It seems to me thatthe defendant once brought her to the hospital. The defendant is also the one who informed me thatthe plaintiff had an accident."
- In her testimony, the social worker referred to the impact of this matter on the minor (p. 69 of the transcript):
- On page 6, the third paragraph of the report of 11 July 2007, line 6 "She also described her refusal to accept the offer of The Defendant At the same time bring The The minor through B Because, according to her, my parenting is in front of The Defendant And not in front of her." "At that time, she had to make do with seeing her on video." How do you dismiss the statement of The Plaintiff who was forced to make do with her words to see the The minor In the video of her commitment to parenting to me The minor?
- It was really a statement that raised a question mark in me as well. If you haven't met your daughter for a very long period of time, and it's true that you've been in a hospital and the environment isn't inviting for children, but there, too, you can find a place where the minor will feel safe. If you want to see your daughter, you will want to see her at all costs. It's also a question mark.
- As for the plaintiff's claim that she received the notice of the minor's registration in kindergarten on November 14, 2021, forwarded it to the defendant, who thanked her for it (Exhibit 46 on behalf of the plaintiff, p. 498 of the exhibits file on her behalf), this is indeed true, but it does not solve the deterioration of the relationship.
- On December 7, 2021, the plaintiff contacted the defendant regarding emotional treatment for the minor due to behavioral difficulties, the defendant sent the plaintiff the phone number of the kindergarten teacher and the plaintiff informed her that she had spoken with her (Appendix 45, p. 491 to the plaintiff's exhibits file). The matter indicates the plaintiff's great concern for the minor, but it still does not establish parental intent.
- In February 2022, the defendant brought the minor to the plaintiff's birthday, as testified by the plaintiff's sister (p. 79 of the transcript).
- On the merits of the matter, the plaintiff's refusal to meet the minor solely because it was the defendant's spouse who brought her to the meeting, raises a great difficulty regarding the question of her obligation to the minor. If we were dealing with a routine state of affairs, this answer would be understandable. The emotional difficulty is understandable, but the negative answer to the possibility of meeting a minor is a privilege that is not adapted to the circumstances. In a situation where the only connection between the plaintiff and the minor is the emotional connection, without a parenting agreement, and when the relationship with the minor is diminishing, it was expected that the plaintiff would respond positively to any possibility of meeting the minor, even if the person accompanying her is the defendant's spouse.
- The process of separation of the plaintiff from the minor
- On March 22, 2022, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that she understood that her relationship with the minor had ended. In the WhatsApp message she sent her that day, she referred to a photo of the minor in the kindergarten, holding a family painting with two girls and two mothers, on the right side she wrote "Mother A (the defendant) " and on the left side she wrote "Mother B (the defendant's spouse)". In her notice (Exhibit 1, p. 5 of the defendant's exhibits) she wrote as follows:
"Thanks to painting, I understand that there is always a substitute for Mom and Dad!