apply for their change. If the child is under 16 years of age, the parents have the right, by mutual consent, to apply to the guardianship and trusteeship authorities with a request to change the child’s name or to change his surname to the surname of the other parent. The guardianship and trusteeship authority resolves this issue based on the interests of the child.

In the event that the child’s parents have stopped living together, the parent with whom the child lives has the right to ask the guardianship and trusteeship authorities to assign his surname to him. The guardianship and trusteeship authority finds out the other parent's opinion on this matter, weighs the arguments of both sides and makes a decision that is most consistent with the interests of the child. Taking into account the opinion of the second parent is not necessary if it is impossible to establish his location, if he is deprived of parental rights, declared incompetent, and also if he avoids raising and maintaining the child without good reason.

If paternity of a child has not been established and he was assigned the mother’s surname, which the latter bore at the time of registration of the child, and later the mother’s surname changed, she can ask the guardianship and trusteeship authority to change the child’s surname.

If a child has reached the age of 10, changing his first or last name is impossible without his consent, which is an important guarantee of the child’s right to preserve his individuality.

In Art. 12 of the Convention and Art. 57 of the Family Code provides for the child’s right to freely express his opinion. The legislation does not indicate the minimum age at which a child has this right. The Convention stipulates that this right is granted to a child who is able to formulate his own views. Consequently, as soon as the child reaches a sufficient degree of development to do this, he has the right to express his opinion when deciding in the family any issue that affects his interests. From that time on, he has the right to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings directly affecting him. Depending on the age of the child, his opinion is given different legal meaning. The Convention requires that “attention be given to the views of the child in accordance with his age and maturity.” According to Art. 57 of the IC, it is imperative to take into account the opinion of a child who has reached the age of 10 years. Before this age, a child who is able to express his views must also be heard, but due to his young age, if parents, guardians and officials disagree with his opinion, they are not required to motivate their disagreement. However, this does not mean that these persons are always obliged to agree with the opinion of a child who has reached the age of 10 years. Even at these years the child does not yet have sufficient maturity. Often, although he is able to formulate his opinion, he does not yet have the ability to realize his own interests.

Taking into account the child’s opinion presupposes that, firstly, it will be heard, and secondly, if they disagree with the child’s opinion, those deciding issues affecting his interests are obliged to justify for what reasons they considered it necessary not to follow the child’s wishes. Family law, however, attaches significant importance to the will of the child. In a number of cases, certain actions cannot be performed at all if a child over 10 years old objects to it. We are talking about changing the child's first and last name, restoring parental rights to parents, adopting a child, changing the date and place of birth of a child during adoption, registering adoptive parents as the child's parents, changing the child's last name and first name when canceling adoption and transferring the child to a foster family. . In all of these situations, the most important interests of the child are affected. A child has the right to a name and other identifying characteristics (place and date of birth) under the same conditions as an adult citizen. No one can change them without his consent. Restoration of parental rights, adoption and placement in a foster family lead to a change in the child’s entire life and force him to live with certain individuals in the same family. Such actions cannot be carried out against the child’s wishes, even if it seems unreasonable and unfounded. A child is not a thing, and it is impossible to hand him over to someone to raise him and force him to live with these persons as one family against his will.

One of the most important rights of a child is his right to family upbringing, provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 54 SK. This right primarily consists of ensuring the child the opportunity to live and be raised in a family. Family education is the best form of raising a child that humanity knows. No public forms of education can compare with the family, and repeated attempts to replace family education with public education serve as confirmation of this. Therefore, the task of family legislation is to protect the child’s right to be raised in a family. Usually we are talking about the child living in the family of his parents. In this situation, legislation, as a rule, performs a purely protective function, protecting the family from illegal attacks from the outside and refraining from interfering in family life. However, in the event of a violation of a child’s rights in a family, it is necessary to resort to methods of more active influence on the family, including restriction or deprivation of parental rights. In relation to children who have lost their family for some reason, ensuring the right to be raised in a family means that when choosing forms of raising children, preference is given to family forms of upbringing: transfer for adoption, to a foster family, to a guardian's family. Only in cases where it is not possible to place a child in a family are children transferred to child care institutions.

A child has the right to live together with his parents, except in situations where this is contrary to his interests, including in cases where the parents and the child live on the territory of different states. In accordance with Art. 10 of the Convention, states parties are obliged to facilitate the reunification of separated families. The child has the right, as far as possible, to know his parents. This right is limited primarily by the fact that in some cases it is impossible to obtain information about the parents, for example, if the child has been found. The question of the extent to which the secret of adoption and the secret of the biological origin of a child when using methods of artificial human reproduction corresponds to the right to know one’s parents still remains controversial.

A child has the right to be cared for by his parents, to ensure his interests and respect for his human dignity. A child has the right to communicate with both parents, including if they have ended their marital relationship and live separately.

The child’s right to family upbringing also includes the right to communicate with members of the extended family: grandparents, brothers, sisters and other relatives. This right of the child is preserved in the event of divorce between his parents or recognition of their marriage as invalid (Article 55 of the Family Code).

A child in an extreme situation has the right to communicate with parents and other relatives. For example, an extreme situation may arise in the event of his arrest, detention, detention, accident, or serious illness. A child who finds himself in this situation especially needs the support of his loved ones, so it is possible to refuse him contact with his parents or relatives only if there are serious reasons. For example, if allowing these persons into the intensive care unit could pose a danger to the child.

The property rights of a child are regulated primarily not by family law, but by civil law. Children and parents do not have ownership rights to each other's property, however, if they live together, they have the right to own and use each other's property by mutual consent. There is no special legal regime for the property of parents and children. If parents and children have the right of common ownership of any property, their relations are regulated by the general norms of civil law.

The child is the owner of the property belonging to him and the income generated by him. The child has the right to receive maintenance from parents and other relatives in the manner prescribed by the legislation on the payment of alimony. The right of ownership to the amounts of alimony, pensions and benefits received is also recognized by the child. However, the right to dispose of these funds in the interests of the child belongs to his parents. Parents and their substitutes are obliged to spend these funds on the maintenance, upbringing and education of the child (Clause 2 of Article 6 °CK). Sometimes the parent paying child support feels that it is being misused by the other parent. This is especially common when it comes to amounts exceeding the child’s current needs. In this case, the paying parent has the right to apply to the court with a request to credit part of the alimony (no more than 50%) to bank accounts opened in the child’s name. Thus, the child receives enough funds for current maintenance and at the same time the possibility of uncontrolled disposal by the collecting parent of the entire amount of alimony is excluded.

Civil legislation also determines the child’s right to independently dispose of his property. These capabilities of the child depend on his age and are determined by Art. 26 and 27 Civil Code. When managing a child’s property, parents have the same rights and bear the same responsibilities as provided for by civil law for guardians.

Most of the rights listed above are not only proclaimed in law, but also provided with sanctions. The guarantee of their implementation is that the child is entitled to protect these rights personally or through his representatives.

In Art. 56 of the Family Code provides that the responsibilities for protecting the rights of the child are assigned to his parents, legal representatives, as well as guardianship and trusteeship authorities and the prosecutor. An emancipated minor or a minor who has acquired full legal capacity due to marriage has the right to independently defend their rights on an equal basis with adult citizens.

A child finds himself in the most difficult situation when a violation of his rights comes from persons called upon to protect them - from his parents or persons replacing them. The Insurance Code enshrines the child’s right to directly seek protection from abuse by parents and other legal representatives. If these persons violate the rights and legitimate interests of the child, do not fulfill their responsibilities for the upbringing, maintenance, education of the child, humiliate the child’s dignity, violate his right to express his own opinion, the child can independently seek protection from the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. There are no age limits for such treatment. Naturally, it is difficult to imagine that a young child himself will be able to establish contact with these organs. Most often, he reports violations to relatives, neighbors, teachers, educators or other persons who bring this information to the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. After this, employees of the guardianship and trusteeship authorities conduct an examination of the child’s living conditions and directly become familiar with his complaints. A child who has reached the age of 14 has the right, if his rights are violated by his parents or legal representatives, to directly file a claim in court. However, children suffering from parental abuse often not only do not seek protection of their rights, but also try to hide such abuse out of fear of their parents or fear that they will be taken away from their parents and placed in institutions. In this regard, all officials or citizens who become aware of a violation of the rights of a child, a threat to his life or health, are obliged to immediately report this to the guardianship and trusteeship authority at the child’s place of residence.

The general concept of “parental rights and responsibilities” unites a whole group of property and non-property rights and responsibilities that belong to parents. Most of these rights and responsibilities bind parents and children. This connection is two-way. Legal relations arise between the child and each of his parents. The rights of parents and the rights of children do not always correspond to each other. The concept of children's rights is broader in scope than parental rights. Some of the rights of children provided for by family law, such as the right to a name and the right to express one’s own opinion, are absolute rights. Children, as bearers of these rights, are opposed not only by parents, but also by any citizens and officials who decide issues affecting the interests of children. The same applies to children's right to protection: this right can also be used to protect against abuse by parents. Other rights are relative in nature and exist within the framework of parental legal relations. This is, for example, the right to education, the right to receive maintenance from parents.

Parental rights and responsibilities have certain characteristics. Firstly, they are urgent in nature, since they belong to the parents only until the children reach adulthood. After reaching adulthood, and sometimes earlier, when a minor acquires full legal capacity, they cease. If an adult child is incompetent and his parents serve as his guardians, this does not mean the continuation of parental legal relations, since the content of legal relations between a guardian and an adult ward is not identical to the content of parental legal relations. Secondly, these legal relations combine the interests of parents and children. Children enjoy priority protection under the law. Parental rights and responsibilities must be exercised in accordance with their interests. Both international and domestic family law are based on this principle.

