Olga Slutsker has already been included into the rating of the highest managers for eight years, holding the leading position in the category “Service”.

The main principle of the rating is “when the best persons are choosing other best ones”. The experts examined the work of the managers not just according to the qualitative characteristics of the companies’ work, but according to a professional reputation of managers, which can be fixed only by the method of expert examination.

The rating of the Association of Russian Managers (“the Top 1000 highest professional managers”) is the instrument, which can objectively estimate a professional reputation of the highest luxury leading managers in Russia. The rating sums up the annual results and it reveals the most professional Russian managers, the leaders in their branches and functional sectors.

The dialysis centre of Russian Children’s Clinic Hospital has received two new apparatus of arlificial kidney. Those apparatus were given to the centre by charity fund “We are together”. The fund has been already working for 6 month, and today its official presentation took place. A member of trusteeship counsel and vice-manager of planning and educational function of “United Russia” party Olga Slutsker came to greet the doctors and patients.

The fund “We are together” was created by vice-chief of Russian Presidential Administration Vladislav Surkov. Many famous politicians and artists joined the fund. Its main goal is to tent to zero children’s mortality of chronic rental failure. And it is necessary to equip dialysis centers all around the country.

— At first the children with chronic rental failure wait for appropriate age to do a graft. Then the doctors look for donor kidneys. And all this waiting time the children are attached to apparatus of arlificial kidney. That is why it is vitally important to have dialysis wards for such children – an owner of fitness clubs chain, a sportswoman and a TV-star Olga Slutsker persuades.

About 100 centers in 50 regions are planning to start their work in 2010. “These plans are ambitious, but we still don’t go out of deadline” – Olga Slutsker said. One more dialysis centre is opening in Bashkiria, Kumertau soon. It will alleviate lives of patients, who live far from Ufa. Today there is only one hemo-dialysis centre in the Republic. And three-hour procedure has just finished for the children from Mishkinsk and Chekmagushevck regions.

The head of hemo-dialysis department in Russian Children’s Clinic Hospital Irek Latypov said: 10 children are in need of this procedure constantly. They get their treatment according to the medical plan, without any problems. They are our permanent patients. And 30 children more, who suffer from rental failure as the result of haem-fever, peritonitis and other diseases get to our place.

The hemo-dialysis centre in RCCH has worked since 1987. The first Soviet apparatuses of arlificial kidney have already been dismissed. After ulu-teliaksk catastrophe the centre was equipped with German “Freseniuses”. The last two of them, which were presented by the fund “We are together”, are the most modern ones. They have many great characteristics, including high protection of a patient from infections.

Blood purification by means of apparatus of arlificial kidney costs about 6 thousand rubles. Patients with chronic rental failure need 2-3 procedures a week. And they get free treatment in the dialyses centers.

«Nowadays about two thousand of children, who have rental failure, need help all around Russia. And the fund is planning to open 100 such dialysis centers all around Russia till 2011. It will help patients to get qualified assistance without leaving their region», – a member of Trusteeship council Fund of Support and Defense of children and teenagers “We are together” Olga Slutsker said.

The dialysis centre has already received its first patients. All good conditions have been made in the wards. During the treatment the patients can watch television or read books.

«It is necessary for children not to feel themselves as they are in an ordinary medical ward. We must make the most comfortable conditions for them. It is a great advantage that children can visit swimming-pool of one fitness club in Ufa, with which we came to an agreement. And in such a way we can help», – Slutsker added.

A four-time parolympic champion Kirill Michailov also took part in the opening of the dialysis centre.

«I consider it a great honour to take part in the opening of a children’s dialysis centre. I think that a person must not abandon in case of any misfortune. It is essential to believe in the best things and to be anxious for success. Due to the Fund of Support and Defense of children and teenagers you acquired such a chance», – he said during the conversation with children.

We’d like to add, that the dialysis centre on the basis of Republican children clinic hospital is provided with the most modern equipment: the apparatuses of the latest generation “arlificial kidney” are installed here, and they help to take total computer control under all dialysis procedures. Due to this fact the quality of the treatment increases appreciably. Such change to European standards of medical treatment will increase the effectiveness of the therapy, reduce the risk of complications and give an opportunity to make the quality of children’s life better.

Surkov didn’t speak to reporters. But the creation of the centre was his idea, as the head of “United Russia” and the director of the fund Andrey Vorobiev said. “Six month ago Vladislav Yurievitch came to his close friends and companions with the offer to join to the struggle against children’s death-rate. So this project don’t belong to the party, it belongs to the circle of Surkov’s friends” – Andrey Vorobiev said.

Many other persons have also joint this Trusteeship council such as: speaker of State Duma Boris Gryzlov, vice-speaker of low chamber Viacheslav Volodin, the head of  EMERCOM Sergei Shoigu, film director Fedor Bondarchuk, famous jazzman Igor Butman and the president of fitness club chain Olga Slutsker – 7 members altogether.

Vorobiev reported that the fund already has the requests from dozens of regions. It is suggested that 45-50 high technological dialysis centers will be opened this year and the same number will be in the next one. The first ten such establishments will already start their work in March and February in regions of Kaluga, Lipetsk, Penza, Ryazan, Samara, in Krasnoyarsk Territory, Altay and Chechenya Republics. “Our aim is to build such centers in small towns first of all” – he said.

According to Vorobiev “the project is very expensive” and “it will demand dozens of million rubles”. “So we will engage in the resources of commercial companies” – he explained.

Igor Butman in his turn said that he was ready “to engage people’s resources in” by charity concerts and presentations.

And “United Russia” High Counsel Bureau has approved 27 party projects today. Each of them will be controlled by a member of High Counsel. Thus, for example, the head of EMERCOM Sergei Shoigu will continue to direct the building of physical-health-improving complex, Viacheslav Volodin will improve “the Defense of population’s rights Chain”, the mayor of Moscow Yury Luzhkov will head the project “Russian Librarians” and the head of High Counsel Boris Gryzlov will take responsibility for “Skilled reserve of country’s professionals” as well as for “National innovation system”, “Civil control” and “Pure water”.

HOST: Hello, this is the program “Freedom of Thought”.

MODERATOR: We continue to assert that freedom without thought is dangerous, but thought without freedom is doomed.

HOST: And our heroes are people whose thoughts or ideas we consider important for the discussions.

MODERATOR: Today, presenting in our studio person believes that our State must establish a special institute that will explore the lives of parents in order to decide with whom will live children after divorce,.

HOST: Meet Alexander Dobrovinsky, the lawyer.

CORRESPONDENT: Trying to divide the children between the divorcing spouses is a basic information trend of the season. Christina Orbakajte and Ruslan Baisarov, Jan Rudkovskaya and Viktor Baturin. And now the business woman Olga Slutsker and her husband, senator. Entire country watches the details of the scandalous divorces. Affiliation of the children is discussed in the smoking rooms of factories-ships, and in the higher offices of the government. Meanwhile, every year in Russia more than six hundred thousand divorces are registered, and in many cases, former spouses face the same problem as the stars. How one can find a common denominator in the division of children? And increasingly the scales of Themis turn in favor of fathers.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Good evening, thank you for inviting a modest lawyer, attorney. This, as you know, I flirted, about the modest. But in the beginning I have a big request to you, to the presenters and to all who came. Two days ago when I was given this honor, and I was invited to this program, I spoke with two my clients, I have two small clients. Small in the literal sense of the word. One six years old, the other eleven years old. Girl of six, a boy of eleven.

HOST: You have also a big client.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: My dear, children are most importantly for me. And these two clients, crawling over me and calling me “our Avocat, they asked me that they will no longer endure, if the television would say a shit about their father. And asked me not to be associated with this topic, because the only person they trust – that’s me. So I beg of you, you can ask me completely …

MODERATOR: On the subject you are talking with some awkwardness, we had not really understand … It is usually said about something unseemly…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I’ll tell everything. Yes, there is a lot of improper, it’s true. I’ll tell you everything. It is Slutsker family, I just got out of this process, and probably many of you know, with what result. There is such a thing in the law, you know, not everything came into force now… The court’s decision did not come into force – it is not important. Five more simultaneous litigations go on – we will live for eight years with this case… it is secondary. Primary – those children, who were crawling on me and whom I promised that I will not talk about them. I beg of you: you may ask me any questions, absolutely – everything you want, very tricky, nastiest ever you want – I’ll answer all. I cannot talk about this family, I have promised it to kids. If we talk about it, I just, unfortunately, will be forced to leave, I cannot cheat children.

HOST: You know, if my girlfriend was not the mother of these children, I would now just be moved to tears.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Xenia, do you want me to be gone immediately, or we’ll start?

HOST: Let’s start, and I ask you the first question, perhaps, not very true to the idea, with which you come to us. That question is: tell me, do you care about who to defend?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Absolutely. I am professional. As a footballer not care for what club to play …

- Not always.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Me too. Let me explain why. If I see that this is a losing case, I will not undertake for such cases. Because I must then look to the client’s eyes and say him something. I have no right to take money and work out badly. I will undertake only those cases in which I see that truth wins.

HOST: And if the case is winning but immoral?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Excuse me, can I finish? Weather it is a man or a woman, a former wife or a former husband, six children, two or three – I do not care.

HOST: And if the case is winning but immoral? Or you have no such notion?

Aleksandr Dobrovinsky: I take your words. So instead of me the other lawyer will go, what a difference. And what is “immoral thing? You know, we do not have such a criterion in the court. Because we have laws. And there are two contending parties.

MODERATOR: We have – are you referring to Russian court?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Everywhere, in all courts. Since when the jurisprudence was invented and people stop throwing stones at each other to prove who is right – we have experienced this kind of situation. There is a law, and there are two contending parties. They see the law differently. In the middle sits the judge. I cannot show myself because I’m sitting opposite. And the judge must decide who is right or wrong. Therefore do not know what is the morality in the court.

George Tyurin, lawyer, president of the Association “Fathers and Sons”: Let me tell you what is “immoral” for a lawyer. I am also a lawyer. Recently I was asked to defend a high-ranking official who was caught on pedophilia. He used to catch and rape young children, a number of. I was offered one hundred thousand dollars for defense. I refused.

HOST: Alexander, would you refuse, if …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: What?

HOST: Would you refuse if you would be confident in his … that you can defend him?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Let’s imagine. If a client comes to me and says: a hundred thousand dollars or two dollars – no difference. A man comes to me and says: I had not done this. And I can prove it to you. And if I see that he can prove it to me … Suppose he is a murderer, pedophile … if he is accused. Because what a colleague said, this is not the fact that this is true. If the charges against him, and he said: No, I had not done that, give me a helping hand. I was accused of murder, I do not know, maybe of instigation, of anything. Of course, I will help.

MODERATOR: Alexander Andreyevich, this is understandable. Morality, as you feel is tentative. But the methods by which the trial has been won – well, conventionally, summons of minor children – is also included in the legal profession, or there are still any …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I’ll say. When it comes … We have not yet set the tone for what we say … Somehow I made you speak …

HOST: No, we set the tone, it became interesting for us to talk about …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Let’s say so. We opening legislation it is written there: when there is a question with whom the child will live, with dad or mom, if his age is more than ten years, the judge is obliged to interview him. Do not interrogate, but to interview. Not only that, there are quite incompetent institutions in our country that are called “guardianship” which communicate with this child. Weather he is over ten years old or less than ten. And then it all falls out at the unfortunate judge. And an interview with the Child, mandatory, this is our legislation.

George TYURIN: Sorry, I’ll interrupt. It is said in our law not necessarily, but at the discretion of the court, if you remember.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You’re wrong.

George TYURIN: Let’s bring the Code?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Listen to me … When it comes to …

- At the discretion of the court …

- The judge may invite to the court, may not invite…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Read the plenum. Everything is written in the plenum: mandatory…

HOST: Oh, all is very contradictory in the plenum.

MODERATOR: It seems to me, far more important to change the legislation so that children got rid of this before adulthood.

HOST: Of the procedures, yes.

MODERATOR: Alexander Andreyevich, well, let’s all the same …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Nevertheless, the law is the law.

MODERATOR: to the theme with which you came. Which institution do you propose to create?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes, with what …

HOST: You put forward the idea of forming some sort of a special body that will decide with whom children will stay after divorce.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: What is my idea, why thanks again, you invited me. This is such a thing, which has not been discussed yet, in my opinion. And it is an urgent question due to the circumstances I encounter all the time. The fact is that when I spoke about the guardianship, I spoke there about some evidence that the child must come to the court, and so on and so forth. But in reality parents are studied very little. They are virtually … We know about in the court very little. Each party brings its witnesses, these witnesses say some nonsense on the one side and stupidity on the other side. These are witness, who were brought by each of the parties. We do not have today the institute, which would be investigate who are in fact these parents what they have done to date, how they really raising children. Not their witnesses but how they brought up their children. What happened and why divorce occurs, and so on. There is no such institution today. It exists in different countries …

MODERATOR: And how it really could be done, what status should this institution has?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: For example, in the New York State, which I am not very fond of concerning its law, but there is such a New York State. Should the court addresses without having to notify parents a special department, which is called over there – for the Exploration of parents. And…

- Called Exparte.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: What?

