Later (at pp. 36-37 of the transcript):
- 14.06.2022 This is my last action. Then theChildThe received gifts, games, there are videos and photos that you can see how She Sending me videos of thank you very much. It is true thatThe Defendant She brought me theChildEven after the accident. I'm talking about the end, failureMinor It was a birthday. I stopped transferring money because we agreed that God willing, when I rehabilitate... We agreed orally, I don't have it written.
- In her supplementary cross-examination , the plaintiff admitted her intention by saying (pp. 139-140 of the transcript):
"I didn't stop the alimony because I decided that way, as soon as I was cut off from the child,
I'm not the girl's mother, who will I transfer money to?
On what basis will I transfer money and I don't know what's going on with my child?
She told me that we had made a verbal agreement
And she told me that if I didn't pay alimony I wouldn't see the girl.
Including a joint loan and a nursery of -- and my daughter got it all around, from me, and she can testify to how much cash she received without transfers."
- It is understandable that the plaintiff felt the great frustration, but in the absence of a parenting agreement, it would have been appropriate for her to continue to demonstrate her responsibility towards the minor by continuing to finance the minor's needs, especially in light of the defendant's announcement that this matter was related to meetings with the minor. It is possible that the defendant made use of the advantage she has as a biological mother, but the plaintiff was supposed to rise abovethese barriers and act in every way to ensure the continuation of the relationship with the minor. Her choice not to do so constitutes a kind of acceptance of the state of affairs that has been created, and in any case does not support the intention of joint parenthood.
- On July 17, 2022, the last meeting between the plaintiff and the minor took place, when the plaintiff came to visit the minor and give her a birthday present. According to the plaintiff, this was a significant encounter, while according to the defendant, most of the time she did not spend with the minor at all, but rather spoke with her.
If the plaintiff testified that it was clear to everyone that the relationship was ending (p. 90 of the transcript):