However, the interests of parents also have the right to protection. They cannot simply be ignored or unconditionally sacrificed to the interests of children. This, first of all, is inhumane towards parents and inappropriate from an educational point of view, since it can have a harmful effect on the child, contributing to the development of his selfishness. So, in Art. 65 of the Family Code states that parental rights cannot be exercised in conflict with the interests of children and that ensuring these interests should be the main concern of parents. Only in the case when the contradiction between them is so serious that the search for a compromise is unsuccessful, preference is given to the interests of the child.

A feature of parental legal relations is the more tangible presence of a public law principle in them. On the one hand, they develop between the people closest to each other - parents and children. This suggests a deep inner connection based on mutual affection. As a rule, these relations do not require or allow government intervention. The internal content of these legal relations, as already noted, is difficult to regulate by law; the latter can only establish the boundaries of their implementation. These general boundaries are outlined in Art. 65 SK. When exercising their parental rights, parents do not have the right to cause harm to the mental and physical health and moral development of the child. The law cannot prescribe to parents how to raise a child, but it, firstly, generally prohibits the abuse of this right, and secondly, it prosecutes for its failure to exercise it. The first requirement reflects the private law nature of parental legal relations, the second, of course, indicates the presence of a public law element designed to protect the interests of minors. Children, due to their age, are not able to protect their rights themselves, including in relations with their parents. Therefore, in cases where their rights are violated, the state, represented by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities, is obliged, on its own initiative, to intervene in parental legal relations, resorting to methods more characteristic of public than private law.

Another specific feature of parental rights is that their implementation is at the same time the responsibility of the parents. Failure to exercise this right is, therefore, a failure to fulfill an obligation, and sanctions are established for it. Of all parental responsibilities, only the obligation to support a child can be enforced. Coercion to exercise personal rights is impossible, therefore, for failure to exercise it, such a measure as deprivation of parental rights is applied. Legislating the impossibility of terminating this right at the will of the parents should be approached very carefully. Here again it is possible to replace the situation developing in the field of legal regulation of family relations with the situation existing in real family life. The impossibility of renouncing parental rights is associated with two points: firstly, with the fact that parents cannot, by their own will, terminate the relationship of biological kinship, which is the basis of the legal connection with the child; secondly, giving up parental rights is contrary to moral standards. Both are true. But let’s try to consider what legal consequences result from the impossibility of terminating parental rights on the initiative of the parents. They cannot renounce their rights; exercising the right is also their responsibility, for failure to fulfill which a sanction is applied to the parents... in the form of deprivation of their parental rights. This means that instead of simply renouncing rights and transferring the child to the care of the guardianship and trusteeship authorities, unscrupulous parents, in order to achieve the same legal result, simply must stop exercising their right. Not to mention that this will have an extremely difficult impact on children, the legal structure itself seems more than controversial.

The next sign of parental rights is that they belong equally to both parents. Article 61 of the Family Code establishes that parents have equal rights and responsibilities in relation to their minor children. The scope of these rights does not depend on whether children were born in a registered marriage or not, paternity is recognized voluntarily or established in court. The concept of equality of parental rights is consistently pursued in Russian post-revolutionary family legislation. On the one hand, this corresponds to the progressive trend that exists in all countries, aimed at equalizing the rights of parents, regardless of the form in which their legal connection with the child was established. This approach is consistent with Art. 18 of the Convention, which calls on States Parties to ensure recognition of the common and equal responsibility of both parents for the upbringing and development of the child. On the other hand, in most countries, fathers whose paternity has been established in court are given only certain child support responsibilities.

Parental rights are acquired by a father who is not married to the child's mother, as a rule, only if he expresses a desire to acquire them. This situation has a mainly historical basis: the equalization of the rights of fathers of legitimate and illegitimate children has not yet fully occurred. However, the inertia of legislators is not the only reason for this. The expediency of granting parental rights to a person who did not want to acknowledge his paternity voluntarily and in respect of whom paternity was established by a court decision raises certain doubts. The court establishes only the fact of the biological origin of the child from the defendant. Based on this biological connection, society can assign child support responsibilities to that person. However, as noted above, parental relationships in the modern world are increasingly based on social, and not just purely biological connections. Establishing a social connection against the will of a person is impossible. To expect a person who actively prevented the establishment of paternity from exercising parental rights is, to say the least, naive. At best, he will be inactive, at worst, he will use his rights to take revenge on the child’s mother, who filed a claim to establish paternity. The fact is that many actions regarding a child can only be performed with the mutual consent of the parents. An unscrupulous father can use this and refuse to give his consent without any reason. In other cases, since there is no family relationship in the sociological sense between him, the child and his mother, it will simply be difficult to find him when it is necessary to obtain consent from him. To resolve these problems, the mother of the child will be forced to contact the guardianship and trusteeship authorities or the court each time. The best way out of the situation will ultimately be to deprive such a father of parental rights. The basis for deprivation will be his failure to fulfill his parental responsibilities. But the fact that he would not fulfill them was clear from the very beginning. Wouldn't it be easier not to give him parental rights against his wishes?

Current legislation gives parents equal rights. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 65 of the Family Code they are obliged to resolve all issues related to the upbringing and education of children by mutual agreement. If agreement between them has not been reached, they have the right to apply for resolution of the dispute to the guardianship and trusteeship authorities or to the court, which makes a decision based on the interests of parents and children and taking into account the opinions of minors.

When deciding whether to transfer a child to one of the parents, neither of them by law has an advantage over the other. However, in practice, the courts in the overwhelming majority of cases give preference to the child’s mother, which often causes the justified indignation of fathers. Of course, one cannot ignore the fact that most often the psychological connection between mother and child is stronger. However, this cannot serve as an excuse for the current situation. It must be recognized that such a clear preference for the interests of one parent over the interests of the other is nothing more than a violation of the equality of fathers.

The scope of parents' rights does not depend on whether they live with the child or not. If the parents live separately, which of them the child will live with is determined by agreement between them. If the parents cannot come to an agreement, then the question of with whom the minor children will live is decided by the court. The court finds out the child's opinion on this matter. If necessary, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities conduct an examination of the living conditions of each of the parents. Resolving this issue is always a significant challenge, since it is not material circumstances that are of great importance, but the feelings and emotions of parents and children. Therefore, it is impossible to make a decision purely mechanically, comparing the size of the home and the salary of the parents. First of all, the relationship that develops between each parent and the child is taken into account, the child’s attachment to each of the parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, if they live with one of the parents. Great importance is attached to the personal and moral qualities of each parent. Personal qualities primarily mean their qualities as educators: education, state of physical and mental health. Moral qualities that may have a negative impact on the court's decision are the abuse of alcoholic beverages or drugs, engaging in prohibited activities (prostitution, pimping), bringing a parent to judicial or administrative responsibility, neglecting one's parental responsibilities, committing actions against a child that may serve as a basis for deprivation of parental rights, etc. Circumstances such as abandonment of the family by one of the parents or adultery cannot be taken into account.

The age of the child also plays an important role. Young children, as a rule, are more in need of maternal care, and transferring a breastfed child to the father is simply impossible. For teenagers, more importance is attached to their own desires. Only in exceptional cases and if there are serious grounds, the court can transfer such a child to one of the parents against the will of the teenager.

Attention is also paid to the conditions that each parent can create for the upbringing and development of the child. The parent's income level is not decisive, since the child has the right to receive maintenance from the second parent, which will make up the difference. Much more significant is the amount of time that each parent can devote to the child, which is most often determined by profession, place and work schedule. Living conditions also play an important role, for example, the possibility of allocating a separate room for the child to study.

The marital status of the parents may also be a decisive factor. In particular, it is more expedient to transfer the child to the one with whom the grandmother lives, who will help provide care for the young child, than to the parent who will be forced to place the child in a child care institution. On the contrary, if one of the parents has created a new family and the child has a hostile relationship with his new spouse, then placing the child in such a family is undesirable.

After a thorough analysis of all the circumstances, the court decides on the transfer of the child to one of the parents. However, the second parent retains almost all of his powers. According to Art. 66 of the Family Code, he has the right to communicate with the child, participate in his upbringing and resolve issues relating to the child. Naturally, a parent who actually lives separately, as a rule, cannot exercise his powers to the same extent simply because he spends significantly less time with the child. In many ways, his position depends on what kind of relationship develops between him and the parent with whom the child lives. The nature of family relationships is such that it is almost impossible to force one of their participants to commit certain actions against his will. Despite the fact that the UK has developed a mechanism to ensure the rights of a parent living separately, his rights remain only on paper if the parent living together actively prevents this.

The optimal situation is when parents decide on the participation of a separate parent in raising a child by mutual agreement. They have the right to enter into a written agreement on this (clause 2 of Article 66 of the SK). The agreement can determine what time and on what specific days of the week the child spends with the parent living separately, with whom he stays on holidays, who picks him up during the holidays, and in what order issues concerning the child are considered. If parents are willing to cooperate with each other, they can resolve all of these issues in such a way that both the child and the estranged parent suffer the least amount of damage from family breakdown. First of all, this is due to the fact that such agreements cannot be rigid; they will constantly require certain changes related to various circumstances. For example, the child was sick during the time that he was supposed to spend with the other parent, or the parent himself was forced to go on a business trip at this time, etc. If normal relations are maintained between the parents, then all these difficulties are easily overcome.