- Eksparte.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Oh, here sits a colleague, a collector, he knows everything. The court generally does not say anything to parents, it addresses this body. And this body begins to explore, with detectives with the surveillance, with research how has this happened, why…

HOST: Something else is interesting for me: Here we are talking about creating such a body. What are the reasons… Here, for example, it already exists, surveillance conducted … The history of parents, their relationship were revealed. What grounds are sufficient to make a decision in favor of one or the other parent? Apart from the obvious – such as alcoholism, drug addiction, crime and so on?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You know …

- Wait, Xenia. Another obvious thing. When the father without the consent of the mother steals the child, holds him and not allow the mother to communicate with the child. This is an unconditional basis in many jurisdictions, so that later, in the court decision about with whom the child will live, the decision was made not in favor of the one who did it.

George TYURIN: There is nothing like this in the law – I should explain to all our esteemed viewers.

- It states that the court should take this into account, and in the ruling of the plenum. It is vague in the law, I agree. And in our, in Russian law.

- In general, there is no such.

- No, it says: take into account behavior.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I want to say that the abduction of children is very … A moment of pressure in our country. Mothers steal more often, statistically much more often than fathers. And indeed, there must be some way to fight with this. Another thing is that there arises an insane amount of questions. What to do if children do not want to see one of the parents? You see, you cannot send …

HOST: And what if children are being manipulated, if they are brainwashed?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: That’s what I do not know; give me your option of these words. What is zombie children?

HOST: Well, what does it mean? We have a psychologist who can give comments on this topic, for example.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I do not know what it is. I mean, I do not know. We are not witnessing… He is brainwashed him, or is danced…

HOST: And who is he? I’m talking about the situation in general.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: He- I am talking about the child. About the child. And you’re talking about whom, I’m sorry?

HOST: Well, just understand, I think that …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: No, no, sorry who are you talking about? I’m talking about the child.

- Children are suggestible…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I talk very specifically.

- I guess, Xenia has in mind it’s the same as when Blucher and Tukhachevsky in a week confessed that they were British spies. And it’s much easier with the children…

HOST: Just it is a very difficult situation, if we’ll try…

George TYURIN: All this is present in almost each case.

MODERATOR: If the child is deprived of, say, contact with the mother and say: “Mama do not call you just because she does not love you.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: And if you deny contact with the father?

MODERATOR: Or conversely, does not matter. I show an example.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sure. Look. We never were in this process, yes – making zombie, as you say. Well, maybe you’ve seen. I had not.

HOST: I have seen, yes.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Have seen – it’s wonderful.

HOST: And have heard.

- Well then tell us.

George TYURIN: This is certainly your friend, about which you spoke.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes, probably, yes.

HOST: I think we about this…

- The longer the court decision is suspended…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I was asked the question, let me say … Look …

MODERATOR: I understand that you are Baturin’s advocate, the case you also won?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You’ve asked me a very interesting question.

- Yes, but is this played on the person with whom the child stays, suspending…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I tell you, this is the case. The party that loses, or process, or the court turned to the other side – it should say something nasty about this side. Without fail, humanity is such. Look around…

HOST: Why everybody. Aleksandr Andreevich, not all of humanity is such.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: No, all mankind does not divorce it’s true. And does not deprive children, it is also true. But it’s very annoying to lose. And it is very annoying when your child looks in your eyes and says: Mom, I do not want to live with you.

Advertisement

HOST: This is the program “Freedom of thought”, we continue to talk about with whom should stay children after divorce.

CORRESPONDENT.: Son of Christina Orbakaite, Dani Baisarov made his choice between the mother and father at a large press-conference, surrounded by security guards, journalists, paparazzi and just onlookers. How the parents’ loud divorce will influence upon him and other such children? What can we do to ensure that our children do not become an instrument of revenge on the ruins of the broken family?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: It’s terrible really, for anyone to hear it. Mom, I do not want to live with you. But the party who hears this should say something. It is the same, this side said to Baysarov, also this side, says million times. Well something should be said? And they had nothing to say. Have I answered you?

HOST: Do you mean Dani Baysarov, for example?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sure.

HOST: He said so?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sure. He said absolutely open, of course. I do not want to live with my mother.

HOST: He said to Christina?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sure. I do not want to live with my mother – he said. It was evident…

Elena Mizulina, chairman of the RF State Duma Committee for Family, Women and Children: Xenia, he could not say anything else. Nothing else. Because before he saw his mother, he has long lived only with his father. He could not communicate with his mom,.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Naturally, because his mother did not communicate with the child for ten years.

Elena Mizulina: This is the mentality and psychology of a child. He certainly does not want to offend his father, somewhere, perhaps afraid of father. He is not free. He is not free. As he says such things to his mother.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Let me ask you a question to close this topic now. They have signed … Well I’m somewhere in the course. You are onlookers.

Elena Mizulina: Well, you’ll excuse me …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: No, I do not forgive you. Let me finish.

Elena Mizulina: I did not interrupt you.

HOST: Give the opportunity to say, we’re not interrupting you, please.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I was told, and I want to say at once. Did you know … Did you know …

Elena Mizulina: I know very well.

HOST: Let’s give the opportunity …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I am silent.

Elena Mizulina: I know this trick of attack, aggression. It works very well. Interrupting and crushing in order to consolidate his…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Oh, you are losing and immediately say, this is very human.

Elena Mizulina: And why I lose?

MODERATOR: Let us all go back to the theme …

Elena Mizulina: Wait, Xenia. I have nothing lose, unlike you. I do not earn money …

MODERATOR: Excuse me please, let’s …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Can I say one phrase…

HOST: Yes, you always speak in parallel. Give a person…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Listen, I have such a work – to talk. What for you called me here? To be silent? All right, I’ll be silent.

Elena Mizulina: Neither the father’s nor the mother’s – I defend the right of a child. Any child psychologist will tell you the same.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I do not know. I talk with psychologists every day.

Elena Mizulina: The right of the child – to have both father and mother.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes.

Elena Mizulina: And the possibility of communication.

MODERATOR: We have a psychologist in the studio.

Elena Mizulina: And the possibility of communicating with father and with mother. It is bad when mother does not allow the child to communicate with his father.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Well, thank God.

Elena Mizulina: But just as bad …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: And what we were arguing for twenty minutes?

Elena Mizulina: When the father, especially when the father having money, kidnaps a child …

George TYURIN: Especially when the mother!

Elena Mizulina: Steals child. Also strongly offends and humiliates his mother – and children know this; and does not allow children to communicate with the child.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: That is the mother does not demean the father?

Elena Mizulina: You said that children were crawling over you…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes. My dear, we have decidednot to speak on this subject.

Elena Mizulina: You should wait until they grow up…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You want me to leave, I’ll go. Wait, I asked you …

Elena Mizulina: What will happen to you? I wish you that everything was in order.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sorry. I want to say one thing. Since you are wrong from the beginning to the end, but you are a very nice woman. I’ll tell you. From October …

- Plus the State Duma member.

- Bravo.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Do you want I’ll sing “The Union ironclad.

- There is a right point of view, and there is yours. There is a wrong one, and there is yours.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Listen to me, I know what I mean. I am Ruslan’s friends, I communicate with Denik. In October, in the beginning, on September 29, they signed a peace contract. Q: How many times have mum seen the child after they signed a contract?

Elena Mizulina: In the presence of father?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: No, in general. With the dad, without the dad …

Elena Mizulina: In the presence of father?

George TYURIN: Well, I also know how many times. Let him be silent, but I’ll tell you how many times. But first, you say.

Elena Mizulina: I’ll tell you.

George TYURIN: How many times?

Elena Mizulina: I’ll tell you. If really there was such a possibility to meet with the child at a certain time without the father…

Aleksandr Dobrovinsky: There was, there was!

George TYURIN: You are are trying to avoid the answer as a deputat. Tell me, please how many times?

Elena Mizulina: I’m not avoiding as a deputat. Wait, let me say.

George TYURIN: Then you must say so: I do not know. A person begins to…

Elena Mizulina: Will you give me the opportunity to say?

George TYURIN: She met him once!

Alexander Dobrovinsky: That’s right!

George TYURIN: Correct answer. Where is a million dollars?

- I suggest …

Elena Mizulina: Wait. Xenia, can I still say?

HOST: Alexander…

George TYURIN: I had not finished, Xenia. And right after that, after a meeting with the child on the trail … He spent the night with her, and the next day she has gone on a tour to Israel.

MODERATOR: You give the opportunity to move away from the topic.

HOST: Friends, let me please … Here I am, perhaps a less sympathetic woman, but nevertheless I want to ask a question …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: This is a controversial issue.

HOST: And I beg you not to interrupt me. I think, firstly, that mother in this situation was entitled to this meeting. Another thing, she could not take advantage of it. Also in the case of Viktor Baturin – I hope can we say this – I also, despite the fact that the father took the children and they live in other republics, Jana has the judicial right to visit children. Does she use this right one or not – is another matter. Question, Alexander. To you as an expert, a lawyer. If there is a situation in which …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Man is forgotten.

HOST: The man is not forgotten…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: To the expert, the lawyer the man …

HOST: Alexander, well, no clowning, please.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Why?

HOST: If there is a situation in which a woman, a mother of two children is not allowed during 11 months, regardless of the court …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I do not know what you mean. Sorry. Sorry, darling, we agreed.

HOST: No, wait, I’m talking in general … Well, let’s both. Father …

MODERATOR: Let’s in a different way…

- So I say: a parent. Why do you mention sex at all?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Let me get close.

HOST: I have nothing to look at, Alexander!

HOST: If the father is not allowed, for example …

MODERATOR: A parent!

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Finally.

HOST: To communicate his/her children on the court dicision.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: On the court dicision. So if the court decided …

HOST: By the court. No, I mean that the court gave permission, and the second party fails to comply with the court decision. What …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You know, it is a very difficult question, actually. I’ll tell … Look. If …

Elena Mizulina: Very easy question.

George TYURIN: Yes, indeed easy, I agree.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: The easiness lies in the fact that the child – I have many children – a child, unfortunately, probably, you do not know – is not a wardrobe. Marshals can not come home, tie the child if he does not want.

- And if he does not want to go to school?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I say: to tie a child like this and to say: you know, on the court disision you should be with your father, or with your mother every Wednesday, and so on. And if the baby cries, bites and do not want to, because one of his parents is his enemy – then what to do? A very easy question – answer me, please.

HOST: Excuse me, please, Alexander. And if, before it, how the child knows who is an enemy or not an enemy, the father even physically is barred from the place of residence of the child?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: We are talking about nothing. We are talking about nothing.

HOST: Why? This is a question interesting for many people in our country.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You know …

MODERATOR: Xenia, let me take a concrete case. Alexander Andreyevich, you said that you have many children.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes.

MODERATOR: So you personally, were involved in such a situation that you’d have to divorce. How would you find yourself in this situation, and what would you do with all your children? I understand that it is a hypothetical question, well, just wanted to …

George TYURIN: First, he is divorcing.

- A good question.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I was divorcing, yes.

George TYURIN: He knows how to do it.

Aleksandr Dobrovinsky: No, but I had no children when I divorced. We divided money mostly. It’s much easier.

MODERATOR: You treated it in the same way, with a cool lawyer’s head?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Just me?

MODERATOR: Yeah.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: The elder girl is 27, she lives her full life, I do not even know today, with whom …

- A good dad!

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Because of her love … She sends me SMSes: I met a man my life – I am happy for her. Because the most wonderful thing in life is love.

MODERATOR: Well, 27 that’s okay.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Twenty-seven – left alone, will not saw it. I have a child who will be 17 years old this year, who is studying abroad and who will not come neither to me nor to her mother for technical reasons. Seventeen years old, she is a healthy girl, she will choose her path. And I have a small one, which I absolutely adore, she is 12 years old. Who strenthen our marriage. Because some time ago I had a row with Marina, whom I love, by the way. You know her. I had a row with Marina and left, left for the dacha. The small one came to me, she was eleven years old, and said: Dad …

HOST: Probably she began to crawl on you …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Well, if you think that she had persuaded me by the means of money, then you are mistaken. Yes, she came, she fell to her knees in front of me, I’ll never forget …

HOST: Your stories are very touching.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I have such a life, what to do. And she has strenthened our marriage.

HOST: We will continue about the life of Alexander Dobrovinsky after ads.

Advertisement

MODERATOR: This is still the program “Freedom of thought”. And we would like to tern from discussing Alexander Dobrovinsky’s life to the topic of our program.

CORRESPONDENT: According to statistics, in Russia families with single father amount only one percent of single parent families. After a divorce, a child usually stays with the mother. The exception is when the celebrities divorce. Senior dads fight for the right to raise children, not sparing neither power nor time nor money. Why is Russia in most announced cases, children are got by fathers? The influence of wealthy men, or is this a trend? Can a child make a conscious choice, or the opinion of the younger generation in this case does not matter?

HOST: So, again I would like to ask a question that you did not answer, about what constitutes sufficient reason besides the obvious, to decide with whom will live children after divorce.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I think you need absolutely comprehensive psychological examination of each of the parents, very deep. And not superficial – what is happening today. I think that there should be an institution that draws on the court – even the witnesses and no one else must know – there should be some kind of proprietary information, which the judge gets first, and then it becomes public in the court decision which then could be contested.

HOST: Give an example of such sufficient information, factual.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Let’s say. The mother – is a lady, she is traveling …

HOST: What do you mean by “a lady”?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: A lady – well, the public person. Travels across countries and continents over there, during, say, ten months. A child, say, is six years old. It all is proved very easy. She is a mother. But there is a stay-at-home dad, who does not go anywhere. And in the end he is tired of such life. He sues and says: I’m at home. And the mother – yes, she is the mother, but we see her with … say, with Alik. Mama says: all is lie. And every night …

HOST: She simply says: lie, for example, she gives evidence of that she is in the hometown …

Aleksandr Dobrovinsky: And he says: that’s wrong. He says: that’s wrong. That is not good. Or not enough evidence. Or he cannot prove, she cannot prove – lots of things. There should be a body which itself gatheres this evidence base.

