Abstract: This article carries out a comparative legal analysis of government interference in relations that fall under the concept of “parental responsibility”: custody rights, visitation and access rights, omitting the material-legal aspect of parent-child relations. The subject of this research is the legal structures of Germany and the United States, which are both federative states, and one of their functions is protection of the rights of the child. The article examines the practice of courts on allocation of rights and responsibilities of parents in relation their children in common. Two fundamentally different approaches towards government intervention in parent-child relations are presented: from getting out of these relations at the discretion of the subjects of law, to active participation of the government in structuring of parent-child relations. The author notes such trends of government interference in family affairs as: 1) the creation of specialized bodies for ensuring parental responsibility and their separation from the state; 2) increase of specialization of the courts on the issues of allocation of parental responsibility; 3) reduction of the formal approach towards allocation of parental responsibility. Emphasis is placed on the active use by the courts of Germany and the United States of the decisions that oblige the commission of certain actions, and the availability of extensive toolset for influencing the behavior of the subjects of parental responsibility.

Abstract: This article explores the translation of legal texts, as it is usually fraught with a variety of challenges of linguistic and extralinguistic nature. The translator must have a strong command of linguistics, translation skills and profound knowledge of national and international criminal-procedural of civil-procedural law.  Focus is made on the one hand on determination of typology of general linguistic and translation problems pertaining to legal documents, and on the other – on identification of peculiarities of these problems depending on qualification of a specialist doing legal translation. The main characteristics of legal texts are viewed from the perspective of applied comparative legal science. Interdisciplinary approach towards research in the area of legal translation is a logical solution for the analysis of emerging problems. The article demonstrates some mistakes in translation of legal terms on the example of English, Polish, and Italian languages. The author comes to the conclusion that for a translator without the background of legal practice it is difficult to do the translation of legal texts; as well as submits a proposal on comprising methodological recommendations.

Abstract: The matter under research is Articles 8 and 21 of the International Child Abduction Convention of 1980 and Clause 1 of Article 244.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the legal acts that establish a scope of persons who have the right to claim custody or access to a child. The object of the research is the relations arising between an individual that has the right to make such a claim and the national court of the country where an under-aged child has been unlawfully taken or where such a child is wrongfully retained. The author notes that legal acts do not provide a clear scope of persons thus she offers to make amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In her research the author has used such methods as logical analysis and systems approach, comparative law methods, formal law methods and others. The main conclusions of the research demonstrate imperfection of the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on persons who have the right to claim custody or access rights; contestability of conclusions made by the European Court of Human Rights on convention affairs; and problematic creation of the European Court of Human Rights precedent about recognition of rights of access for individuals who substitute for parents. The author's special contribution to the topic is her suggestions on elimination of problems in the Russian procedural law, recognition of a child over 14 years old as a rightholder (and giving him or her a lawyer as a representative), extention of the list of individuals who have the right to make aforesaid claims and non-recognition of custody and access rights in case genetic parents are not proved by the legal entry. The scientific novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author carries out a complex analysis of the provisions of Clause 1 of Article 244.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and how it correlates to the provisions of The Convention of 1980. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the analysis of the regulations of the Chapter 2, Article 13 of the adopted in 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction pertinent to taking into account child’s opinion in judicial consideration of the question on child’s return to the country of habitual residence. The object of this research is the relations established in the context of settling cross-border disputes on protection of custody and visitation rights. The author underlines the flaws in regulations that determine child’s opinion. Special attention is given to the position of the European Court on Human Rights, courts of Russia and Italy. The article formulates recommendations on improving legislation of the Russian Federation aimed at implementation of norms of the Convention. The main research objective lies in the analysis of the legal, theoretical and practical aspects of determining and consideration of child’s opinion, who has been unlawfully relocated to another county and retained therein. The scientific novelty consists in comprehensive examination of the regulations of Chapter 2, Article 13 of 1980 the Convention, known for the ambiguous approaches towards interpretation and application: the terms “child’s objection”, “child’s opinion” and “child’s consent” are not identical, which needs to be reflected in the Russian legislation; child’s opinion should be taken into account at the stage of judicial consideration, as well as enforcement of court decision pertinent to return of a child to the country of habitual residence; establishment of minimum age of 7 years old, upon attainment of which the courts are obligate to find out child’s opinion in settling cross-border disputes based on regulations of the 1980 Convention.

Abstract: The unlawful relocation of a child to another country does not always entails his return to the country of ordinary residence. One of the reasons of refusal to return is “child’s adjustment to the new environment”; however, neither the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, nor Russian legislation reveals this term. There is no unanimity of vies in the judicial and doctrinal interpretation. Therefore, the problems emerge in application of the aforementioned Convention. Based on the analysis of regulations of the European Court on Human Rights, as well as case law of Italy, Russia and other countries, the author makes an attempt to determine the qualifying features of the concept of “child’s adjustment to the new environment”. The article substantiates the need for its new practical interpretation, including the characteristics of the outside actor of “new environment” (society) and the analysis of inner component (the family, in which a child lives prior to relocation). The conclusion is made on the necessity to adopt an additional protocol to the Convention, which contains the criteria allowing the national courts to unambiguously interpret the term under consideration. After the termination of one-year adaptation period, the child’s interests are not always respected, therefore, in the new additional protocol, the author suggests envisaging the right of both parties involved to request the court to establish the fact of adjustment of a minor child to the new environment earlier than the fixed period. A uniform mechanism must be developed for solving the difficulties of practical implementation of court decisions.