If, due to conflicting relations between the parents, it is impossible to conclude an agreement, the dispute is resolved by the court with the participation of the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. With the participation of the guardianship and trusteeship authorities and parents, it is possible to develop a more or less realistic procedure for the participation of a separately living parent in raising a child, but this procedure, for the reasons stated above, will also need constant adjustment. And if the parents are in a conflicting relationship, it will be impossible to do this by mutual agreement. Going to court every time you need to change the time for a meeting between a child and a parent is also unthinkable. Therefore, the rights of the separated parent will largely remain unrealized.

The cohabiting parent must follow the court's decision. He does not have the right to prevent the other parent from exercising his parental rights, unless his communication with the child does not harm the physical and mental health and moral development of the child. Even if he finds that the exercise of parental rights by the separated parent is contrary to the interests of the child, he cannot independently decide to prevent the separated parent from having access to the child. In such a situation, the cohabiting parent must apply to the court with a request to change the order of participation of the other parent in raising the child. If the court decision is not fulfilled, the parent with whom the child lives bears responsibility under civil procedural law, which is expressed in the payment of a fine for failure to comply with the court decision. In reality, it is impossible to force him to allow another parent to see the child. Because of this circumstance, the situation remained deadlock for a long time. The legislation was unable to protect the interests of the separated parent. Various measures have been proposed to encourage the cohabiting parent not to violate the rights of the other parent. First of all, we were talking about the termination of child support payments by a parent who is not given the opportunity to exercise his parental rights. But stopping the payment of alimony will primarily violate the interests of the child, who is always a victim of conflicts between parents. Therefore, the use of such a measure, in our opinion, is completely unacceptable. In paragraph 3 of Art. 66 of the Family Code provides for a sanction, the mere threat of which can force a parent living with a child to seriously think about the consequences of their behavior. Thus, in case of malicious failure to comply with a court decision on the procedure for the participation of a separately living parent in raising a child, the latter has the right to file a claim for the transfer of the child to him. Naturally, resolving this issue is not so easy. The courts will only use such a measure in special cases when it primarily corresponds to the interests of the child. However, the very presence of this norm has an important psychological significance: it will make the cohabiting parent understand that he cannot violate the rights of the other parent with impunity.

The exercise of parental rights is impossible without possessing information concerning the child. A parent living separately from a child also has the right to information about their child. He has the right to demand the provision of such information from officials of educational, educational, medical and other institutions who do not have the right to refuse him this information. The consent of the second parent or the child himself is not required for the disclosure of such information. The only case where officials have the right to refuse to provide information is formulated in the Investigative Committee in such a way that it is difficult to imagine that it will ever occur in practice. In paragraph 4 of Art. 66 refers to the refusal to provide information if “there is a threat to the life or health of the child on the part of the parent.” And even if there is such a threat, the refusal can be challenged in court. In reality, the disclosure of information about a child against his will, for example by medical or law enforcement agencies, can cause significant moral harm to the child. Therefore, it would be necessary to grant the right to the child himself, who has reached the age of 14, and to the parent with whom he lives, to petition the guardianship and trusteeship authorities to keep this or that information secret from the other parent.

The exercise of parental rights involves the performance of volitional actions, including those related to representation in the interests of children and the replenishment of their missing legal capacity. The exercise of the right to raise a child presupposes the sufficient maturity of the parent himself. In this regard, the problem of exercising parental rights by incapacitated and minor parents arises.

The mere recognition of a parent as incapacitated does not entail an automatic restriction of parental rights. However, it is natural that such a person cannot carry them out independently. An analysis of the content of parental rights (in particular, the right to education, representation in the interests of children, protection of children) shows that their implementation requires legal capacity. In such cases, the child is raised by the second parent or a guardian is appointed for the child. A formal restriction of the parental rights of an incapacitated parent occurs only if, due to his mental illness, it becomes necessary to take the child away from such a parent in order to protect the interests of the child.

Limiting the legal capacity of a parent who abuses drugs or alcohol also does not lead to a formal restriction of parental rights. However, a comparative analysis of the norms of family and civil legislation shows that in reality such a restriction occurs. For example, according to Art. 61 of the Family Code, when exercising the rights to manage the property of children, parents are subject to the rules of civil law governing the rights of guardians to dispose of the property of the ward, and in accordance with Art. 35 of the Civil Code, only fully capable citizens can be guardians.

A difficult situation from a legal point of view arises when a child is born to minor parents who are not married to each other. Since they were not married, they do not acquire the full legal capacity necessary to exercise their parental rights. In this case, a difficult contradiction arises. On the one hand, the rights of minor parents must be protected, on the other hand, the interests of the child require that his upbringing be carried out by a sufficiently mature person. A minor mother can give birth to a child at the age of 14, and in rare cases even 12–13 years. Moreover, she herself is, in fact, still a child who does not even have partial legal capacity. It seems completely impossible to endow her with full legal capacity so that she can exercise parental rights in full. At the same time, it is impossible to completely deprive her of the opportunity to raise her child. Therefore, in Art. 62 SK found a compromise solution to this very complex problem. Minor parents, regardless of age, are given the right to live with the child and participate in his upbringing. This first of all means that a child cannot be taken away from minor parents against their will. The degree and forms of parental participation in raising a child depend on the age of the parents and are decided by agreement between them and the child’s guardian.

If a child is born from minor parents under 16 years of age, a guardian is appointed for the child, who will raise him or her together with the minor parent until the latter reaches 16 years of age. The guardian performs all legal acts and represents the interests of the child as his legal representative. According to Art. 62 of the Family Code, the appointment of a guardian for a child is not mandatory. In practice, most often the parents of a minor mother help her raise the child without being officially appointed as his guardians. A formal appointment is required, as a rule, in cases where a conflict arises between the child’s parent and an adult assisting in his upbringing, or when it is necessary to perform legal acts on behalf of or in the interests of the child (conducting a court case on inheritance, depriving a parent of parental rights etc.).

The degree of participation of the guardian in the upbringing of the child is primarily determined by the relationship between him and the minor parent. In the vast majority of cases, the guardian of a minor child is his or her grandmother or grandfather. Thus, the child is raised jointly by the minor mother and her parents. Usually, serious conflicts do not arise between them. In those cases where they cannot come to an agreement regarding the ways of raising the child and the participation of the minor parent in this process, the dispute is resolved by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities.

According to paragraph 2 of Art. 62 of the Family Code, minor parents have the right to independently exercise their parental rights upon reaching the age of 16 years. However, there is a certain contradiction between family and civil legislation. Family law quite rightly gives minor parents who have reached the age of 16 the opportunity to exercise their parental rights in full. At this age they already have sufficient maturity for this. From the age of 16, it is possible for them to be emancipated or reduce the age of marriage and acquire full legal capacity after marriage. It would be quite logical to grant a minor who has reached the age of 16 full legal capacity in the event of the birth of an illegitimate child. But civil legislation does not contain any instructions in this regard. The presence of a child does not affect the scope of the minor’s civil capacity. This person remains under guardianship and has only partial legal capacity until he reaches adulthood. Therefore, when a minor exercises his parental rights, problems may arise due to his lack of full civil capacity. The situation is truly paradoxical. A minor does not have the right to make certain transactions on his own behalf (for example, transactions to dispose of property) without the consent of the guardian, but he can independently carry out transactions of the same kind on behalf of the child as his legal representative. The best way to resolve this contradiction would be to change civil legislation and grant a minor parent full legal capacity from the age of 16, or at least include the birth of a minor child among the circumstances under which a minor can be emancipated.

Minor parents, regardless of age, are given the right to recognize and challenge their maternity and paternity on a general basis (clause 3 of Article 62 of the Family Code). A minor mother who has reached the age of 14 years has the right to demand that paternity be established in court in relation to her child. Neither the consent of the child's guardian nor the consent of the guardian or custodian of minor parents is required to perform actions aimed at recognizing, challenging or establishing paternity or maternity.

The most important among parental rights and responsibilities is the right of parents to raise children. The exercise of this right is at the same time the responsibility of parents. Parenting is a long-term process of influencing children, which involves both parents taking purposeful actions to achieve a certain result, and an unconscious influence on the child, which occurs constantly in the process of communication between parents and child, and the influence that the behavior and example of parents has on the child.

The content of the right to education is not defined in law. Legislation, in principle, cannot regulate the educational process in detail. In Art. 63 of the Family Code, the right to education is outlined in the most general terms. This norm states that parents are obliged to take care of the health, physical, mental, spiritual and moral development of their children. How this care is carried out, what methods and techniques parents use when raising their children, the parents themselves decide. Parents are free to choose forms and methods of education as long as they do not go beyond the limits established by law. These restrictions are defined in Art. 65 SK. Parents have no right to cause harm to the mental and physical health of their children and their moral development. Methods of education must exclude rude, neglectful, cruel, degrading treatment, insult or exploitation of children.

Education is a process that involves not only the performance of certain actions by parents, but also a certain reaction on the part of children. Thus, we can say that the right of parents to raise children is opposed to the obligation of children to “undergo education.” Parents have the right to use certain coercive measures on their children in order to achieve the desired behavior from them. However, this side of the educational process is outside the scope of law. For example, parents may prohibit their children from visiting certain places or returning home after a certain time.

All coercive measures applied by parents to children are of a purely everyday nature; the law does not define their types or nature and only requires that they do not violate the prohibitions provided for in Art. 65 SK. None of them can be enforced through the means of state coercion. Government authorities can apply coercive measures against children only if children violate administrative or criminal prohibitions, but not for disobedience to parents.

Parents have a priority right to raise their children over all other persons. This means that they have the right to exclude all third parties from raising the child, including the child’s immediate family.