MODERATOR: So he should start to watch the mother?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Not watch but find out at least …

MODERATOR: Well, how?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: It should … It should not be an dependent body. It should be a neutral body, which clarifies, where is the truth? If Dad lied …

MODERATOR: I’d like to understand the mechanisms.

Vladimir Zabrodin, chairman of the movement “Paternal Committee”: What are we talking about, in fact, an idea which we have came to in the new century, is, in general, the institution of divorce. It existed previously, the institution of divorce. And this is a large legal system. It belongs to the institution of marriage. In order to marriage not become “nothing”, there were limits. On marriage and divorce. Whose fault is that it happened?

- The Middle Ages.

Vladimir Zabrodin: Who is a very good parent or a very bad parent. And is the divorce possible, or just it is just oddity? This is a divorce institute. In our country the institution of divorce was eliminated long ago, some…

- And when it existed, tell me, please?

- And how to be, fifty per cent of children born out of marriage? What are the divorce institutions?

Vladimir Zabrodin: In the seventeenth year it was eliminated. Until the 17th year, there was just four hundredths of a percent of divorces. Now more than a hundred in some regions.

- What kind of institution, how it was called? I have not ever heard of it.

Vladimir Zabrodin: Institute of divorce controlled …

- Therefore, we had the seventeenth year… Rubbish. We had the 17th year.

Vladimir Zabrodin: It limited the divorce, it simply blocked these divorces.

HOST: Theoretically …

Vladimir Zabrodin: The Catholic Church has denied divorce in general.

HOST: The more if the expression “catholic church” sounded.

- Rubbish.

HOST: George, you’ll too get a theoretical question. Here, for example, parents get divorced. And both parents have different views on the religious education of children. Well, that is, one parent pulls the child in a strange religious sects, for example, has its own idea about it. Mother, for example, is an atheist, or has some other religion. How to resolve this situation? After all, the moral upbringing of the child – is also a very important component …

- Including religious.

HOST: Including religious, of course.

George TYURIN: Well, actually it’s not a very complicated question. Because if either parent carries the child to a religious sect – and I stress the word “sect” because there is a traditional religion, but there is …

HOST: Well, I reframe the question. I understand that only the lawyers had gathered here, that is, in general …

George TYURIN: That is an offense for which he should be made accountable.

MODERATOR: Let’s remove the word “sect”.

HOST: Religious beliefs of parents. For example, one parent is Muslim, but …

- The second is Jew.

MODERATOR: And the wife is Christian.

- Buddhist.

George TYURIN: If one of the parents – well, this is, of course, the father. Because Muslims only marry a Christian, the contrary is impossible.

HOST: Can be different.

HOST: Let’s not about that.

George TYURIN: These are exceptional cases. So he has not just marry her, but when a Muslim marries a Christian, he with his relatives reformats her in their faith. I forgot what it was called. She also becomes a Muslim. And their children also become Muslims.

HOST: This is again abandoning the answer. Let us give another example.

George TYURIN: This is a direct answer.

HOST: People profess different currents of the same religion, I do not know. Father of the Kabbalist, mother is of Jewish faith.

George TYURIN: As soon as I say, that this issue is not an issue at all, because different currents are religious sects.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: That’s true.

- Why?

- Catholicism is a sect?

George TYURIN: Different currents of religion.

- This are different currents of the Christian religion: Orthodoxy and Catholicism, like this.

George TYURIN: This is not currents.

- We will not see the trees behind the forest.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Can I respond? All is very simple. You ask the simple questions. You say: a sect, or current… About religion, if it is a sect. The sect – is a special thing really. A representative of the church is asked, respected by all. He comes and says: This is a sect, this is not a sect.

HOST: Okay. Two non-sects. Two non-sects.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Buddhist and idolater.

HOST: Good evening.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: So what’s wrong?

HOST: Not what’s wrong. Who decides, and whether it will be a body – we are talking about it.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: The court must decide. The court. With whom is better for a child. Will he beat his forehead into a column and say that I believe, say in Chernomor …

- On what grounds will the court make a decision?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Here’s what we started from.

- We will not see the trees behind the forest, if we ask lawyers all the time. Sorry for God’s sake. Because lawyers are coming into a family when it died.

HOST: What do you suggest?

George TYURIN: This is another amateur’s misconception. Because the lawyer comes when people are just going to … And he gives … And conclude a marriage contract. That’s when the lawyer is needed.

Elena Mizulina: Excuse me please. Here I’ll have to say. I will not criticize again, this is not my manner. Today I am here since the beginning of the performance, I address especially you. And to you too, colleague Dobrovinsky.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I am not a deputy.

Elena Mizulina: As soon as I pronounce some meaningful thesis, or a colleague does, instead of discussing this idea, you’re sticking that you are a deputy – but I’m still Doctor of Law, not a deputy but Doctor of Law. Either you start to impose sexist views. Pretty – not a pretty woman, and misleads. It is not good. I just ask to avoid such things. You put the condition. Please do not discuss, do not cite concerning those children, their families …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes.

Elena Mizulina: Where I have acted as a counsel.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Yes.

Yelena Mizulina: I ask not to personalize: an amateur, a MP, sexism, a nice one. Deal?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Okay.

HOST: You may ask your question, since you have such an opportunity.

- And can I ask a question?

MODERATOR: Yes, ask please.

Victor Ponomarenko, psychologist: I am taking this remark, because I was referring specifically divorce, the divorce process, and nothing else. So, as part of divorce proceedings, indeed, I am an expert on conflict. The lawyer comes there and when the couple decided to divorce. This means that the conflict between them is actually exhausted to a large extent psychologically. That is all that arised on the level of mutual claims at the stage of mutual claims – there, of course, understanding is needed. Because all the conflicts arise from one cause: incompetence. And when my dear Alexander Andreevich began to say that it is necessary to create an institute of a patronage, I do not know the control by society, the state, including in order to make a reasoned court decision – I repeat, including, not exclusively for this. Such a body should exist in my view necessarily. Absolutely.

Advertisement

HOST: This is a program “Freedom of thought”, we continue to talk about with whom should stay children after divorce. And I would like to pledge Viktor Bondarenko. Victor.

Viktor Bondarenko, businessman: I was in the same situation, A child was withdrawn from me. Mom did it. Again, I won here, all the trials, I found the child in another country, the United States of America. So I gave eksparte. The only case in the US-Russian relations, where the child by the decision of the Moscow court was returned to Russia. They took him without his mother and returned here. When I went to the courts, and why all was re-decided… That is the common courts are on the side of women. At 80 per cent. And the guardianship too. George knows.

George TYURIN: Sure, sure.

Victor Bondarenko: But I understood at once when came into this situation. Here I was, there is one side for men, here’s another – for women.

- Yes we are for kids!

Viktor Bondarenko: I have always said in the court: exists the law of Russian Federation, Family Code, Chapter 61. Rights and duties of parents are equal. Nowhere is mentioned mother has blue eyes, and dad has not Aryan eyes, someone has more rights … which religion has more rights. And which sex has more rights – is not specified anywhere. Parents, parents’ rights are equal. Here I would like to insist on this, then no one will take off headphones. Let us speak plainly: the parents. You know, parents. In some countries, incidentally, both parents of the same sex, among other things. Parents. Now Chapter e 61, Chapter 61 …

MODERATOR: Gentlemen!

- Such does not exist.

Viktor Bondarenko: Sometimes, yes, yes. Allow gay families to adopt …

HOST: This is, excuse me, the other program.

MODERATOR: This is another program.

HOST: Or we’ll leave now.

Viktor Bondarenko: Parents not living together, agree on the residence of the child. Had not agreed – determined by the court. And here now is what we should discuss. Parents had not agreed.

HOST: Well, how had you agreed? A specific example.

Viktor Bondarenko: Look, the parents had not agreed. Now, I think, no parent has the right to restrict the other parent from communicating with the child. This should be testimony to the court. That this parent is not acting in the interests of the child. Weather he is masculine or female. If he limited children from communicating, isolate the child from communicating with the other parent it should be… criminal incoterms. I get nervous, I was touched. I was looking for my chid for half a year, I found him in the United States of America. I wanted my child had a father and a mother, and now my child has a father and a mother. Despite the fact that mother is allowed to …

HOST: Victor, tell me, in retaliation for this action you did not deprive the mother …

Viktor Bondarenko: No, vice versa. I believe I am acting in the interests of the child. Moreover, by law I am obliged to act in the interests of the child. And if, I repeat, any parent isolates a child without any decision of the guardianship, a child’s room, if there exists a threat to the psychosomatic health of the child, that parent breaks, usurps the right of a parent. This should be an indication of depriving his parental rights as a minimum. When I took my daughter, she was very lonely, crying for her mother. And of course, the mother is the most dear person for anybody. With rare exceptions. So I told my daughter: daughter, your father fought for you to have Mom and Dad. Your mother will return soon, you will be with your mother as long as you want. If you want to live with mother – live with your mom. I am now … I not agree with Alexander Dobrovinsky that people are taking revenge. Despite the amount of pain and dirt, poured on me, I said: I am acting in the interests of the child. Maybe I would like the mother … was smeared here on the wall…

HOST: Your child does not say thank you, Victor?

Viktor Bondarenko: Today, my child is happy, now the child has a father and a mother. At any moment she can communicate with her father and mother, and from September 1 they will live together, because they have decided so. My daughter phoned me and said: Dad, don’t you mind if I live with my mother an come to you on Saturday and Sunday? I said no. Now I am finishing the house, and you will live with your mother.

HOST: So you understand the feeling of a person who have not seen her child during 11 months.

Viktor Bondarenko: I understand these feelings. I had no mother, my mother died whie I was 12. I understand what is this – no mother. And now I want you to visually imagine all, figuratively. Figuratively, I say to my daughter: daughter, do you have two eyes, two arms, two legs, two kidneys, two parents. If somebody comes to you and says: choose which hand you prefer – he is your enemy. Whoever he was. So I do not want to talk about the names, I do not want. Any parent who has isolated …

HOST: Do you agree with this, Alexander? Do you agree?

Viktor Bondarenko: I’ll finish. Any parent who isolated the children if they are not threatened by anything, their health, and I do not know, sexual health, mental health – any parent taking revenge by means of his child, revenge on his ex-wife or his ex-woman or man. It looks like this. You know, because of your adulter I’ll take an eye of our dog. Because of your adulter, – I’ll deprive our child’s mother. I think these parents … It is necessary to impose criminal penalties. No no need to reinvent the wheel. Why do we want to reinvent the wheel?

HOSTr: Thank you, Victor, we hear you. You agree, Alexander?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Victor said one genius passphrase. In general, I like this man very much. Sorry, we turn to the individual. He said the key phrase: If one parent does not threaten the child’s health, mental component and what else?

Viktor Bondarenko: Psycho-somatic health.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: And if threatened?

HOST: Often this happens in your practice?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: And if threatened, what to do?

- Who defines it?

- The court defines.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: So, to go to court.

HOST: And what is your understanding of the legal term “threaten”?

MODERATOR: This is firstly. And secondly …

HOST: No, it’s important, Alexander, sorry. What is “threat” – what actions specifically?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Look: if there is a threat to health – is it frightening for the child? If one parent said: you scream, you, child, screams, I want to calm you. She takes the child by the collar – and puts him in the icy shower – is that good?

HOST: It’s like juggling …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sorry. The child receives bilateral pneumonia.

- Alexander, this is a weak argument.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sorry, this is one … What do you mean weak?

- This argument is very weak.

HOST: You connect the non-connected … Maybe just a child … she puts the child in the icy shower to make him tempered?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: And if the child would have died?

HOST: No, it is possible only through an independent examination …

They speak simultanouisly

Alexander Dobrovinsky: We came to the matter.

Elena Mizulina: A psychologist must… Not just a psychologist but a child psychologist, child psychiatrist, lawyer, teacher – such a comprehensive examination, and they say: yes, a woman, for example, or a man …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Are not adequate.

Elena Mizulina: Mother or father, use drugs, a person actually depend on them terribly, and this child is incurable, the heroin addiction, it should be in the expert opinion.

HOST: Alexander, let’s retur…

Elena Mizulina: And then the court decides. Not a lawyer, nor father, nor mother.

HOST: If the court found, had already decided…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: What kind of expertise?

HOST: I’m speaking figuratively. If the court decided that one parent has the right of visiting their child.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: One hundred percent.

HOST: And then this decision is not executed.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Again our institution is imperfect.

- Imperfect law.

- The law is imperfect.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: imperfect law.

HOST: And what should a parents do in this situation?

- Nothing.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: And we have gathered for this. Because …

- Maybe more …

- Yes. Go to a lawyer.

Elena Mizulina: Bills …

HOST: Organize a benefit for lawyers, indeed. Here you have suggested this institution, this is the situation, about which Victor talked. It is clear after the trial. Gathering materials for the court to decide something.

- How, after the trial? No, at the time of the trial.

HOST: We collect materials for the court to be something decided. Well, you went to the court, the court turned to your new …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You do not understand. During the trial, yes.

MODERATOR: Here is an institution of which you speak, what to do in these 11 months, what should it do? When one parent does not allow another to communicate?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: In my opinion, this problem is, firstly, should be solved only by the court. Why does not allow, what for does not allow, what is happening. The court must hear this really independent body. The body that would be involved in these cases.

