2020 Maz. 309 Interview

A

B B

C

January 19, 2021

1. The claimant may visitation the principal of the case until the principal of the case becomes adult:

(a) A given period: Second, each month, from 10:0 to 18:00 on Saturdays; and

(b) Place: The place designated by the requester;

C. Method of India: The method by which the claimant takes the subject person’s residence or the place of consultation with the other party and takes them back to the residence of the subject person after conducting the visitation right; D. Change of visitation right: In case of change of the date, time, or place of the visitation right due to unavoidable reasons, such as the schedule of the subject person’s residence, etc., the date, time, or place of the visitation right shall be notified three days before the date of the visitation right and changed through mutual consultation.

(e) Obligation to cooperate: The other party shall actively cooperate with the claimant and the principal of the case so that the visitation right can be smoothly conducted, and the claimant and the other party shall not slander or interfere with the other party in the case.

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person.

The claimant is entitled to have an interview with the principal of the case at the place designated by the claimant for one day from the fourth Triday to Sundays 14:00, for each seven days designated by the claimant during the summer and wintering.

In full view of the overall purport of the record and examination of the case, the claimant and the other party filed a marriage report on 2010 and entered the principal of the case under the chain, but on May 2019, judicial divorce (service by public notice) was conducted, and at this time, the person with parental authority and the other party were designated as the custodian, but the visitation right was not separately determined. According to the above facts, the claimant who does not directly rear the principal of the case has the right to have the visitation right.

As to this, the other party asserts that the claimant has violent and mental illness, and the principal of the case does not want to do so, the other party's visitation right should be excluded. One of the parents, who does not actually raise his/her child as a astronomical right between his/her parents and awareness, has the visitation right to the child as a matter of course and does not permit the future of the principal of the case, and it is necessary to restrict or exclude visitation right only in exceptional cases where it is judged that the exercise of visitation right is detrimental to the welfare of the child, rather than infringing upon the welfare of the child. However, the other party's investigation report including the family investigator's investigation report, data submitted by the other party alone is insufficient to recognize that the claimant suffers from mental illness, and it is difficult to consider that there is a concern for the claimant to receive the visitation right in light of the other party's opportunity to receive the visitation right, and the other party's opportunity to receive the visitation right without any negative interview with the principal of the case, but it is not necessary to accept the interview with the other party's statement and statement.

Therefore, the visitation right of the petitioner and the principal of the case shall be determined as above, but for the welfare of the principal of the case, the petitioner and the other party shall judge in addition to their duty of cooperation to not make any negative remarks or actions against each other.

January 19, 2021

Judges Don-Support