The right to education includes a number of powers. First of all, upbringing is practically impossible without personal communication between the child and both parents, so a parent’s refusal to have personal contact with the child is a violation of the duty of upbringing. To exercise the right to raise children, parents are given the opportunity to live together with their children, which is at the same time their responsibility. In accordance with Art. 68 of the Family Code, parents have the right to demand the return of the child from any persons who hold him or her not on the basis of the law or a court decision. If these persons refuse to return the child, the dispute is resolved by the court. The court has the right to refuse the parents' claim to transfer the child to them if the child does not want to return to his parents and such a return is contrary to his interests. Parents are required to live with their children under 14 years of age. However, they have the right to place children in children's care or educational institutions or, in some cases, to hand them over to other persons, most often close relatives, such as grandparents. Making decisions to transfer children to be raised by these institutions or persons is also one of the ways parents exercise their right to education. Firstly, they are responsible for their choice, and secondly, the presence of a child with relatives or in child care institutions does not relieve parents of the responsibility for the personal upbringing of the child.

The right to education also includes the right to religious education of the child. The choice of the child’s religion is made by the parents by mutual consent. If an agreement is not reached, parents have the right to apply to the guardianship and trusteeship authorities to resolve the dispute. However, the guardianship and trusteeship authority cannot choose a religion for the child. The only reasonable decision that the guardianship and trusteeship authority can take would be to suggest that parents professing different religions provide the child with as much information as possible about them and then, after the child reaches an age when he is able to form his own opinion on this issue, give him the opportunity independently determine your religious affiliation. The same should be done if one of the parents insists on raising the child atheistically.

An important component of the right to education is the right to education. Parents are obliged to ensure that their children receive basic education. They are free to choose the form of education and educational institution for the child. As the child grows up, parents are obliged to take more and more into account the opinion of the child himself. The fact is that parents do not have any means to force the child to follow their choice, so in most cases the final word will remain with the child. If he refuses to attend the school chosen by his parents, the latter will be forced to agree with his opinion. The responsibility of parents to provide their children with a basic education is their responsibility to society (this shows its public legal nature) and at the same time to the child. They are obliged to create conditions for the child to receive an education and have no right to prevent him from attending an educational institution. If parents, for religious or other reasons, prevent their child from receiving an education, this may even serve as grounds for depriving them of parental rights.

Parents have the right to represent and protect the interests of their children. According to Art. 64 of the Family Code, parents do not need special powers to exercise this right. They have the right to be representatives of their children in relations with all individuals and legal entities, including in the courts. Parents act in these cases as legal representatives of their children, and the scope of their powers is determined by civil law on representation. However, not all restrictions regarding the activities of legal representatives have traditionally been applied to parents. First of all, there was no rule about the inadmissibility of parents representing children in relations with the parents themselves, while the representative is not allowed to represent the represented person in relations with himself. Parents were not prohibited from representing their children in cases where there were conflicts between their interests and the interests of the children. Meanwhile, when it comes to the actions of legal representatives, regardless of whether they are parents or strangers, it should be borne in mind that the represented person does not have full legal capacity, he did not authorize this person as his representative and cannot exercise control over his actions. Therefore, the activities of legal representatives must be placed within stricter limits than those of contractual representatives. They should not have the right to enter into or consent to enter into transactions on behalf of those they represent with themselves and their close relatives and spouses. Such a prohibition exists in relation to guardians and trustees, but it does not exist in relation to parents. It is assumed that the personal trust basis of their relationship with their children makes it unnecessary. But parental rights also exist where there has long been no trust. Parents can represent their children, for example, until a court decision to deprive them of their parental rights comes into force. Including, which is completely absurd, theoretically they are not deprived of the right to represent their children in the very process of depriving them of parental rights.

Parents represent their children in relation to their spouses when collecting alimony. Their personal relationship with the defendant often leads to a violation of the children's interests. In this case, such representation should not be completely prohibited, but the rights of parents should be significantly limited by law. Therefore, according to the law, firstly, the guardianship authorities, in the absence of an agreement on the payment of alimony and the cohabiting parent does not file a claim for their collection, must collect alimony on their own initiative. Secondly, the amount of alimony provided for in the agreement cannot be less than that established by law.

In paragraph 2 of Art. 64 of the Family Code prohibits parents from representing their children if there are contradictions in the relationship between them and their children. The presence of contradictions must be identified by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. In these cases, to protect the interests of children, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities appoint an independent representative for the children. Situations where there are contradictions between the interests of parents and children are not so rare in practice. For example, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code, parents do not have the right, without the consent of the guardianship authorities, to dispose of the apartment to which their children have rights. If parents ask for permission to alienate an apartment, and the guardianship authorities believe that this is contrary to the interests of the children, it is absolutely clear that the interests of the children are expressed by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities, and there are contradictions between the interests of parents and children. For the first time, legislation makes it possible in this case to formally limit the right of parents to represent the interests of children.

An even more complex situation arises in the event of a direct and immediate conflict of interests between children and parents, for example, when depriving parental rights, or removing children without depriving them of parental rights. Previously, guardianship authorities participated in these cases not as representatives of children, and parents were not formally deprived of the right to represent the interests of their children. Now, from a procedural point of view, complete clarity will be made regarding who represents whom in the process of deprivation of parental rights. Guardianship and trusteeship authorities represent the interests of the child against the parent deprived of parental rights. Other situations are also possible when there are also contradictions between the interests of parents and children, although not so obvious.

Example

Parents do not have the right to represent their children in a dispute about the division of an inheritance if both themselves and their children are simultaneously heirs arguing among themselves about the division of an inheritance. They do not have the right to represent children when concluding contracts between the child and themselves, in particular regarding property belonging to children: purchase and sale, barter, division of common property.

The fact that the parent in these cases represents the children in a relationship with himself, as such, already creates the possibility of contradictions, therefore such representation is prohibited by law. For children in these situations, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities must appoint another representative.

Parental rights also include such powers as the right to choose the child’s first and last name, the right to give consent to the adoption of a child and some other rights.

Improper fulfillment of most parental rights and responsibilities entails sanctions. The nature of these sanctions is very different. Depending on the composition of the parental offense, they can be both measures of responsibility and measures of protection. In general, they can be divided into the following groups:

Limitation of parental rights;

Deprivation of parental rights;

Refusal to protect rights exercised improperly.

The most radical measure that can be applied to parents is deprivation of parental rights. The basis for deprivation of parental rights is the composition of the family offense provided for in Art. 69 SK. The objective side of this offense is the parents’ commission of an unlawful act or inaction. The list of such acts is formulated in Art. 69 as comprehensive. The grounds for deprivation of parental rights are:

Parental evasion of parental responsibilities, abuse of parental rights;

Child abuse;

Chronic alcoholism or drug addiction of parents;

Commitment by parents of intentional crimes against the life or health of a child or their spouse.

Deprivation of parental rights is a measure of responsibility and, like any measure of responsibility, serves not only the purposes of protecting children, but also serves as a punishment against parents. Therefore, this measure applies only if the parent acted guilty.

The subjective side of a family offense, which is the basis for deprivation of parental rights, is always guilt. If the parent committed an action or inaction provided for in Art. 69 IC, without guilt, for example, cruel treatment of a child was a consequence of a parent’s mental illness, deprivation of parental rights is impossible. Guilty commission by a parent of actions provided for in Art. 69 of the Family Code, in itself poses a danger to the child, therefore, for the deprivation of parental rights, it does not matter whether these actions entailed any harmful consequences or not. In some cases, the consequences of parents' illegal behavior are obvious; in other situations, they may only appear after many years. Sometimes no real harm is caused to the child at all.

Example

One of the parents shirks parental responsibilities, but the child receives the necessary care from the other parent and, completely unaware of the unscrupulous parent, does not suffer due to his absence.

All this proves that establishing the consequences of a parent’s unlawful actions and the causal connection between his unlawful actions and consequences in many cases would be extremely difficult and would lead to an unreasonable complication of the process of deprivation of parental rights.

Parents may be deprived of parental rights if they shirk their parental responsibilities. Such evasion always occurs in the form of inaction. At the same time, parents do not perform actions that they are required to perform by law. Most often, parents’ evasion of parental responsibilities is expressed in the fact that parents do not pay due attention to their children and do not care about them. Children left unattended often find themselves in danger and become victims of accidents. An example of failure to fulfill parental responsibilities can be the facts revealed during the analysis of a number of court cases on deprivation of parental rights.

Example

A six-year-old child, whose mother systematically left him alone on the street, was injured and lost a finger on his right hand. Two children, three and five years old, while their mother, being in a state of binge, completely forgot about their existence, practically lived on the street, eating what their neighbors brought to them. Late in the evening, one of the neighbors would take them to their home.

One of the cases of parents’ evasion of parental responsibilities is failure to fulfill the obligation to support children, including malicious evasion of alimony payments. Evasion of maintenance also occurs if the parent living together does not provide the child with everything necessary, often wasting the alimony or benefits due to the child. In this case, evasion turns out to be combined with abuse of parental rights. Malicious evasion of alimony payments occurs not only in cases where this fact is established by a court verdict in a criminal case. To deprive parental rights, systematic failure to pay child support and without good reason is sufficient.