Elena Mizulina: This extrajudicial (illegibly) is called.

Viktor Bondarenko: Xenia, may I insert here my five cents? Here, continuing the analogy, which I’m talking about hands, feet and eyes, nevertheless, Alexander insists that one parent may decide to sell a kidney of his daughter. Do you understand, she has two kidneys? And he may decide. And I say that none of the parents may decide, without having a court decision, or at least a nursery, a Internal Affair division, has no right. In this short period before the trial.

MODERATOR: One of the parents does not allow children to communicate with the other parent before the trial. What should the other do? Where are the instruments where he can apply to the court and the court will quickly respond?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Go to court, naturally, go to court.

Vladimir Zabrodin: They do what they want, the courts, that’s the problem. If the court permits to take the from home just because I wanted to, if the court permits the easy divorce and gives children in almost one hundred percent … Women will never negotiate with men, never.

- Correct.

- Also men.

- Must therefore be punished.

- And for this crime even more. I had such a case…

- Of course, no one will agree. I said so …

HOST: In addition to the courts, there still one last question to the topic of our discussion. You talk about the body that should decide with whom will remain a child after divorce.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: No, it must not decide.

HOST: Well, I just want to take your example to make it easier for us…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: My?

HOST: Yes. We all talk about the very theoretical things. That is, we have given an example that if the mother uses, say, violence, when the child screamed, she shoves him in the icy shower. After all, this one fact can be used on one hand, as you told us that it is a penalty for shouting. And on the other hand, that a boy, say, weak, and he must be tempered. And mom is trying to do the best, to temper the child. And that’s just one fact…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You are asking a question?

HOST: There may be hundreds of these facts…

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Sure. You ask me a question? I can answer.

HOST: How does this body, which you propose to create …

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I can answer.

HOST: Yes.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You know, look. You are absolutely right, I’m a lawyer, not a judge. On the other hand, I am standing on the other side, alwais on some specific side.

HOST: So you could be exactly on the other side and say that it is a fact for the child was tempered?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: The only side where I could not be – is at the place of the shower. And I can be on either side, you understand? So, look. Neither I nor you can determine … You are mom, I am dad – we can not define it. So – I say – there should be professional psychologists, who will evaluate the mother, will evaluate the father. And they shall come and say: You know, dad is mad, she was right when entered him into the icy shower.

- Where is the child at this time?

- In my heart, my soul.

- But-but-but, where is the child at this time?

HOST: It is just the problem. It seems to me that a child is in the shower at this time.

Aleksandr Dobrovinsky: I say, I say that the system is imperfect in our country.

Victor Ponomarenko: Most interesting is that such mechanisms exist in psychology. And the court should force the parents to cooperate with the specialists.

HOST: Okay. Alexander, in the beginning of the program you said that there is a topic on which you do not want to talk. But there are situations in which people have something to tell you. Therefore we have invited Olga Slutsker to our studio.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: You lied to me, darling. I can not …

HOST: You said yourself, you do not care whom to defend we also do not care how to make the program. I think you like a decent man must answer Olga’s questions. Olga, here you can … No, we will not let go now.

Alexander Dobrovinsky: Darling, I promised the children, I can not betray them.

HOST: Wait. Olga, you have …

Olga Slutsker, president of the network of fitness clubs: Why do you run over, by the way?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I promised your kids do not like you, my dear. I can do nothing with it.

Olga Slutsker: Until June 3, until the time when you with your client had separated me from my children, they loved me. Please show please these two people. Catherine Shatalina and Sergey Oleynik. If you read the filth and dirt about me, the lies, which prints the most yellow press, if you read the blogs, all the crap is written …

HOST: Alexander, where are you going, why don’t you want to answer these questions? And I will not let you go. Here is a man who has something to tell you.

MODERATOR: Let’s, let’s oppose a bit, do not go away. Well, we’ll discuss just …

Elena Mizulina: It is so strange generally. A strong advocate, and is afraid of competition. I have a question: colleague, are you afraid of the verbal contest?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I’m not afraid of anything.

Elena Mizulina: Well, why you leave, show your weakness?

Alexander Dobrovinsky: I’ll tell you, I won the court, I have nothing more to say to you, my dear.

Elena Mizulina: Money received. That is, we need to pay you the same amount …

Olga Slutsker: You have committed an immoral act.

- He promised the children …

- Your children – it’s your problem.

HOST: Well, I think it’s a unmaskind deed. No comments.

Advertisement

HOST: This is a program “Freedom of thought”, our guest Olga Slutsker. You heard what has happened.

Olga Slutsker: I partly heard what happened here. I want to say one thing that it is terribly hard for me to come to television, I’m terribly hard to say to the press about what is happening to me. But I do it. First, for my children, I do not known, weather they will see me or not, always know that their mother was fighting for them. That their mother was lied about. That unscrupulous lawyers, using inhumane methods, absolutely monstrous, sadistic methods, unscrupulous PR people, deprived them of their mother. Mother, who for ten Misha’s years and Anya’s six years, were the main people of her life, that all of myself and my entire life and all my love, energy, I gave to my children. Earlier, you know now, we all read the books about Stalin’s camps, about separation, how children were taken and said that their parents are enemies of the nation, and they even believed. But do you understand, what I am going through now. I am going through myself. I am going through it. I know what is separation, when people are healthy, when it would seem, no war, when nothing prevents to be happy. Yes, divorce is bad, yes, divorce is hard. But children should not suffer in any case, they should have dad and mom. Listen, we do not hide the fact that we all are familiar. I have visited Sasha, his daughter, with my children, repeatedly.

HOST: I saw you many times …

Olga Slutsker: You were at my home…

MODERATOR: On the contrary, we are proud that we all know each other.

Olga Slutsker: It was a typical life of an ordinary mother. A working mom. Normal children. Loving each other. A normal dad, very busy. Who could not devote much time to children, to go with them on holidays, it was far away for him, or he was busy. And basically this whole divorce … I had planned that this will be a difficult time for us, that we, the parents have to leave out our grievances, our emotions for the sake of two children. If Dobrovinsky is such a strong advocate why should he deny after eleven months of separation… He spoke here about the in-depth psychological examination… How many times have we filed these petitions – here sits my lawyer – many times. The dead Geralina Lyubarskaya – how he was talking to her.

- The court rejected?

Olga Slutsker: Repeatedly.

- How could you lose the case in such situation?

MODERATOR: Elena, you are LL.D., MP.

Elena Mizulina: Yes.

MODERATOR: It is striking. Why can’t you do anything as an MP?

Elena Mizulina: I introduced three bills, very interesting feedback. And some fathers’ Association of Russia, which we can not find anywhere now. Which has flooded with blueprint identical letters containing statement that I allegedly violating the constitution, I propose a bill that makes …

MODERATOR: In this particular case, in this case.

Elena Mizulina: In this particular case. Look at the situation. I can not directly intervene the court actions. I have not seen the case materials, so any self-respecting lawyer would not comment on the specific situation, not knowing the facts of the case. But it is obvious for me, acording to the current law, that the court is not obliged to take into account the views of a child, even reached the age of eleven. It may even not to get him to the hearing. Moreover, interrogation of the child … Not interrogation, I’m wrong.

- Survey.

Elena Mizulina: Survey of the child performed by specialists in the absence of relatives, nurces. That is nobody could influence the opinion of the child. And even under this condition, the court is not obliged to take this opinion into account. The court in such a dispute, of course, was obliged to grant a petition for a comprehensive examination of the parents, and with respect to the child. The court must take into account the situation that, without the consent of the mother.

MODERATOR: Excuse me please …

Elena Mizulina: Well, you know, for me it is a big question, I said about it at the very beginning, why the court did not do this? I can not as a MP say to the court: Why you did not do this? I myself, myself ten years ago, was the author of the amendment to the law that deputies could not contact either the courts, nor any instances, and to influence judicial decisions. I think this is correct. Because they pressed, used as a political tool …

MODERATOR: Another period. Here are eleven months, when before the court …

Elena Mizulina: I as an MP can make a legislative initiative. I did it.

HOST: You will understand, now we even wants to talk about something else. I know this is a very painful issue. Alexander Dobrovinsky said that your children do not like you. I can’t imagine in a terrible dream, what should you experience now… When … But do you believe that this could be?

Viktor Bondarenko: Well, first of all, it does not matter.

- I want to say you that he on the 30th of …

- May I put a question?

Olga Slutsker: Can I resume? Please, will you?

- Well finish.

Olga Slutsker: And what do you time? You have already expressed everything. In the paper “Your Day”, “Life,” “Life.ru”.

- Then stop talking.

- It’s Vladimir Slutsker’s aides.

Olga Slutsker: Spokeswoman Catherine Shatalina and Sergey Oleynik – those people who carried out this action, apparently of the global denigration, do you understand. On the 30-th, let me finish. What I heard in the court. And Anya, my daughter, which had not get off my arms, with whom, you know … This girl, of course, small. Mishka is older and a he is boy. The girl – she always is closer to the mother. So, on the 30rd of November, I prayed, I say, please, please, allow me to congratulate my daughter on her birthday. Dobrovinsky said: are you sure that you will hear what you want to hear? I say, moreover, I’m sure I probably will not hear what I would like to hear. But it is important to me that my child knew that I love her, and heard my voice. And heard that I congratulate her on her birthday. He joins us in the courtroom by the speakerphone. We call. I say: Anya! She: Mom! Hi, Mom. I say: Anya, my love, my kitten … – Well, as the mother talks to her daughter. She: What are you doing? I say: So I’m calling you, I want to congratulate you on your birthday. And the girl said to me: Mom, I hate you. Die, die quickly. That’s what I heard from the lips of a six-year old daughter. And there is a sound recording. I do not feel ashamed.

- We see that you do not feel ashamed.

- You tried to take child abroad on a false passport.

Olga Slutsker: This is not true.

HOST: Listen, here we do not want in this program to discuss the details …

- Lord, forgive me … Your producer did not want to let us to this program. He said that we can not order a pass for you. And Dobrovinsky was forced to bring us here in the car.

Olga Slutsker: Because you are two unscrupulous …

- The truth will reveal. Because you’re lying, but we are not allowed.

Sergei Oleinik, social assistant of Senator Vladimir Slutsker: Olga, why your husband was not allowed to the program of Malakhov? When Vladimir Slutzker asked to come and wanted to speak …

Olga Slutsker: This is untrue.

Sergey Oleynik: He was not allowed. We have recorded a conversation with the producer, why are you lying?

HOST: We invited Vladimir Slutsker, we invited Alexander Dobrovinsky, you saw the reaction. We gave the opportunity to respond.

Sergey Oleynik: Yes, but Sasha, as you know perfectly well, he was not ready to come until the last moment. Because when we wanted to come, we were not allowed.

HOST: No, not so. But because these empty chairs stood here just because Alexander Dobrovinsky gave us the conditions that there will not be anyone from Olga Slutsker.

Sergey Oleynik: Can I ask a question? A false passports was made, which was recorded by the Federal Migration Service (FMS). Olga spoke on this subject with one leader of the FMS there is an official document. Let me finish.

- There I had a situation …

Viktor Bondarenko: Can I answer you, I had such a situation. I knew I was threatened: you will never see your child. And even if Olga now, and it would be better, most likely, I believe you. That she was afraid, and made a passport. But I am a man, and I would not begine … I always say: If someone raped my sister, I do not have to rape his son. Even if she was afraid as a woman and made a second passport – she was afraid of this situation … I believe you, she made a second passport. As a woman, knowing that she is weaker, knowing that a person has integrity …

- But what abouit the second passport?

Viktor Bondarenko: Yes, there is.

HOST: Excuse me, please. One second, one second, please…

Victor Bondarenko: I would not deny my children the mother, that’s what I’m saying.

HOST: Victor, just a second. Here I am looking at the whole situation like a young girl who has no family, no children. And I understand that if it could happen to someone like Olga Slutsker, it can happen with anyone.

- With anyone.

HOST: I will honestly say, it is just terrible to give birth after all this. Can I ask you a question. This all slightly reminds such surreal bad movie. I have visited Olga Slutsker’s home many times. I saw Misha, I saw Anna, I saw their family. I saw how they communicate with Olya, I saw how they communicate with Volodya. It was a normal family, with good children, who love mother, love father. Family table, wonderful children, love, Mom, Dad. How could one explain me, a person who saw all this with my own eyes – how within 11 months one could create a situation in which children say: We do not want to see my mother, we hate her, we want you, my mother die. Really? I can not keep it in mind.

Advertisement

HOST: This is a program “Freedom of thought”, we continue to talk about with whom should stay children after divorce.

Sergey Oleynik: Very simple question to Olga Sergeevna. How many times during eleven months have you asked your husband, – on the phone, not in the court and not in the cameras, to see the children? How many times you have phoned him and said …

Olga Slutsker: Countless times.

Sergey Oleynik: How many?

Olga Slutsker: Countless …

HOST: Let us call now. Let us call now.

MODERATOR: Can I ask a question, while Olga Sergeevna dials the phone? As Victor said, maybe we can belive you in something. I cannot understand only one thing: you can measure with adults, not with children? Now you zealously attacking Olga. But what about kids?

HOST: How to switch on speakerphone?

Olga Slutsker: Hello? He hangs up.

MODERATOR: Maybe we can make a call from another phone. Let’s just try. Here is a phone for you.