Avoidance of parental responsibilities also means refusal to live with a child without good reason. Sometimes such refusal is expressed in the fact that parents do not take the child from a maternity hospital, medical or educational institution, social welfare institution or other similar institutions. Previously, there was a gap in legislation in this area. Parents who refused to pick up their child could be deprived of parental rights only on general grounds. This meant that only after a certain time had passed it was possible to bring a claim, justifying it by the fact that they did not visit the child and did not fulfill their parental responsibilities in relation to him. However, the very fact of refusing to pick up a child from such an institution in most cases is evidence that the parents do not intend to maintain contact with the child. Since our legislation does not recognize the possibility for parents to renounce their parental rights, the refusal to pick up a child from child care institutions or from the persons who are raising the child is most often an actual renunciation of their parental rights by parents. In this case, there are no grounds for artificially preserving the legal relationship between parents and children, therefore, deprivation of parental rights can be carried out immediately upon discovery of the fact of refusal. Each case of parental refusal to pick up a child from a child care institution must be approached extremely carefully. It is very important to find out and carefully analyze the reasons why parents refused to pick up their child, for example, from a maternity hospital. Sometimes this may be due to the fact that they themselves are in a difficult situation, but do not intend to end their relationship with the child and hope to take him as soon as they have the opportunity. Especially often, a minor mother who gave birth to a child out of wedlock and has nowhere to live with her child may find herself in a similar situation. The aggravated social situation in the country may lead to an increasing number of cases of temporary refusal to pick up a child, for example, by refugees, persons without work, citizenship and other socially disadvantaged persons. In the presence of such circumstances, there are no grounds for deprivation of parental rights.

Illegal behavior of parents can also manifest itself in the form of abuse of parental rights. Abuse always involves the parents taking active actions and is characterized by a deliberate form of guilt. The most common cases of abuse are: forcing children to work in their parents' enterprise; prohibiting them from attending school; forcing children to participate in a religious sect whose activities are dangerous to the mental and physical health of the child; involvement of children in criminal activity, prostitution, drug use; exploitation of children in various ways. Abuse of parental rights will also include illegal expenditure of the child’s property, including his pension, benefits or alimony. In some cases, it is quite difficult to determine whether the parents' behavior is lawful or whether parental rights are being abused. For example, if parents encourage a child to engage in excessive sports, music or any other activity to such an extent that it becomes dangerous to his health and has a detrimental effect on the development of the child.

Child abuse is also most often committed in the form of active actions, but abuse can also be committed in the form of inaction. In principle, cruel treatment is a special case of abuse of parental rights, but the special danger of this form of abuse has led to the need to identify it as a separate basis for deprivation of parental rights. Abuse refers to both physical violence against a child (beating, torture, imprisonment) and mental violence (humiliation, intimidation). An attempt by parents on a child’s sexual integrity is also considered abuse. Cruel treatment in the form of inaction is expressed in leaving a child without food or warmth. Often, when considering cases of deprivation of parental rights on the basis of child abuse, the actions of parents reveal signs of a criminal offense. In such cases, the court is obliged to notify the prosecutor, who initiates criminal proceedings against the parent.

Chronic alcoholism or drug addiction of parents is by its nature not so much a specific behavior as a chronic disease. To deprive parental rights on this basis, in principle, it is sufficient to establish the fact that the parents have this disease in a chronic form. It is not necessary for them to commit any illegal actions against the child. This is due to the fact that raising a child as a chronic alcoholic or drug addict in itself poses a danger to the child. However, in practice, deprivation of parental rights on this basis is usually carried out only if the parents' chronic alcoholism or drug addiction influences the parents' behavior towards their children in such a way that it poses a threat to the children. When parental rights are deprived on this basis, a problem arises with establishing the guilt of the parents. On the one hand, chronic alcoholism and drug addiction are a disease, and one cannot blame anyone for its presence. When these diseases become chronic, parents cannot stop using these substances without serious medical intervention. On the other hand, alcoholism and drug addiction arise as a result of parents deliberately bringing themselves to such a state, and here we can talk about guilt. Unlawful actions against children are usually committed by such parents in a state of alcohol or drug intoxication, when they are not able to be aware of and control their actions. In a normal state, they sincerely repent of what they have done. However, for example, criminal law does not consider committing a crime while intoxicated as a circumstance exonerating from liability (except in cases of so-called pathological intoxication). The problem of establishing guilt in relation to the actions of chronic alcoholics and drug addicts is so complex that sometimes it can be said that in practice, when considering this category of cases, the question of guilt is not raised at all. Here it is sufficient to establish the fact of alcoholism or drug addiction and the commission of illegal actions by parents against children.

The commission of a deliberate crime by parents against the life or health of a child or their spouse is included in family law as a basis for deprivation of parental rights. The fact that a crime has been committed is established by a court verdict in a criminal case, but deprivation of parental rights cannot be carried out in a criminal proceeding. This is due to the fact that Russian criminal legislation does not contain such criminal punishment as deprivation of parental rights. The case of deprivation of parental rights is considered separately in civil proceedings. It is necessary that the court verdict establishes only the fact that the parent committed an intentional crime; in this case, whether the parent is sentenced to serve a criminal sentence or the execution of the sentence is postponed, replaced by a suspended sentence, or he is released from it through an amnesty or pardon, does not matter. When a parent commits a crime against the life or health of a child, his actions fall under the signs of cruel treatment or abuse of parental rights. However, if there is a court verdict, no further investigation of the circumstances of the case is required, since in this case the abuse of parental rights has reached such a dangerous degree that it has been classified as a criminal offense. Deprivation of parental rights is possible only if the crime was committed intentionally, and the form of intent (direct or indirect) does not matter. A reckless crime in itself is not grounds for deprivation of parental rights.

The commission of a deliberate crime by a parent against the life or health of his spouse primarily involves cases where such a crime is committed against the other parent of the child. However, the victim of a crime can also be a spouse who is not the child’s parent, his stepfather or stepmother. Previously, this situation was not regulated by law. A parent who caused grievous bodily harm or was guilty of murdering the father or mother of a child could still exercise parental rights over the child after serving his sentence. Cruelty against a spouse, despite the fact that it often traumatized the child no less than cruelty against himself, was not grounds for deprivation of parental rights, since it was not formally directed against the child. Therefore, in the UK, the commission of a deliberate crime by a parent against his or her spouse is considered as an independent basis for deprivation of parental rights.

Deprivation of parental rights is applied only in situations where the court concludes that other measures do not adequately protect the interests of the child. If there is still hope for the parents to change their behavior, the court may decide to take the children away from their parents, but delay depriving them of parental rights. Deprivation of parental rights should be applied when there is not only a need to take a child away from the parents, but when it is advisable to terminate the legal relationship between them. For example, when a parent commits actions provided for in Art. 69 of the Family Code, takes on such forms that protecting the interests of the child requires the complete termination of parental legal relations.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 71 of the Family Code, deprivation of parental rights leads to the fact that parents lose all rights based on the fact of relationship with the child. The entry into force of a court decision on deprivation of parental rights is a legal fact that terminates parental rights for the future. Parents lose the right to raise a child, represent the interests of children and protect their interests. They cannot demand permission to visit the child, as this may have an adverse effect on the child and cause him further suffering. On the contrary, a child, if he wishes, can visit parents who have been deprived of parental rights. However, the relationship between him and his parents regarding such visits is no longer regulated by family law. These are ordinary everyday relationships, similar to those that develop when children visit any stranger. Children no longer have the right to demand that their parents devote time and attention to them, since the parents’ responsibilities towards them have ceased. The court, within three days from the date of entry into legal force of the decision on deprivation of parental rights, sends an extract from the decision to the civil registry office at the place of birth of the child. The purpose of this measure is to prevent parents deprived of parental rights from receiving documents confirming their relationship with the child from the registry office.

As a rule, deprivation of parental rights is accompanied by the removal of a child from his parents, since the purpose of this measure is not so much to terminate the legal relationship between parents and child, but to move the child to a more favorable environment for his development. However, the resettlement of a child and parents often gives rise to complex housing problems. If a child and parents live in state or municipal houses on the basis of a rental agreement and the court comes to the conclusion that cohabitation of the child and parents does not meet the interests of the child, the parents may be evicted from the occupied residential premises without providing them with other residential premises in accordance with paragraph .2 tbsp. 92 LCD. It seems that the same measure should be applied to cases where a parent lives in a house or apartment owned by a child or another parent. In accordance with Art. 292 of the Civil Code, family members of the owner of residential premises living in residential premises belonging to him have the right to use this premises under the conditions provided for by housing legislation. Thus, parents deprived of parental rights can be evicted from premises owned by children, firstly, because from the moment of deprivation of parental rights they are no longer considered members of the family of their children, and secondly, because eviction is provided for by housing legislation. If parents and children live in an apartment or house that belongs to them under the right of common ownership, or the owner of the home is the parent himself, deprived of parental rights, it is impossible to evict him. Deprivation of parental rights cannot lead to the deprivation of such parent of his property rights. In such a situation, the child retains ownership of the residential premises, which belongs to him and the parent on the right of common ownership. After deprivation of parental rights, the child also retains the right to use residential premises owned by his parent (Clause 4, Article 71 of the Family Code). Thus, the child still has the right to live in these premises. However, if it is impossible for him to live with the parent deprived of parental rights, he moves to the second parent (if the latter lives separately) or to the guardian’s area. In cases where the court considers it impossible to transfer the child to the second parent, or if the child is being raised by a single mother and she is deprived of parental rights, or both parents are deprived of parental rights, and transfer of the child to the guardian’s family is impossible, the child is placed in a children’s institution by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. In this case, the right of ownership or use of the premises from which the child left the child care institution remains with him for the entire duration of his stay in the child care institution.

The property rights of parents based on the fact of relationship with the child in respect of whom they are deprived of parental rights are also terminated. Parents do not have the right to demand funds from such a child for their maintenance in the future. They cannot inherit by law from children in respect of whom they have been deprived of parental rights. Payment of alimony, pensions and child benefits to such a parent is terminated. They lose the right to all payments and benefits provided to citizens with children. At the same time, children retain their property rights based on the fact of kinship with parents deprived of parental rights. According to family law (clause 4 of article 71 of the Family Code), they still remain among the heirs according to the law of first priority, inheriting in the event of the death of their parents by right of representation. Deprivation of parental rights does not terminate the alimony obligation of parents; the latter are obliged to provide maintenance to their children until they reach adulthood.