- Yes, they do not know my phone number.

- While there is a dial-up, can I answer your question as a psychologist?

Olga Slutsker: He does not answer.

HOST: Has turned off the phone? And so it happens during the year?

- Why? Other can dial on this phone. This is not a special phone number which …

- Guys, please … This is such a cynicism …

MODERATOR: Dial from yours, please.

Olga Slutsker: This is such a horror.

- Why not to say honestly, it is disgusting. Tell me honestly, I will not give, because we have the toothless law. Even if you deprive parental rights.

- No, it does not establish liability.

Olga Slutsker: Well, so long to switch on, or we will send an sms? And please give me the phone …

Sergey Oleynik: Well look, Have I dialed anything? Look have I tiped an sms?

HOST: Vladimir Slutsker sends an sms like: “Have you leaked?” This here is that there … Hello?

Olga Slutsker: Hello? Volodya, hello? Hello! Finish. Kirdyk.

Sergey Oleynik: Well, let’s not distort. We know perfectly that this is a performance that Olga will be here, she would call …

HOST: And so Vladimir wrote “Have you leaked?”

- What was the question? Question …

Sergey Oleynik: Can I just clarify once again, this sarcasm is not relevant.

Olga Slutsker: Wait a second? Regarding …

- Sorry, you have not answered my question. What about Kids?

- Children are not engaged. Can I answer your question?

- Yes, please.

Sergey Oleynik: Last week, specially after the court decision we invited, because we knew that high activity on the other hand will occur, the reaction to this, we invited a completely independent person. We have invited a very distinguished journalist of the “Komsomolskaya Pravda”. With a video camera, with photo.

Olga Slutsker: Horror. How can you so … Why are you making fun of both of my children?

- You can verify that we had never communicated. We called the chief editor.

Olga Slutsker: You perfectly communicate only with the sales department of “Komsomolskaya Pravda”.

- But let’s experiment, take here these childrent for 11 months, and then reporters from Komsomolskaya Pravda. And check, changes …

HOST: You know, I think, the keyword that all this really looks like a bad experiment on children.

Olga Slutsker: What we hear is horror. These are two devils, a nightmare.

HOST: Friends, I would like to ask …

Victor Ponomarenko: At the war nothing could be find out. There are no right persons at the war, you know? That now we are discussing the war. Let’s talk about that … Wait, I have listened the whole performance. Listen to me.

- Correct, too.

Victor Ponomarenko: The fact that my heart was cut very sharply, and I think that all too, when Olga said: I was. I was a mother for them, I did …

Olga Slutsker: Yes, I was.

Victor Ponomarenko: Do not do it in the past. You are, you will.

Olga Slutsker: They have deprived me of this …

Victor Ponomarenko: And nobody said that to raise children – it is to bend constantly over their cradle. We brings children up not talking, but acting. And if this woman, as well as, however, her husband would cooperate – I stress – to work in cooperation, though may be, hating each other, but each in his/her incarnation, will show their children what is to become decent people – then they execute their parental duty. If this does not happen, then there is no sense at all to discuss something here.

- And they will not cooperate.

Victor Ponomarenko: This is untrue. They will cooperate. Collaborate – it does not mean to merge in ecstasy.

HOST: Well, my friends, let’s … We have people that have not spoken yet. Well, let’s have respect for …

MODERATOR: Svetlana, please …

HOST: Svetlana, you were in the court …

Svetlana Bondarchuk, Editor in Chief, “Hello!”: I was in the court. I know Olga during 20 years. Probably, among the present people I know her the for the longest time, except her parents. I … I know Volodya as well. Strictly speaking, too, all those twenty years. And everything that is happening looks like an absolute surrealizm for me. And I want to pinch myself and wake up. And to say that this is a terrible dream. I actually broke into the court. I was not in the court, they rejected me as a witness, said that … what can say this glamorous lady? OK. Well, at least if I attended this home during 20 years, I saw which way have passed two parents in order to grow up Anya and Misha, were they born. I saw it all. I came there only by a trick, with the help of Olga’s lawyers, because I wanted to insist on a psychological examination. Because I knew that this is emotion. I love Olga, I love her children. In principle my attitude to Vladimir was normal , even good before this situation. But I do not see Vladimir now. I saw a completely insane person, who through their children, through common children tries to take revenge on Olga. It’s terrible. Revenge on grandparents. I can not imagine … Here I look at the girl, which really vehemently defended her position. And I fear for you. Because you have children or children will be born. I look at this man. And I know why I’m here. I know why I’m here. But I also know why you’re here, and this is the worst. Only money. When I was at the court … You know the bad series? These cheapest. When you look, and we all look, and we say: well, it can’t happen. That’s what they now create a situation … It can’t happen.

HOST: Svetlana, in the first part of our program Alexander said so much that all issues should be settled at the courts. He cited …

MODERATOR: Alexander Andreyevich.

Moderator: Alexander Dobrovinsky, yes. What issues should be settled at the courts. Cited some facts, said that we need a body that will decide with whom will stay children after divorce. Gave an example: Here’s a cold shower, mother abroad …

Svetlana Bondarchuk: May I just say? I also tempered my son with the cold shower. I do not know whether Olga tempered…

Olga Slutsker: Never in my life.

Svetlana Bondarchuk: I tempered. Should I be deprived maternity? Well, deprive me maternity. I tempered. I work. I attend high society.

- Are you traveling.

Svetlana Bondarchuk: I travel with and without children. I need for to be deprived maternity, tell me? Girls who go to a restaurant with a girlfriend? Well, someone goes? To the cafe? Everybody goes? It is necessary to deprive them maternity. I thought: Well, since I was so, I can not now stand up and say some words about Olga, just warm, human. Because it is really a fantastic mother. You do not understand what sort of mother. She uprised … Here we have a company of moms who also have children – she has brought up these mothers and taught mothers to go for holidays with children, to organize festivals for children. I say this not because Olya is my friend – because she taught me what to do.

MODERATOR: Well we know each other for many years.

Svetlana Bondarchuk: Well, we know it’s just chaos. I’m looking at you, you have emptiness, and you have an endless smile. Why are you so happy, girl, I have no idea.

HOST: Sveta, look. That’s what we’re talking about, it’s still emotions. We want to understand, a huge audience is looking at us.

- She is glad that two children have no mother, and she rejoices.

HOST: And we want to understand what can be charged with an adequate, healthy, athletic, working man …

Svetlana Bondarchuk: And a woman, a haelthy women.

HOST: What kind of claim, what charges …

Svetlana Bondarchuk: Well, I can say …

Olga Slutsker: Maybe my lawyer will say?

Sergei Popov, Olga Slutsker’s lawyer: No charges against Olga Sergeevna, and those will not be in the decision. And there is no problem that Olga is a bad mother. The court has not found that Olga is a bad mother. And the decision…

- Are have you received the decision?

Sergei Popov: Not only we have not got the decision, it is not prepared yet. And first of all, I would like to correct, the decision …

HOST: Vladimir tried to prove in the court that Olga is a bad mother?

Sergei Popov: Certainly. Of course, he tried to prove it. The key word concerning Olga Sergeevna, which actually took place in court and they tried to confirm this characteristic that Olga is a exacting mother. Well, she really is an exacting mother. Misha’s day was scheduled by minutes, until June 3, he went in for sports, he studied at school, he had a lot of extra classes. After Olga Sergeevna was separated from children, he was transferred for the so-called at-home education. And in fact he sits at home and playing video games. And the court, having invited and heared more than a dozen witnesses, and here you talk about it in general, convinced that she is a really excellent mom, she arranged children’s parties. Moreover, all the previous ten years, she hold the children. I’ve listened to what you said here, we are not naive people. Well, even now, this is the story with the phone call suggests that we all have not lost the ability to believe in miracles, including, perhaps, in justice, too. We need to believe it. Nevertheless, at the same time, what will be … The decision, incidentally, should enter into force. it will be appealed …

MODERATOR: Was it announced?

Sergei Popov: Certainly, (illegibly) partly…

Moderator: Olga has the right to see her children?

Sergei Popov: Well, of course no. First, now we concidered only a question of determining the domicile of children. It is necessary now to define the order of communication between the parent living separately. Therefore, certainly, this situation, it is necessary to understand, it is really terrible. Now I will tell about it separately. All the same how that decision which for today has not entered into force yet, and we will use the best efforts, for it has not enter into force, and it will be returned, most likely, in the first instance just because examination has not been conducted. But how it could be accepted? This technology, it has been developed for a year before the claim was brought by Vladimir Iosifovich. That is, certainly, when you, Xenia were frightened and told: what have we to do now, and what have I to do now, – live easy. Actually it is necessary to possess enough large resource to realise such technologies.

HOST: One should not marry people who have power?

Sergei Popov: Most moms in this country certainly can live peacefully. Of course, in order to implement such a scheme …

HOST: “And the money” – added Viktor Bondarenko with pleasure .

Sergei Popov: Lawyers on the other side did not play a decisive role, the lowyers art was not claimed here. But good lawyers are also needed, they should frame this situation. Because any decision, even something like this,  surely must be at least minimally furnished. Although in this situation …

HOST: And what is the decision? Can you give an exact wording?

Olga Slutsker: now he will tell …

Sergei Popov: Misha and Anna – their place of residence is defined with the father. This is a decision.

- The order of visits yet …

Sergei Popov: This question has not been discussed. It was not stated. So, how? In a very simple way. To … While the mom is wonderful, takes care of children alone, – how the court can take a decision against the mother? Hence, only one combination of two steps. First: to rely on the fact that at the child’s survey child who has is ten years old, said: I want to live with Dad. Well, again, most parents are probably aware that during eleven months the desired response from the child could be achieved, with the participation of psychologists, – I think so… Well, I do not know if someone need explanations, that it is not only …

HOST: But are there facts that psychologists worked with the child?

Sergei Popov: It’s not a fact, that it is true. That is, there are the dates of psychologists’ conclusions …

George TYURIN: If you do not have the facts, then it is not so! Sorry, colleague. Fact is fact, and so it is – is so it is.

Sergei Popov: So the dates of the conclusions are known. During the period from June 3 until the decision four conclusion of the psychologist, of which I tell you, they are in the case.

Olga Slutsker: Olga Bulanova, which … I am not ashamed, this is not just a psychologist, she is director of the State Psychological Support Centre, you know? Here, the State participates everywhere, and Vladimir – a member of the Federation Council, you know?

Advertisement

HOST: This is a program “Freedom of thought”, our guest Olga Slutsker, we continue to discuss very sensitive and painful topic of “Children after divorce”.

MODERATOR: I’d like now to pledge word to Olga’s Sergeyevna father. You sit down, please …

- No …

Olga Slutsker: Dad, sit down.

Sergei Berezovsky, the father of Olga Slutsker: One of those present here said well that there is a war. Only the shells in this war  – are the hearts of our grandchildren. They elicit the role. I would like to respond to Elena Borisovna, who with natural for a lawyer with the highest qualification surprise and indignation asked why the forensic psychological examination was not initiated? The answer is simple: because the judge understood perfectly that if such an examination has been initiated, then the decision that she made she could not make at all. So they walked the path of least resistance: No, that’s all. You know, the scheme during twelve or eleven months was the same. Some time ago the guard, well, observed the kind of visibility, decor. Now they are apparently tired of all this show …

HOST: Politesse.

Sergei Berezovsky: Yes, all this politesse, when our with my wife voices are already known. As soon as the bell rings – please call Misha or Anya – the break. I will then demonstrate it. You see, unlike the Olga’s position, we are now legally legitimate. We have in our hands the commission’s decision on custody of the Horoshevski district, which has obliged Slutsker provide us with visits with grandchildren.

Olga Slutsker: Dad, tell them how we fought for it, during six months.

Sergei Berezovsky: We fought, it was really a war. But when he was asked by the commission, does he object against this or not, what could the Senator answer? Family as correctly said here Elena, is a very holey law, this law is outdated in many respects. But just this part is written very clearly. Grandpa and Grandma are entitled to visits unlimited times, regardless of marital relations. The senator could not say “no.” He said “yes.” And, even hypocritically added: grandparents – is sacred. And now I’ll tell you how it is transformed into a real life. On the day appointed to us by the commission, I and my wife, hung with gifts, dreaming after nine months, when we have neither seen, nor heard our grandchildren, approached the house. I hold in my hand, knowing the habits of the inhabitants of this house, I hold a solution, my wife stands with gifts. I come to the six meters height fence, over which no bird can fly and say: hello, we have the commission’s decision, here is it. We came to see our grandchildren. Dear voice of a guard said: “Just a moment”. It was on the 13th of December. This Just-a-moment lasts until now. We have stood at twenty below, my wife was after a stroke. Like dogs … They did not even bother to invent some sort of notion to hide behind the fig leaf of some respekt … When Olga after this incident when we were not allowed to get in somewhere told him in the court: Look, do with me what you want, have pity on the parents. What do you do, there is the commission’s decision – on what Slutsker said: so let the court confirmed that it is its own decision. So he said yes, he will not allow. Let the court … I do not know what he wants. That the court will say that he answered correctly, or that the court somehow legitimize him – I do not know what he wants. The court. He wants the trial. And I am sure thatwhatever was the court decision – we still will not see the children.