It is easy to see that, according to the current legislation, there is no complete cessation of the legal relationship between children and parents deprived of parental rights. In previous legislation, this problem was solved much more consistently. Parental legal relations ceased completely with only one exception: the obligation of parents to pay child support remained. However, complete termination due to deprivation of parental rights not only the rights of the parent, but also the rights of the child, for example, to receive an inheritance after the parents, was completely unjustified. This led to the derogation of the child's rights without any justification or guilt on his part. A child who suffered as a result of the unlawful behavior of his parents, traumatized by the deprivation of parental rights, in addition to everything, was also deprived of a number of property rights. Therefore, the IC provides for the retention of almost all property rights by the child based on the fact of kinship with parents deprived of parental rights. Thus, after the change in family legislation, it can no longer be said that after deprivation of parental rights, the legal relationship between parents and children completely ceases. They rather become one-sided. Parents lose all rights, but retain a number of responsibilities. Children retain the majority of property rights; all personal non-property relations between them and their parents are terminated.

Termination of parental rights is not an irreversible act. If parents change their behavior, it is possible to restore their parental rights. Restoration of parental rights is carried out in court at the request of a parent deprived of parental rights. Restoration of parental rights is possible if parents can prove that their lifestyle has changed so much that they can create normal conditions for their children. For example, a person suffering from chronic alcoholism is completely cured. As a rule, a significant period of time passes between the deprivation and restoration of parental rights, during which parents can completely change their attitude towards their children. However, the mere intention of parents to change their behavior is not enough; their lifestyle must actually change, the changes must become sustainable, and the circumstances of their lives indicate that there is no reason to fear a return to the past in the near future.

Example

If parents who in the past led a chaotic lifestyle and did not care about their child, and later got a job, their behavior changed and they showed themselves to be good educators of a second child born later, then in such a situation there is every reason to restore them to parental rights.

The case of restoration of parental rights must involve the guardianship and trusteeship authority and the prosecutor. The guardianship and trusteeship authority conducts a thorough check of the accuracy of the information parents provide about themselves.

A request for restoration of parental rights is usually accompanied by a request from the parents to return the child to them. In most cases, when parental rights are restored, the child is returned to the parents. However, exceptions are possible.

Example

After deprivation of parental rights, the child was raised for a number of years by a guardian to whom he became very attached. Then the parents changed their behavior and asked to restore their parental rights. Both the child and his guardian desire this. The child intends to maintain regular contact with the parents, but wants to continue to live in the family of the guardian. In such a situation, the parents’ request to transfer the child to them may be refused, and the claim for restoration of parental rights may be satisfied.

Restoration of parental rights and return of the child to the parents are carried out only in cases where this is in the interests of the child. In this case, not only the objective side of the matter is taken into account: parents changing their behavior, the possibility of them providing better conditions than those in which the child is currently, and other similar circumstances. The child's feelings also play a big role. If the emotional contact between him and his parents is completely lost (for example, because at the time of deprivation of parental rights the child was too young and does not remember his parents, and the child’s guardian with whom he lives has replaced his parents), the restoration of parental rights can traumatize the child. It is also impossible to restore parental rights if the parents in the past caused such serious trauma to the child that he cannot forget about it. Guardianship and trusteeship authorities and the court are obliged in all cases to find out the child’s opinion regarding the restoration of parental rights and return to his parents. If a child under 10 years of age objects to this, restoration of parental rights is possible only if there are serious grounds to believe that the child’s objections are unfounded, not sustainable and restoration of parental rights will not cause him harm. If a child who has reached the specified age objects to the restoration of parental rights or return to his parents, restoration is impossible, even if all the authorities involved in the case are completely convinced that this is in the interests of the child. Restoration of parental rights is impossible if the child has been adopted. In exceptional cases, if the relationship between the child and the adoptive parent has not worked out, it is possible to first cancel the adoption and then restore the parents to their rights.

When parental rights are restored, the legal relationship between parents and child is restored in full.

In addition to deprivation of parental rights, family law also provides for the possibility of limiting parental rights. Restriction of parental rights is the taking of a child from parents without depriving the latter of parental rights. Limitation of parental rights, depending on the circumstances, can be both a measure to protect the interests of children and a measure of responsibility. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 73 of the Family Code, children can be taken away from their parents if leaving the child with them is dangerous for him due to circumstances beyond the control of the parents. In particular, this situation may arise if one of the parents suffers from a mental disorder, another chronic illness, or is unable to care for the child as a result of difficult circumstances. In these cases, the parents are not to blame for the current situation, so liability measures cannot be applied to them. However, the interests of children require protection, which cannot be implemented without limiting the rights of parents.

The basis for restricting parental rights is the objectively unlawful behavior of the parents. We are talking about actions committed by parents that are grounds for deprivation of parental rights: parents do not fulfill their parental responsibilities, abuse their rights, abuse their children, but there is no corpus delicti of a family offense in this case, since the second necessary component is missing - guilt.

Another basis for restricting parental rights is the guilty behavior of parents towards their children, which, in principle, can serve as a basis for deprivation of parental rights, but is not yet sufficient. Deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is used only if there is no hope left to protect the interests of the children in any other way. If leaving a child with the parents is dangerous, but there is reason to believe that the parents will change their behavior (for example, failure to fulfill parental responsibilities is associated with a crisis in the relationship between spouses), then deprivation of their parental rights is premature. In other situations, offenses committed by parents against children are not serious enough to terminate their parental rights. However, it is impossible to leave a child with parents who do not care about him and wait until they change their behavior or until there are sufficient grounds for depriving parental rights. In these cases, the child is taken away from the parents and handed over to a guardian or to child care institutions. Parents are warned that if they do not change their behavior, they will face a claim for termination of parental rights within six months. Parents still have a chance to change their lifestyle and attitude towards their child. If this does not happen, after six months the guardianship and trusteeship authorities are obliged to file a claim for deprivation of parental rights. If the behavior of the parents is still such that there is no hope for changing it, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities have the right to file a claim for deprivation of parental rights before the expiration of the six-month period. In these cases, restriction of parental rights turns out to be a preliminary stage preceding the procedure for deprivation of parental rights. The combination of these two measures in this way seems very successful. On the one hand, deprivation of parental rights is not carried out immediately; parents have the opportunity to realize all the consequences of their behavior and receive an additional opportunity to change it. During the same period, information about the behavior of parents necessary for deprivation of parental rights is collected and verified. At the same time, taking a child away without depriving him of parental rights allows him to be protected from the danger to which he was exposed while remaining with his parents. As a result, both the interests of parents and the interests of children receive due protection.

In cases where restriction of parental rights is applied to parents who acted guilty, it acts as a measure of responsibility. The basis for its application is the same family offense as for deprivation of parental rights. At the same time, restriction of parental rights can be either a temporary sanction preceding the deprivation of parental rights or an independent measure. If parents have not changed their behavior after six months, a claim for deprivation of parental rights is brought against them, but this does not mean that it will be satisfied. The court may consider that there are no sufficient reasons for this, but returning the children to their parents is not in their interests. In this case, the restriction of parental rights will remain in force. If parents have changed their behavior and the guardianship authorities have decided not to sue for deprivation of their parental rights, this also does not always mean that their behavior has changed so much that the children should be returned to them. Restriction of parental rights may apply until the moment when there is no doubt that returning the children to their parents is advisable.

Restriction of parental rights is carried out only in court. Moreover, the restriction procedure is accompanied by the same procedural guarantees as the process of deprivation of parental rights. In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 73 of the IC, regardless of who brought the claim, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities and the prosecutor are necessarily involved in the case. The guardianship and trusteeship body presents an inspection report on the child’s living conditions and its conclusion regarding the decision of the case on the merits.

The circle of persons entitled to file a claim for the removal of a child without deprivation of parental rights is wider than the list of persons who have the right to demand deprivation of parental rights. A claim for restriction of parental rights can be brought by one of the child’s parents, other close relatives, bodies and institutions charged with protecting the rights of minor children (guardianship and trusteeship authorities, commissions for minors, social protection institutions), as well as preschool educational institutions, general education and other similar institutions and the prosecutor.

The legal consequences of taking away children without depriving parental rights are significantly different from the consequences of depriving parental rights. The main difference is that in this case, rights and obligations do not cease to exist, but are only limited. In addition, restriction of parental rights is, as a rule, a temporary measure, while deprivation of parental rights is permanent. The exercise of part of parental rights is suspended for the period while the restriction is in effect. The right of parents to raise children is suspended, parents lose the right to benefits and state benefits for citizens with children. They stop receiving child support for the child who was taken away from them by court decision. Some parental rights exist to a limited extent, such as the parent's right to communicate with the child.

Article 75 of the Family Code provides that parents may be allowed contact with the child if this does not have a harmful effect on the child. Here it is necessary to distinguish between situations when the parents acted guiltily and when there was no guilt in their actions. In the first case, priority attention is paid to the interests of children: if meetings with parents turn out to be harmful for them, they should be prohibited. A much more complex situation arises when it comes to contacts with parents who are not guilty of neglect of parental responsibilities. Thus, if the harmful effect on a child from dating them is that the child suffers more due to separation from a sick parent, this can hardly be a basis for the complete separation of the child and the parent. The right to decide whether contact should be allowed between the parent from whom the children were taken and the child belongs to the guardianship and trusteeship authorities, the child’s guardian, the child’s adoptive parents or the administration of the institution in which the child is located. The right to appeal in court the refusal of such bodies and persons to provide visits with a child is not provided for by family law. However, if the refusal comes from the guardianship and trusteeship authority or the administration of a child care institution, such an appeal is possible on the basis of the general rule on the possibility of appealing to the court against unlawful actions of officials and government bodies.

Most of the property rights of parents and children are not subject to any restrictions. Parents are still obliged to provide their children with maintenance (Clause 2 of Article 74 of the Family Code). Parents do not lose the right to receive future child support from their children. Parents and children inherit after each other in legal inheritance. The child retains the right of ownership or the right to use the residential premises that he occupied together with his parent.

Cancellation of restrictions on parental rights in accordance with Art. 76 IC is also carried out in court. A claim to cancel the restriction is brought by the parent whose rights were limited. The court makes a decision to return the child to the parent if it is determined that the circumstances that served as the basis for limiting parental rights have ceased. For example, in connection with the recovery of a mentally ill parent. When considering the case of returning a child to his parents, the court is also based on the conclusion presented to it by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities, who have previously examined the lifestyle of the parents. Lifting restrictions on parental rights is a right, not an obligation, of the court. Even if the circumstances due to which the child was taken away have ceased to exist, the court may refuse to satisfy the claim. Such a decision may be made if returning the child to his parents is contrary to his interests and the child himself objects to this, for example, because he continues to be unable to overcome the fear of the abusive parent, or because he prefers to remain in the family of the guardian. When the restriction of parental rights is canceled, all rights are automatically restored.

In some cases, situations arise when the use of measures such as deprivation or restriction of parental rights does not make it possible to quickly protect the interests of the child. Both measures are applied in court and therefore require quite a significant amount of time. If the life or health of a child is in immediate danger, it is necessary to act immediately. For this purpose, Art. 77, which allows for the immediate removal of a child from his parents or other persons in whose care he is, if there is a threat to the life or health of the child. Such selection is made by the guardianship and trusteeship authorities on the basis of an administrative act of the local government body. If necessary, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities may resort to the assistance of internal affairs bodies. After the child is taken away, the guardianship and trusteeship authority is obliged to immediately notify the prosecutor about this. The child is handed over to relatives or temporarily placed in a child care facility. Within seven days after the issuance of the act on the removal of the child, the guardianship and trusteeship authority, depending on the circumstances, is obliged to file a claim in court to limit or deprive the parental rights of the child’s parents. Notifying the prosecutor and filing a claim in such a short time is provided because in this situation there is a real threat of violation of one of the fundamental rights of citizens. Administrative interference in family life, and even in such an extreme form as the forced removal of a child, without prosecutorial and judicial control, can pose a serious danger. On the other hand, such a measure is necessary for those cases when it is necessary to immediately rescue children from a threatening situation.

The presence of a significant number of sanctions of different legal nature indicates a combination of private and public legal elements in the institution of parental rights and responsibilities. Protecting the interests of a minor child is at the same time protecting the public interest, since society is interested in ensuring that children’s rights are not violated. The fact that children in most cases are not able to protect themselves, and often even understand their interests, gives rise to additional difficulties. The personal nature of the relationship between parents and children also makes the use of coercive measures very limited. Even when the court makes decisions to apply certain sanctions to parents, their enforcement for these reasons may prove difficult. Because of this, for example, in Art. 79 of the IC it turned out to be necessary to provide special rules regarding the enforcement of decisions concerning minor children. Execution of a court decision against the will of a child in itself can cause serious injury to him, therefore, the selection of a child and his transfer to another person is carried out with the mandatory participation of the guardianship and trusteeship authority and the person to whom the child is transferred. Sometimes, if the persons from whom the child is taken away resist, it becomes necessary to resort to the help of internal affairs bodies. If the execution of a court decision to transfer a child to a certain person is impossible because the child resists such transfer, violence cannot be applied to him. In this case, the child is temporarily placed in a child care facility. If, after some time, he still actively does not wish to live with the person to whom he must be transferred by virtue of a court order, the transfer of the child against his will should not take place. In our opinion, in this case the issue of the child’s placement should be decided by the court anew.

The maternal instinct is inherent in a girl from childhood. It is not surprising that sooner or later in the life of any woman there comes a period when she begins to desire motherhood and pregnancy with all her heart. However, men do not always react joyfully to their wife’s desire to have offspring.

You can't blame a man for not wanting to have children. More than half of men once categorically did not want to have children, while according to statistics there are no more than 6-7% of women who are not ready for motherhood. Often men experience the true joy of fatherhood only when they see their child for the first time. And that's okay. But how to awaken in a man the desire to have offspring?

Motivation to have a child

First you need to understand that the motivation for having children is different for men and women.

Expectant mothers begin to dream about how they will carry their baby, feel the movement of new life in the womb, and after birth they will shower all the love, tenderness and care on the little person, lisp with him, feed him and enjoy the surges of tenderness.

Such a picture is unlikely to encourage a man to conceive a child. The future father is more likely to be inspired by the possibility of passing on invaluable knowledge to his heir, thinking about how much and what he can give to his child.

This does not mean that men do not coddle with children, do not show tenderness and do not touch a small part of themselves. All this happens after the birth of the child, and during this period planning is not at all a motivation for a man.

Why doesn't my husband want children?

Women are very emotional creatures. This applies to all areas of life, including the issue of motherhood and starting a family.

Men more rational, think about the situation and make informed decisions. Therefore, if your husband refuses your desire to have a baby, do not rush to get upset. Perhaps his arguments are not without merit.

There can be many reasons why a man does not want to have offspring.

• He worries that the woman will change after the birth of the child.

He once married an attractive, beautiful woman, but now she has gained a lot of weight, has stopped taking care of herself, looks disgusting, and is also running around with an eternally screaming baby in her arms. Every man's worst nightmare.

To prevent a man from thinking that you will neglect yourself with the birth of a baby, start taking care of yourself now. Dress nicely, including at home. Throw away torn robes, stretched sweaters and pants. Even if you are not going to leave the house, wear a neat hairstyle and light makeup. Play sports and give yourself more time. And, of course, smile more and enjoy life.

• He is not sure about a woman or a relationship.

This is unpleasant to realize, but perhaps he simply doubts whether the woman next to him is the right one or that your relationship is strong enough. This case most often occurs among couples living in a civil marriage and in no hurry to legitimize their relationship. But sometimes this also happens in formal families, if relations have recently deteriorated, there have been more quarrels, conflicts and omissions. The child is not glue. Therefore, before having a child, you should understand your relationship.

• He got another one.

Sometimes a man is categorically against a child, because he has one, and he either wants to leave you, or cannot decide in which relationship he is better. It is not worth giving birth in such a situation, because the child often only delays the moment of rupture, which is inevitable.

• He is jealous of his wife's unborn child.

This also happens: a man loves his wife very much, does not want to share her with anyone and perceives the child as a potential rival. The reasons for such jealousy go back to childhood. Perhaps he grew up in a large family, in which his mother began to pay less attention to him after the birth of a younger brother or sister. Well, now you need to convince him with your behavior that he is the “best” of men, do not miss the opportunity to praise him and confess your love. Periodically tell him what a wonderful father he would make.

• He is afraid of children.

Of course, children require a delicate approach, but this is not a crystal vase that is scary to touch again. The best way to dispel your husband's fears is to spend more time with the children of relatives, friends or acquaintances.

• He has health problems.

Your husband's worries are probably not unfounded. It is worth taking this issue seriously, undergoing a full examination by competent specialists, and if necessary, contacting a psychologist. Risking the physical and mental health of your beloved man and unborn child is not the best decision.

• He is afraid of having a sick child.

Nowadays the percentage of unhealthy babies being born is high, and your husband’s concern is completely justified, especially if your family has previously experienced miscarriages or health problems in one of the spouses. The solution to the problem will be the same as in the previous case.

• He is not sure that he has enough money.

If your man is generally not against children, but believes that he needs to earn extra money, buy an apartment and a car, there is no need to panic. You are married to a responsible man who understands that the arrival of a new family member will entail expenses, and sometimes considerable ones. Another question is that the financial issues of modern families are almost never resolved 100%. New goals and financial challenges arise all the time.

Sometimes financial well-being comes after the end of childbearing age or does not come at all. Approach this issue more carefully, discuss the family budget, the possibilities of additional income, how much money you need for the first time after the birth of the baby and how much it will take to buy everything you need. Discuss your immediate financial goals and set deadlines. Agree that after achieving these goals you will definitely have a child.

It would be useful to show your husband living examples of happy families who have achieved financial success after the birth of children.

• He is afraid of losing his freedom.

Sometimes men think that with the advent of a baby their whole life will change. They will never be able to meet with friends, go to a bar or nightclub in the evening, sit in the garage and, in general, live as they please. There is partly some truth in this. Indeed, with the birth of a child, a lot in life changes and fades into the background. But this does not mean that the child now needs to be treated as the main limiter that interferes with life. Many things will still be possible, including having fun and meeting friends.

Try to convey this thought to your lover. However, if a man is completely against taking on any responsibility, this is a serious reason to think about whether it is worth continuing a relationship with such a man.

• He wants to live for himself.

This formulation often hides the usual fear of accepting responsibility and change. Now the man is satisfied with his comfortable, predictable life, in which there is only you and him. Calmly discuss your future plans for life with him, ask how long this period will last and when he would like to have a child. It would be great if you can set specific deadlines after which you will return to such a conversation. If you do not come to an agreement, there is no point in waiting for a man for more than a year and a half.

• He doesn't want a serious relationship.