HOST: So you have never seen…

Sergei Berezovsky: We have not. Only two, two times, we talked to children during these months. And now about Misha’s so-called survey. Everyone knows people come to the court through the front door, designed for it. But in this case, Slutsker arranged, probably with the head of the guard that Misha was brought to the court as a detainee. Hence, the gate, which enters the so-called vehicle with prisoners – is a type of gateway. There enters, gate closes, and then by the special stairs, where the killers, robbers, thieves goes, comes this little boy, our favorite, and around four-two-meters height persons … with all the trinkets, handcuffs, a stick, a portable radio … Four bailiffs. His is lead to the hall. I asked to take this panorama. I do not know it weather it turned good… The Hall of the court, doors …

HOST: We’ll now show just.

Sergei Berezovsky: The doors to other court halls, certainly no one presents, no someone is coming… And there are three of four gloomy figures near our hall…

HOST: Excuse me for interrupting you, we just have a record.

Sergei Berezovsky: Here!

HOST: Olga, I would like you to comment on.

Sergei Berezovsky: He cried out, among other things …

Olga Slutsker: Misha, I love you very much, I … how are you, how is Anya … And he says: Mama, do not puzzle me, do not puzzle me, I have to answer questions now. Do not puzzle me. When he went out, he was such apparently nervous, for two hours … Imagine a little boy was asked about something for two hours in the court behind closed doors. We are also were not allowed to come in. I do not know what for you hate me so much, Catherine, for instance, or Sergei. I’m not your friend at all, never had seen you at my home, nothing wrong did against you personally. Why? Here you write something, you know, you want… But you are talking about this alleged psychiatric examination, which, of course, was not asks, never in my life. Why? Of course, to give it to a little boy to read. For he thought that his mother wants to throw him somewhere in some hospital. That’s all … And in the court Volodya himself and counsel Dobrovinsky, they said that he surfs Internet, he reads all this. You know, I’m so sorry for my parents … My mum is 77 years old, my dad is 80 years old. They … We lived … My dad is a lawyer. All his life he taught me to respect the law. And I had not breached even for a second any letter of the law, no one.

Sergey Oleynik: Can I first,… present myself. Because Olga Sergeevna says, that’s Sergei Oleynik, Sergey Oleynik. And in my opinion, deliberately did not mention why I get involved in this case.

Olga Slutsker: Why, you are the head of the press service of my spouse … former husband.

Sergey Oleynik: I know your husband far before than you know him, we are sixteen-years friends. The life brought us together, divergented.

Olga Slutsker: Tell me please, why …

Sergey Oleynik: And in this case I am supporting as well as your friends, I help my friend.

HOST: Don’t you want now to know about your children? This man can now tell you about them.

Olga Slutsker: He said that my children hate me. He says this through the press. You are the chief of the press-service or not?

Sergey Oleynik: No.

Olga Slutsker: What is your work for Vladimir Iosifovich?

Sergey Oleynik: Nothing.

Olga Slutsker: Why were you in the court every day?

Sergey Oleynik: Because. Why were your friends in the court?

Olga Slutsker: They testified. Why did not you come to testify for your friend? You were in our house when I lived there, you were our guest. You met with us the New Years …

Sergey Oleynik: I want to answer the question you asked me. About children. Yes, the last nine months, I constantly came to the house.

Olga Slutsker: And why did not you come before?

Sergey Oleynik: And because before I’m telling you that the life brought us together, divergented us … Wait, what can I say?

Olga Slutsker: Dad, you can …

MODERATOR: About Children.

Sergey Oleynik: About children, yes. As I say, the last time I very often visited Volodya’s house. Just do not over eleven months, but somewhere in a month or two, if I’m not mistaken, it was probably the month of July, maybe August. I just want to be accurate, because I want to operate on facts. I came to Volodya, we were sitting and dranking tea. And he told me the story. More precisely, it happened in my presence, what to talk about. Somewhere, probably half-past eleven Misha comes down. He rushes to Volodya’s neck, begins to cry, said: Dad, Mom will not really take me with her? Answering Volodya says that’s something that was demanded here: Misha …

- Nonsense …

Sergey Oleynik: Why nonsense? Why do you believe them, but I not me?

- Because I know …

HOST: Let’s let the man to finish.

Sergey Oleynik: Volodya said something very true. He says: Michael, you will live with whom you want. No one will take you by force. That is … Well, I do not know …

Olga Slutsker: A witness at the trial Sergeeva Alexandra Alexandrovna, the nurse, told the same story, she signed, she told how it happened. You have not figured there as tea drinker at all. And she said that she told him: Misha, you’re not a suitcase to take you, we’re not going to give you to anyone. Witness Sergeyeva said so at the trial.

Sergey Oleynik: But it was true?

Olga Slutsker: Just a moment. But your … This is terrible. Don’t you see the nightmare … Why does a child …

Sergey Oleynik: Not in 11 months, but in two. The child is 11 years old. What do you think, is it possible in two months to inspire a child that he is afraid of his own …

Victor Ponomarenko: Of course you can inspire him. But I would not want here to participate in the role of a man who so you know, when someone said a phrase and I came at the right moment and said: Of course you can. Or: you can not. But I will say nonetheless. Two women came to King Solomon with one child. And they told him, it is well known. I am his mother, the other said: No, I am his mother. Then Solomon said: either you will now settle who is his mother, or I’ll cut this baby in half, and each will receive a piece.

Olga Slutsker: And what do you propose me as a mother? To dismiss?

Victor Ponomarenko: The question is not with whom children will stay, but – whom should children become. Children must stay mentally healthy. And not to become socially handicapped by the parents’ litigation. This is the first. The second.

- What is the practical advice?

Olga Slutsker: Give me advice.

Victor PONOMARENKO: The second. If you now abandon this legal … This is my … I am not a lawyer, I’m talking about what you asked me as a psychologist. If now to abandon the litigation, in public, perhaps, perhaps, in private some manner intimately – but abandon and allow the children to see what happens to you, Olga Sergeevna, what happens to your husband, what is going on. .. these These children pass through me. I see, when there is no mother near the daughter, simply because the mother forced to earn a living in another city. It’s a girl, all her neighbors say: Where is your mother, she is not a mother, she left you, she threw you to your grandmother, you vegetate – she hears all this. But she draws the album dedicated to her mother, she creates a virtual museum of her mother and praying for her mother. Because, once again I repeat, we bring up children without bending over them and not inspiring them any … But by our actions.

Olga Slutsker: But can this mother call her?

Victor Ponomarenko: Olga, do not lose dignity. Do not lose your social status. Develop your  individuality. Live that life of the proud, which we all know. Allow us to be proud of you. Allow your children first. And you will see: in a few years, when no one: neither headphones nor any rumors …

HOST: Tell me please, can one continue to live a proud life without seeing her children during three years?

Sergei Berezovsky: And what should do those who do not have several years?

Sergei Popov: Sergey Vladimirovich, just a moment. For eleven months Olga is unable to express herself as a mother in any aspect, unfortunately. But there was a time she really had a choice, just like in the parable, which you said. Indeed, when the court came to the question of whether to interview Misha within three days in the court or no, Olga Sergeevna sobbed, literally sobbed and said: “I do not want Misha to pass through it. I refuse, I refuse my claim. And she would refuse her claim. But I, and Ruslan – all in one voice said to her: it is impossible. But why? Alexander Andreyevich, a perfect lawyer, was present here. He said: I won this case. In disputes about children’s uprising there are no winners or losers, they simply do not exist in these disputes. So, we banned her to do it, although she was ready to do this, only for one simple reason. If Vladimir Iosifovich is doing what he is doing during eleven months, it will continue on. We do not have those two years, we do not have those three years. Every day that Misha lives in those conditions in which he now lives – is a crime. It is a crime against children.

Advertisement

HOST: This is a program “Freedom of thought”, we continue to talk about with whom should stay children after divorce.

MODERATOR: Vladimir Iosifovich said that children can live with those with whom he decides, yes?

Sergey Oleynik: Yes.

MODERATOR: What’s the problem? Why did not allow the mother to see the children? What is the problem here?

Sergey Oleynik: I will say very easy. When an independent journalist from “Komsomolskaya Pravda” came to the children, she told me such a thing. Excuse me, I will not use arguments, I have arguments, I want to ask them, but purely emotional. First, she looked at the children, that children are happy – but it is possible to believe – not to believe. She said: why the mother could not break through to children during 11 months? Children went to the city, they were on the morning performances, went to friends whom Olga knows …

HOST: So you want to say that Olga simply did not want to see them?

Sergey Oleynik: I will explain this version. Why Olga came to the children with a camera, when Vladimir Iosifovif attended, for example, the President’s Message …

Olga Slutsker: Wrong. I came to congratulate children with the birthday.

Sergey Oleynik: What birthday? I’m talking about the specific case.

HOST: And I understand why. It seems to me, I do not know, weather I’m right or not …

Olga Slutsker: Because I’m afraid they’re lying all the time.

Sergey Oleynik: When there is no husband, why? Tell.

HOST: I’ll explain. Now you even being his representative, saying that there was an opportunity to come to the kindergarten. To the school, to and fro.

Olga Slutsker: Here, look.

HOST: Yes, what is happening on the screen?

Olga Slutsker: How can I break?

Sergei Berezovsky: Here we were at this very gate.

Olga Slutsker: And I am taking, because I am lied from head to toe. My lawyers tell me: take everything, fix everything. I never in a life, guies…

HOST: And what occurs on the screen?

Olga Slutsker: I came to wish happy birthday to Misha. I wished to handle him. I did not dream any more that he can see me. But it was important for me that he saw, that mum has transferred him a gift. For example, they say, that Misha does not wish to see me. Well. He tries, and Misha does not wish to see me. But it is possible to open a door, to take a gift and to transfer: here mum transfers you a gift, happy birthday. When I came to Anna’s birthday, they have advanced a post in the beginning of the country road. Here such a car blinked. We have stopped, the security guard comes, who are you, what is your name. I sayed: I am Olga Sergeevna Slutsker, I come to congratulate my daughter with six years birthday or transfer gifts to her. They said: you are not present in the list of the invited guests.

- Let me to answer this question in essence…

HOST: Just a moment. Olga, here it would be desirable after all these stories, everything, what we have heard, to understand, how do you think, what for your ex-husband revenges you?

Olga Slutsker: For my wish for divorce. And I think these thing that occurs with me now, with my parents, with all of us, explains in many respects, if not entirely why I have wished divorce.

George TYURIN: you know, everything, that you said, – you told a lot, – said terrible things. But for some reason many things do not coincide with the facts.

Olga Slutsker: For example?

George TYURIN: For example, you now say: I have wanted divorce. And it appears the claim about divorce was submitted by Slutsker.

Olga Slutsker: But let the lawyer to speak?

HOST: All right, it is a good question. Wait.

George TYURIN: The lawyer can say everything. But you sais one thing, and the fact contradicts.

HOST: George, this is a good question. Now Ruslan will answer you.

- Let Olga answer. Let her speak at last.

Olga Slutsker: The matter is that when I thought for a long time… I went to it for many years. It happened not in one day.

HOST: As much as I understand a question is why the claim was submitted by Vladimir?

Olga Slutsker: When I came and dared at this conversation with Vladimir, in September, 2008. And we have talked for a long time and it seemed to me, very well. And I have arrived to children’s home, and I have told, that I have told Vladimir, that I want divorce. He has asked me not to say anybody about it, because for that moment he was at law in Presnensky and in Tverskoi courts. He has told, that his ill-wishers, enemies, political opponents, can take advantage of it. He has asked to wait for four-five months.

George TYURIN: I understand. And be so kind…

Olga Slutsker: Here. And during four-five months he…

George TYURIN: I have already understood. You have already answered.

Olga Slutsker: He waited for four-five months… Has generated false tewstimonies, false certificates, and submitted the claim unexpectedly. Besides he has told me as follows. He has told me: I put you before a choice. Or you now sign agreement of lawsuit: children stay with me, this large house is mine then I will not touch you. If you refuse, you have all the same lost the children, all the same you will lose the house, I promise you. I will transform you, he has told, – in a decay and ashes.

MODERATOR: Dear lawyers! The situation is very clear. The court has decided, that children should live with their father since today. I have a very simple question. Now, you probably, will be engaged in what is the order of mother’s communication with children.

- No, we we will tell you, what will be tomorrow.

MODERATOR: Just a moment. I wish to ask, what will happen all this time?

Ruslan Koblev: I know.

M: Please. Olga Sergeevna still will not be…

Ruslan Koblev, Olga Slutsker’s lawyer: I will tell you, what will be tomorrow. Easily. Let us quickly, in essence, within a minute. This operation, – I name it accurately, – have been conceived by Vladimir Iosifovichem when Olga Sergeevna has told, that she wants divorce. For this reason, having lulled vigilance, he has developed an accurate plan, has consulted, isolated her from children, has replaced the stuff which could tell the truth about this house. Has armed…

MODERATOR: Ruslan, I have asked you as a professional not about this.

HOST: Wait, it is interesting.

Ruslan Koblev: I will tell you the essence. And after all the claim, – here now let’s reach, I will tell to colleagues, – not only has he first submitted the claim concerning definition of the residence of children. And about division of the property. Here again I report to you, that as soon as such absurd decision which we saw came into force – tomorrow in that claim which remained we will also – do you know, why Vladimir does not come to this claim during half a year? Because every day he brings a certificate, that he is occupied in the Council of Federation, he is a big official. On the case about property division.

Olga Slutsker: Perhaps it is not necessary, Ruslan?