Perhaps he does not consider you as a permanent life partner and considers himself in search of a better option. If so, why would you waste time on such a man?

• He is afraid that his sex life will change for the worse.

The issue of intimacy is important for many men. They don’t want to lose regular quality sex so much that they are ready to give up having heirs. Talk frankly about this topic with your husband, find out what exactly worries him and try to convince him otherwise.

• He knows many unsuccessful examples.

A friend divorced his wife immediately after the birth of the baby, acquaintances often began to quarrel over raising a child, etc. Such examples can easily discourage the desire to have their own children. Provide your spouse with real examples of happy couples with children, visit them more often and communicate. Explain that children do not destroy families, the only question is how the relationship was built before their appearance. If spouses love each other, they have nothing to fear.

• He already has children and doesn't want more.

Sometimes men get married already having children from their first marriage or other relationships. Often this experience was not successful for them and did not bring much happiness, so now they do not want to have children. In addition, he understands perfectly well that a child is a colossal responsibility that requires a large investment of money, emotions and time.

Try to explain to your man how important it is for you to become a mother, that you want children from him and do not feel fully realized as a woman. Feel free to express your emotions, show sadness. If he begins to wonder what is causing your condition, gently answer that you feel like an inferior woman, because you do not have children from the man you love.

Perhaps he will agree to you, and if not, the choice is small: either stay with him and forget about the desire to become a mother, or try to build a full-fledged family with another man.

My husband doesn't want a second child

Sometimes one child is not enough for a woman and she has a desire to have a second baby. A man may well not want this, especially if not much time has passed since the birth of his first child: life has not settled down, loans have not been paid, repairs have not been made, and, in general, there are a lot of problems. In this case, it’s even stupid to insist, because the reluctance to have a child is quite logical.

It’s another matter if several years have passed since the birth of the first child. What is the reason? Perhaps this is one of the above reasons.

Now a man knows from his own experience what he will face, how much time, effort and money he will need to spend, what difficulties lie in the issue of upbringing and education. Considering all these nuances, he may not want a second child. This is normal and he has the right to it. Respect your husband's opinion.

What to do if your husband doesn't want children?

If your husband does not want to have children, the situation can be changed in your favor. To do this, you need to include all feminine wisdom, be soft and gentle.

Below are some tips on how to influence your husband's decision:

1. Determine the true reason for not wanting to have children. Have a heart-to-heart talk, look at the situation between you and your husband and act according to the recommendations.
2. Sometimes it pays to start small. Get a pet. Of course, this is not a child, but an animal will quite help you try on the role of a parent, take responsibility and realize that this is not so scary, and the love and joy of communicating with a living being are priceless.
3. Visit families with children and playgrounds as often as possible. Communication with children can awaken in a man the desire to get his own little one and understand that it is not so scary.
4. Communicate more with each other. And not only on the topic of children. Share your thoughts and experiences with each other, tell us how your day went and what new happened. Sincere conversations strengthen the relationship and help you better understand your spouse.
5. Get your priorities right. Remember that for a woman, after her own interests, her husband should come first and only then her children. Otherwise, the family risks becoming unhappy.
6. Limit your desires. Planning a child is not the best time to buy another fur coat, expensive jewelry and other excesses. Let your husband see that you are ready to moderate your appetites for the sake of the child and your joint goals.
7. Don't harass your husband every day. Frequent sexual activity is not very useful and is unusual for the human body, and increased passion may even look strange.
8. Try to be different and surprise your man. Let him once again be convinced of what a bright, unique, stylish personality and attractive woman you are.
9. Look after yourself and take care of yourself. Men love fit and healthy people. But, you see, being well-groomed and attractive is primarily important for you.
10. Show your husband that you are so happy too.

The main mistakes of women

Many people want to become a mother so much that they make many mistakes and ruin their own relationships. What should you not do when persuading your husband to have a child?

• Cheating and getting pregnant in secret! The child must be desired by both parents. If you silently stopped using protection and became pregnant, your husband will not appreciate your step. He will feel deceived and will rightly think that even in such important matters as the birth of children, no one really takes him into account. As a result, the relationship will crack and will not last long. After all, deception is not very favorable soil for the birth of children.
• Don't make a scandal and don't reproach your husband. Shouting, demands, and reproaches will not help in this case. You will only strengthen your husband’s reluctance to have children and sow doubts in him about your readiness to have a child.
• To withdraw into oneself, to be offended, to speak in hints, to distance oneself. Often women do not directly talk about their desire to have a child. They choose an allegorical manner, give hints to their husband, tell stories about happy pregnant friends and are very offended when the husband does not understand their hints, regarding this as an unwillingness to have children.
• Give ultimatums, blackmail, threaten. The child must appear in the family by mutual decision. It is very stupid to try to manipulate and force someone to take your side. Even if the husband agrees, the baby risks becoming unloved and the relationship will fall apart.
• Accusing a man of not wanting to have children. He is a free person and has the right not to want children.
• Having a child to cement the relationship. If the relationship is falling apart at the seams and things are approaching separation, having children to keep a man is extremely wrong. Children can only strengthen already harmonious and happy relationships. In other cases, they will not keep a man and will not change your relationship with each other.
• Expect quick results. A person needs time to reconsider his attitude, change his own and accept your point of view, and in the end just think, because you had time to think about it, and you dumped everything on him in one conversation. Let him get used to this idea, think it over alone, and perhaps then he will change his mind.
• Show rigidity and categoricalness. These are masculine qualities that are unusual for a woman. And if a man notices them in your behavior, he is unlikely to make concessions.
• Insist on conceiving children if the husband has obvious health problems. Don't be selfish. This behavior can cause serious harm to your husband, your relationship, you and the child if he is born.
• Talking about children right after the wedding. Let the man get comfortable with the role of a new husband.

Children are a wonderful part of family life and a natural stage in the development of relationships. They should be given birth only by mutual desire, so that the newborn child becomes the fruit of your love and happiness.

The desire to have children in everyday consciousness is very often associated with such factors as the existence of certain biological “instincts of procreation,” “maternal instinct,” “parenthood instinct,” which determine the natural need to have children. However, family psychologists have long come to a significantly different conclusion. The desire to have children has nothing to do with the biological nature of a person; it is a purely social phenomenon. The desire to have children is determined solely by the human, and not the animal, nature of the human community. In the appearance of a child, or rather in the conscious decision to have one, the sexual need and the desire to give birth to a child are maximally separated, although, as it would seem at first glance, these are two rather closely related needs.

The separation of sexual need and desire to have children is a result of the development of human society. As self-awareness develops, separates oneself from the environment, differentiates one’s attitude towards the world, and masters the technique of contraception, the need for children is increasingly differentiated from sexual need, gradually turning into a social need. There are no biological laws forcing one to have children. those, and especially several children, do not exist. These laws should be sought in the social sphere.

The number of children in a family, first of all, depends on the need for them, and the desire to have children in human society is one of the needs of the individual. It is the presence
children provides a stable state of personality, its self-realization and self-expression. In other words, the need for children is a socio-psychological property of an individual, manifested in the fact that without the presence of children and an appropriate number of them, the individual experiences difficulties as a person.

Of course, the desire to have children includes something purely individual - the degree of love for children, the feeling of their need in personal life, the desire to show attention and care to them. The need for children, like any need, is to some extent determined by natural forces, the vital forces of a person - the inclinations of the individual, innate properties and abilities for various types of activity, including reproductive activity. But the individual in manifestation of the need for children is formed under the influence of the microenvironment, the immediate environment in which a person was brought up and acts, as well as under the influence of the patterns of behavior he has learned and preparedness for family roles. The need for children in this sense is an individual combination of various attitudes towards to children in general, conditioned by the history of personality development.

The nature and social essence of a person determines his attitude towards children. Children are loved, in any case, it is customary to love children in the human community; this is where what is understood as the psychological norm of social relations is manifested. The measure of love for children, naturally, is determined individually. There are people who feel good and work intensively when they are surrounded by 5-7 children. There are also spouses who immediately shift the care of children to kindergartens or grandmothers. In this respect we are faced with normal human differences. Caring for children is an elementary norm that is included in the highest principle of human morality - mutual respect in the family, concern for raising children.

However, love for children is only one side of an individual's needs. The other is the need for the family’s children, embodied and uniquely expressed in the attitudes and behavior of parents. The family is a social institution, and its life activities, functions, and needs are regulated by phenomena of a different social order than the actions of an individual.

The modern type of population reproduction, determined by objective and socio-economic phenomena, is characteristic of a family, and not of an individual. The need for a certain quality and quantity of children is primarily a family need. Parents are only performers of the role assigned to them by the all-powerful director - the process of social development. And, accordingly, the desire to have children is a socially given need of the family, which in turn acts as the subject and object of social relations.

The most important need for children has to do with procreation, or, more precisely, in the socio-psychological aspect, with self-realization as an individual - a person’s desire to embody himself in offspring, pass on his best qualities to children, and leave life behind. This is a socio-psychological need acquired during the socialization of an individual, conditioned by an understanding of the meaning of life, the mission of each person in the process of life of society.

The need to have a child is also a conscious or unconscious, but instilled in an individual by the entire way of life of society, the need to have the closest and dearest person, flesh of one’s flesh, a person to whom you give life, in whose name you endure hardships and suffering. The birth and upbringing of a child is a generally accessible and most reliable way to “materialize” the creative period of life of a man and a woman, since the process of upbringing absorbs all the basic potentials of the individual: creative, pedagogical, scientific, constructive, communicative, etc. .

Additional Information

• seotitle:

Read 689 once Last modified Friday, 21 October 2016 09:26