Ruslan Koblev: He can, I suppose, because this is his right, and I see where he is going. I suppose. The spouse with whom the residence of children is defined, can ask the court to deviate and to define that he is poor as the state official. His income is considerably… You know, we have received his declaration and we know, how much he earns. And Olga Sergeevna is the successful person. And so, having defined a residence of children, I see the simple purpose. Naturally, deviation from the equality of shares. And we will reach at the following stage an absurd situation when Olga Sergeevna will pay the alimony to Vladimir Iosifovichu.

HOST: Here it seems to me, now is the time for us to generalize this theme. We consider this situation, Olga not uselessly. Because a large number of women face this situation. Women who will watch us. You are in addition a very successful businesswoman. Isn’t seen for you that not occurs both Baisarov’s case, and Baturin’s case, and Slutsker’s case, – all similar to some reider capture, not of property, but of children? And these laws, they are the same, as in business. The same rigidity, the same technology, children as in due time factories, are simply grasped in the raider’s manner…

Ruslan Koblev: Let me refer to the law.

Olga Slutsker: You are absolutely right. It is an absolute raider’s capture of children. I have a friend, Vladimir Iosifovich’s friends who simply come to the court, they have accused, that I wished to take out children that is absolute lie. Because I have imposed a ban for children’s going abroad. And on March, 23rd the court has defined children’s residence with their father, and on March, 26th during one court session was decide that Vladimir Slutsker can take out children to any country, in any direction he wishes, for how long time he wishes, without the mum’s consent. Do you understand?

Elena Mizulina: It is impossible under the current law.

Sergey Beresovsky: To tell that probably, all those sitting here in the hall…

Everything is awful…

Sergey Beresovsky: I mentally ask myself: why? Well why is so – he is wrong everywhere, and all in his advantage? The court makes an absurd on the injustice and cruelty decision…

George Tyurin: And why he is wrong, it is not clear? Why do you think that he is wrong?

Sergey Berezovsky: I will answer you.

MODERATOR: No, I wish to propose you.

Sergey Berezovsky: Yes?

MODERATOR: To address to Vladimir Iosifovich.

HOST:According to the message which we have seen, he will obviously watch this programs.

MODERATOR: What is considered as necessary, and we will sum up the program. Do you have something to say?

Sergey Berezovsky: I have to tell him two words: Volodia, think again.

Olga Slutsker: I want Volodia to know: I really do not have any rage against you in my heart. And I ask him: Volodia, stop. Please, be a man, well press you on… One can set on you, my interviews may seem somehow unfair for you, just as publication which appear thanks to activity of your press-service to me… The press-service is devoted, they work for you. Probably, it, maybe normal, but I promise, that I will forget it. Let us forget all as a terrible dream. It will be much more difficult for me to enter now into my children’s life. I will need some time and your help. I will need help of your parents. I will need help of people who for eleven months surrounded children with mine, and maibe they should recede a little bit back. To release for me that place which was occupied by me. I ask you sincirelly let us finish this. For the sake of our children.

MODERATOR: I think, that it was very difficult conversation for all of us. I would like very much if Vladimir Iosifovich has heard Olga Sergeevna’s request. Only for the sake of children. Thanks.

It is an unprecedented history – without a court order, without any lawful justification, simply at the request of Senator Vladimir Slutsker, Olga is not allowed to see her own children, children not allowed to see her during ten months. All this takes place not in the some feudal principality, but in a legal democratic state with a large gathering of the Themes servants – from the representatives of the guardianship to the well-educated lawyers, dressed in fashionable jackets and armed up to the teeth with knowledge of the laws. Truly, “we were born to make Kafka come true”. The process ” Slutsker against Slutsker” is a direct dramatization of Kafka’s novel Process. That absurd, unbelievable reality, resembles a nightmare.

- Olga, many months you live in the state of litigation. Discarding the emotions, can you make an objective assessment of the situation?

- You know, I cannot aside emotions. A year ago I entered the courtroom naïve for the first time, I was naïve, self-righteous in justice of the law, in quick and natural for me decision of the court. A natural solution of the court for me is that two small children will live with their mother and will equally communicate with their mother and father, with grandparents on both sides. And most importantly, they are minimally affected by the sad history of their mom and dad divorce. It seemed that both parents if they love their children will make every effort – mental effort, not money or power! – to ensure that children not feel changes in their lives as much as possible. Because the condition of normal childhood – is a sense of ongoing parental love, which is first and foremost the protection and confidence in child’s security. Here’s a naive woman, I first entered the hall of Presnensky court of Moscow. Today, the illusion is lost. I’m talking to you, and I do not know what judgment will be entered by the court, but the fact is that during 10 months the court does not interest that children do not see their mother, they refused going to school – this is significant in itself.

- So they do not go to school at all?

- Yes, they attended the Anglo-American school, where they were taken from and entered into a contract with some 143-rd school – a very strange contract. Neither the educational head teacher, nor the class teacher at the time of checking this school by the Commissioner on Human Rights did not know that they have a pupil Misha Slutsker. The treaty was concluded by Senator Slutsker with the school director and the director did not bother that their mother was not deprived of parental rights, nothing knows about this, that teachers do not come to the children’s home, and the treaty on the at-home education it violated. And most important, it does not bother the Department of Education of Moscow, where I have written, attaching the test results.

- Olga, do you have any assumptions why Vladimir Slutsker makes such strange and unfavorable for children decisions?

- I think it is just his revenge, and children are used as tools of revenge. The same opinion have almost all the trial actors, in fact – even Vladimir’s lawyers talk about it. Unfortunately, Geralina Lyubarsky, a brilliant lawyer has gone not so long ago, who dealt with my case. At one time, when I still lived in the house with Vladimir, but felt that he prepares a war against me, I discussed with Lubarsky the possible prospects. She told me: “Yes, you can take the children and bring them away. You’ll have long legal proceedings, children will be with you, they must be protected, isolated from your husband transferred to another school. “But we are both women, both mom and decided that such actions are unacceptable. Any desire to be with children cannot compel me to commit such a sin against them.

- Have you thought that Vladimir can decided to do this?

- The attorneys asked me the same. But I naively replied that Vladimir will never cause such a wound to his children. Besides, he never tired of saying that he is a believer. How many times have I heard from him: “God – is love.” He teaches Kabbalah, he has own pupils, he preaches certain values. How one might assume that he will decided to do this? A raider seizure of children?

- And what does the court says? How it treats the situation as a matter of law?

- To help those who have not been in the court. The court could not be asked any questions. Do you understand? You can give a question to the guardianship authorities. They will answer: “Go to the court.” And then – silence, and the circle is closed. Court – this kind of thing in itself. For example, the amount of rudeness, dirty jokes, harassment, which poured on me at the trial are not stopped by the court.

- Do you mean the conduct of Vladimir Slutsker’s lawyers?

- Yes. Apparently, they had full carte blanche not to stand on ceremony with me. I assume that Volodya as a male is upset by the fact that his wife left him. But his lawyers … Why are they so rude to me, my witness, my lawyers?

- Do you think that the court had already pre-determined the attitude to the participants of the process?

- An example in response. Vladimir arrives to the court at his armored car with the guardians’ car, the bailiff rushes to open the gate. And on what basis the ordinary participant in the civil case has the advantage over other people who come to the court on the same case? Why do not they come in their cars to the parking lot of the court?

- It seems that our Themes withdrew blindfold and considering with interest the surrounding reality. Then why the process was still closed?

- Not once I with my lawyers submitted petitions to open the process. Any isolation of the process from the press distorts the meaning of what is happening. This is the essence of a closed process – to close the information and manipulate it. It is the target of Senator Slutsker, he succeeded.

- The press often publish photo of your son and even his comments.

- It’s monstrous. I asked the representatives of Vladimir’s the press service, to leave Misha. He’s so small yet, and whether the child separated from his mother, torn out from his usual world, living in stress, can understand till the end, what he says, how he says? When he will grow, he will understand, and what a load will fall on him, what a cross … I begged him not to do so.

- And what was the answer?

- I cannot repeat those abuse words, which I heard in response.

- Everything is allowed?

- Absolutely everything. Tally-ho her! It is like in the Stalin’s prison, where anything may occurs. Where the monstrous falsehood is inserted in the materials of the case, but the truth is denigrated in every way. What incredible efforts were applied by my lawyers to attach to the case any testimony, any document! Here is one of the most striking examples.

In late May, when I still living in the same house with Vladimir, my lawyer Lyubarskaya said me to record on tape all conversations relating to divorce and children. Vladimir knew it. I have recorded on tape our common meeting with a psychologist, director of the Center for counseling, whom Vladimir has invited. And from this it is evident that what happened in reality and the testimony that she gave the court as a specialist fully mismatch. Therefore, her conclusion, initiated by Vladimir, and which is cited by the court with pleasure is just a lie. But our witness was not attached to the case.

- Last week in court you first saw your son. What you experienced, what was Misha’s reaction?

- You know, we struggled to avoid child presence in the court. I did not want him to get such trauma, because such things are conserved all lifelong. I told the lawyers that if the judge is going to interrogate Misha, I want to abandon the claim. My lawyers have strictly forbidden to do it, explaining that in the future I will lose all rights to appeal. And they said: “You must endure, because the opponents are waiting for such a collapse.” In general, the day came when Misha had to come to the court. I ran to the door to greet the son, touch him, only say how I love him. I ask the bailiffs, militia officers: “Has the boy passed? I know that you may be intimidated or paid, but tell me, please, has he passed?” Nobody saw anything, no one knows, but one man whispered to me by saying that your husband came to our chief and they came to an agreement: to prevent you from meeting your son, he would be guarded through the entry for criminals. And what is it, I ask? They answer that it is a special entrance for cars with the criminals who are brought to the session and in building there are escorted by the internal staircase, to prevent their meeting with anyone. And when I imagined that my son will go by the route of murderers, terrorists and maniacs, I nearly fell down… In tears I rushed to the fifth floor, Michael was already there … I said to him: “Hello son, how I miss you, how I love you … ” I want to embrace him, but Vladimir had already pressed the boy, and Misha began to repeat as a machine:”Mom, do not misdirect me, mama, do not misdirect me, now I must answer the questions.” Volodya squeezes his ears with his hands: “Do not listen to her.” And he laughs. You know, some kind of absurdity: his guards, his press office, his lawyers – all were laughing. I do not understand, I turn back – the common terrible laughter!

- Most likely, this is an hysterics. Involuntary, painful human reaction to absurdity of the situation.

- Yes,  really painful. The struggle between the good and the evil in a man exposed in such a way. And then Misha was brought to the room where he was interrogated during two hours. He was there alone with the judge and representatives of care. He came out, I rushed to him, he was somehow bewildered: “Dad, I have done!” Dad answered: “Well done, son!” And again, this terrible laughter … Then Misha was quickly surrounded and taken away. I ran to him, but the guards cut me off.

- There are rumor that the children have been brainwashed. What do you think about this?

- Ten months without mother, who had left them, as children were convinced, had left, had changed for someone else… Children have such a movable psyche, they are defenseless, they both afraid to be guilty. Their opinions depend on the adults around them. And they are told every day that their mother is bad… Libels are placed on the Internet; and then prompts the child to find them, and speak in the court: “Misha had found the notes, he said than mother is bad, he does not want to see her more.” What can I say? Children have no immune to the lies. They trust, their minds and souls could be poisoned very easy. You know, I scare not even the court decision on my case, but lawlessness. The fact that there is absolutely no justice over a person with money and power, and he can do whatever he wants.

- But there is the Federation Council, where sits Vladimir Slutsker … It is not hard to imagine what would happen in the U.S. Senate, or in the parliament of any European country, if such story happened there.

- I wrote to Sergei Mironov twice. He said nothing, did not respond to any of my letter. Ombudsman for Children Rights, Yevgeny Bunimovich refused to go to the court, although he was admitted to the process. The reason is simple – he has no time. Do you know what I’m thinking about more and more? Twist of fate I was in the midst of a story, which revealed the seamy side and the viciousness of our judicial system, all the imperfection of our laws, the Family Code. Many stories similar to mine run down to me. And I concluded – these are not isolated cases, this is a trend, this is already the law of our time! When a man who does not need a wife now (or wife herself left him), does not consider necessary to build future relations in a civilized way, but merely makes raider seizure of children. Throw his wife to the street, lock the house, guards are at the gates, a nurse who execute his orders is hired for children. And that is all – our law is powerless. Or its attendants are powerless? You were talking about the civilized countries. Yes, in any country one day would be enough (not 10 months!) during which, after such a seizure of a child by one of the parents, the police arrive and solve this problem. And whether you are a tree times Senator, you were deprived all rights on upbringing of children in the future!

- We have a hopeless and forlorn situation?

- It depends on us.

- Then, how do you assess your own chances in this case?

- You know, I could talk about my chances if forensic psychiatric examination was appointed. We ask at each hearing – let’s conduct a forensic psychological examination of all four members of the family! This is necessary in such complex cases, and examination is often initiated by the courts. But in our case – the deafness, no one simply hears. Vladimir Slutsker all these months made efforts to avoid the examination realizing that it will deprives him of all chance to get favorable for him court decision. Why the judge assumes such responsibility, stating that the examination is not needed? And the representatives of guardianship of Khoroshevo, Mnevniki and Shchukino, without explaining, solidly, also refuse examination. Why? The answer is clear. It is not necessary to Vladimir Slutsker, an independent, objective examination is a sentence for him.

- Olga, we know that a person’s suffering changes him, causing to overestimate much. Have you opened something new for yourself last year? Have you answered the question: “Why all happen to me?”

- The question I ask myself, is not “why” but “what for?” This is a test, any test is sent for some reason. And to some extent I understand what had happened … Under no circumstances one shall not be reconciled with things which are unacceptable. You cannot betray yourself, cannot justify things which in your eyes are unjustified.  And I opened a new feeling in myself the humility. It is not such humility, when you give up, it is understanding that there is a difficult period, which should be passed, passed with flying colors, without emotional loss. I had a moment when I lost heart, really lost, when it seemed: let him do anything, let him do what he wants, just let me see children at least half an hour. At this point, one person told me: “You cannot give up! So many loved ones, friends, and your team worry of you! And how many strangers, who believes in you, who sympathize with you! “Now I found myself in a situation that can happen to any woman in our country. I am fighting not only for my children, my parents, for myself, I am fighting for excluding the terrible mechanism, when the children could be separated with their mother.

Albina Nazimova, witnesses before the Court:

- Olga was too shy to ask me to speak in the court. I know Olga and her family during 15 years, and can imagine the identity of her ex-husband, so I volunteered to testify myself. Vladimir Slutsker is a man of war. Now he is fighting against Olga, and children are just a weapon for him. His behavior in court only confirms this thesis. During the hearing, he made mischief, jokes, and the court session looks like a monstrous farce, organized by him. And we are talking about children whom they want to leave orphans with crippled soul while their mother alive! And such a person as a lawyer Dobrovinsky, were not allowed to in any home in the XIX century. His behavior in court is beyond the good and evil.

JULIA Bordovskykh, witnesses before the Court:

- In 1996 I first came to the Slutsker family and thought that someday I will have all that’s just fabulous, beautiful, comfortable, tasty, welcoming. Then Misha was born, then my Maria, and we were bringing up our children in an atmosphere of love and friendship. Fortunately, Olga has got Anna. Children’s bringing up became the meaning of Olga’s life. She selected the best teachers, doctors, nurses for them. What children’s feasts, she has organized! How important for her was that her children had friends, so a lot of children came to her home on the weekends. Today my friend is going through the hardest time in her life. Why a man has the right to just deny a mother the opportunity to be with her children? Vladimir, think what will you say to children when they grow up and disclose the truth? I went to the court in the hope that truth will prevail, if we, all her friends, will tell about Olga. A very hard atmosphere was in the courtroom. I never thought that I would be interrupted and my answers will cause laughter. Lack of seriousness in such a serious matter said on superficial attitude to the situation and disrespect for the witnesses, which astonished me. However, these are emotions that swept from the awareness of helpless of women in our country. Where from the counsel Dobrovinsky is so informed about Slutsker’s family matters? Has he watched how children grew up and “suffered” with their mom? Why he makes such statements? What are they backed up? Bar force or Anna’s words that she never loved her mother! Anna, who ran as a tail behind Olga at all events, at home, on vacation. Anna, who in the early days of his “imprisonment” constantly cried and demanded to be returned to her mother. This dreadful situation cannot be explained in human language and a person who has a heart it cannot understand it!

VALERY Agapov, Olga Slutsker’s DRIVER:

- I work with Olga for 14 years. She always had very cordial relations with her children. I keep watching it: together with Olga, I used to take children to school, on weekends they went to a pizzeria or the cinema, the gifts on the holidays. Children are still arguing about who of them will sit on mother’s lap, they were always cheerful, joking, talking while we were riding. Often, Olga came home from work to put the kids to bed; they ran into the hall to meet the mother and cried of joy as all children do. I have never heard any harsh word from Olga Sergeevna against children. I cannot understand what they say now? What kind of child abuse? It is something wild to hear it!

NATALIA Vetlitskaya, witnesses before the Court:

- I am a very old friend of Olga, and my daughter was a friend of her children until they were isolated. Being a mother myself, I deeply understand the whole nightmare of the situation and feel sympathy to her children and her. The most awful thing in this situation that children suffer most of all, being deprived of communication with their mother, to whom they are spiritually bound. And from the perspective of a friend, mother, and just a person, not devoid of compassion and justice, I am trying to help her as far as I can. At the court I answered questions within of what I know about Olga and her children from the experience of our long friendship.

I know that Olga always was a good mother. She wholeheartedly loves her children, and until the separation has always given them a tremendous amount of time, lived their aspirations, concerns and needs.

In general, the entire situation is absolutely outrageous. The existing legislation on the Rights of the Child, states that neither parent has a legal right to deprive children communicate with the other parent without a court decision. In this situation, we see a flagrant violation of the legislation as on the part of Mr. Slutsker, who himself, incidentally, is currently the legislator, and by the judiciary. While these stories with the connivance of our judicial system will take place, our society cannot be called civilized, and our country – the Power.

Regarding article with comments by Mr. Dobrovinsky, I cannot believe that children who passionately loved their mother and were very attached to her, suddenly, after several months of separation abruptly stopped loving her. This is absurd. And if nevertheless a fact is legally registered, I can say one thing: such a declaration could be achieved from the children only as a result of systematic mental violence against them by the interested person. It is absolutely obvious.

Fyodor Bondarchuk, witnesses before the Court:

“I admire the courage and selflessness Olga fighting for her Children. We are friends many years long, I have seen what an excellent and loving mother she is. I cannot imagine a democratic country, in which the law may allow to a parent hold the child at his territory and prohibit mother to meet children. And all this without a court order”

Valentin Yudashkin, not approved to the court:

- The most unpleasant in this story, in my opinion, that a small change in the question of divorce, Vladimir and Olga were children.

I have been familiar with this family for a long time, not for one decade. The priority in their common life was to create a family and, as in any normal family, the expectation of children. Kids became a stumbling block in divorce. This turned out to be the biggest problem and challenge test. Olga, on her part has done everything she can. And I think that she deserves Misha and Anya because of her strength of will, character and perseverance. Of course, in the ideal story, children should have a full family. But in this case, when speaking about the possibility of isolation of children by one of the parties, in my opinion, this is a totally unacceptable situation, especially when we’re talking about a society of law and priorities of the family. Olga bathed her children in the love and paid great attention to education and physical training of Misha and Anna. She is generally a very thin feeling and attentive mother. Her aim is to give the best for children’s education. I am sorry that I had no opportunity to present my views at the court session.

RUSLAN Coble, commentary of Olga Slutsker’s lawyer:

- This case clearly shows how outdated is our jurisprudence. The law has a number of significant gaps – the satisfaction of the claim and the definition of place of residence of children with their father, in my opinion, would create quite a vicious precedent. As it will show to many fathers, that they can apply in similar disputes with their wives the same technology that were used by the former husband of Olga Sergeyevna. He actually stole the child from their mother and has obtained full control over them. As a result, the court decides, with which parent the children will continue to reside, based on the views of 11-year-old boy, which emerged over the last 10 months under the influence of psychological pressure of his father. Public authorities, which should protect the interests of Olga’s minor children, were obliged to intervene in this situation and not allow the parent, contrary to the law, prevent contact with the mother for so long time. Court set a terrible fact that the father during the 10 months has prevented communication between children and their mother and her parents, incites children against the mother, aiming that when Michael was questioned by the court, would express his desire, introduced by his father, that he does not want to live with his mother. If within 10 months one incites a child against mother, he could believe it. The father took the children out of school, limited interaction with friends, stripped of the familiar social environment. Children were escorted around by the guards everywhere. This is done not so much because of fear for the safety of children, but to protect them from meeting with their mother, who could have inspired them to change the image of herself. I’m sure that it is impossible to force a loving child to renounce his mother without psychological impact; on this category of cases the court must initiate a psychological examination. Including identification of the psychological attachment to each parent and to each other. But the court refused three times to conduct such examination. Apparently fearing that the results will not be pleasant for the high-ranking applicant. If in our country children may be removed even from a wealthy and famous mother, applying raider technology, what to say about an average family?

In the family of Senator Vladimir Slutsker and his ex-wife Olga Slutsker the question with whom will live their children cannot be resolved during eight months.

In the family of Senator Vladimir Slutsker and his ex-wife, the well-known businesswoman Olga Slutsker, the question with whom will live their children cannot be resolved during eight months.

Already in the summer it was known that Vladimir Slutsker filed a lawsuit for divorce and that children live with him. The first Presnensky court session on October, 22, 2009, could determine the place of residence of 10-year old Misha and 6-year-old Anna. Since then, nothing has changed:

- It’s awful, but neither I nor my parents are allowed by Vladimir Slutsker not only to see, but even to congratulate my children on the New Year. It’s a family holyday; people meet it in a circle of the loved ones. But another’s will wrenched my children from our circle, and the their mum – from the children’s circle. Ignoring our feelings… I had to add congratulations on the Internet with the hope that Misha will read it – says Olga. – Children should not think that their mother can leave them, so suddenly disappear from their lives. Children should know that they are my favorites. I love my children and I want to be near them. And I had to send them the gifts with a lawyer. I’m not sure that they got them. And I and my old parents completely are excluded from contact with children. Vladimir Slutsker does not allow me to see them for almost eight months. I cannot even talk to them on the phone – all calls go through the securities, who have clear instructions not to connect me. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Presnensky court cannot determine the order of our meetings, all the time deferring this decision for later. In my view thus the court voluntarily or involuntarily gives the father more rights than to the mother. The guardianship’s decision on the meetings of children with my parents, their grandparents, is also ignored by Vladimir Slutsker, until now this situation of lawlessness and impunity lasts.

- Olga, is it true that you are going to sue the nanny of your children?

- I beg to recover moral damages in the amount of one ruble from Alexandra Sergeeva, the babysitter of my children. Babysitter is not a stranger person for me. But in due time she gave an interview in which my honor and dignity were humbled, in the court as well, which now trials the matter of determining the domicile of children. It is possible that she acted against her will and under pressure. So the financial responsibility should be bear by those who had posted deliberately false defamatory material. For me the important thing is that Alexander Sergeyevna will acknowledge her mistake. For the sake of Misha and Anna. After the New Year I decided to file lawsuits against some publications that wrote about me the outright slander. When the false materials about me were published, I did not know that it was the beginning of the information war against me. At that moment I just did not notice the dirt. Now the time came to give an adequate response to the lies and slander. Since I always solve such problems in the legal field, I will defend my honor and dignity in the courtroom. Most important is that I am mother. And I defend my reputation in the first place in the eyes my children and for them.

- Olga, at the end of the 2009, the question on the possibility of settlement agreement between the parties rose. Peace is possible?

- I have not received any settlement agreement in the sense in which it is implied in legal practice. Why and for what purpose the other party sustains this step – I do not know. But the main thing is the other one. What is the phrase of the lawyer A. Dobrovinsky pronounced in the media? “Let Michael and Anna decide themselves, with which parent they want to live.” In other words, choose one you like best – dad or mom. Misha is 10 years old, and they want him to pronounce it in the court. This is monstrous in relation to children! I asked Vladimir, wrote to him: ” Volodya, stop, think about the future of our children, think of Misha, as he will live with this, do not bring him to the court. It was a long message. But the lawyer Dobrovinsky in an interview in one publication pulled one of my phrase from the text as always, put it in another context, and – the focus was successfull. My words – are the same, but the meaning has changed completely.

But I keep good spirits, because I still believe in justice and I hope to see Misha and Anna soon!

MEANWHILE

Ex-wife of Senator asks the court to deprive a former spouse of parental rights

The meeting of the Horoshevski court of Moscow will take place on February 11.

- We believe that Vladimir Slutsker violated the provisions of the Family Code, in particular, interferes Olga and her parents to see his children during eight months – said Ruslan Koblev, the lawyer of ex-wife of Senator.

Counsel of the other party, Alexander Dobrovinsky is calm:

- I think this is a PR campaign, and do not take it seriously. Any lawyer would have taken this additional well-paid job with gratitude!

Meanwhile, the Moscow City Court reversed the decision of Presnensky court of Moscow, on which a member of the Federation Council, Vladimir Slutsker can take children outside Russia without the consent of their mother – Olga Slutsker.

What have you done wrong? Why do you divorce in such a monstrous manner?

I myself want to answer this question. Something I can tell you, something will not ever tell in the magazine. Adults really can have many reasons why they do not want to live together. Or even cannot be together. You see, we have quite equal financial positions. In our case, this was the pure relationship, that is, above all such relations, which has never been tied to money for me.

Not ever?

I have been married during 19 years, 16 of them I am engaged in business. So three years before I began to create World Class, I depended on Volodia financially.

Did Vladimir help you to establish the business?

You see, we can take any family of successful people. There is no success, in which there is no the second half. Moreover, I am familiar with families where women have never worked, but I do know that she is an equal creator of the success of her husband. As for the business, Vladimir certainly helped me to not so much with the first loan, which I returned to him, but with that he did not bother me. It was hard in the early 90′s, there was an extremely volatile situation, there were no rules, no laws of business, men could not easy handle their own affairs. And then the wife suddenly establishes a business, which in principle could potentially be a source of additional problems. I am grateful to him for what he took a chance and let me to do business alone.

When I asked this question, I asked not just about the business. If something goes wrong in a family, usually both spouses are guilty. You see, as a rule, a hard conflict stems from the fact that earlier something was wrong in life.

Volodya changed. Volodya, whom I married, with whom I lived, and Volodya, who attacks me today are very different people. I just held the position: no matter how we have wronged each other, no matter how we may seem unfair attitude of the second half, yet we have common children. I told him: you and I are bounded together for all lifelong by children. We have no reason to weaken each other. Russia is a very harsh country concerning climate, and concerning self-realization, and concerning human relations. Wherever you look, everywhere is harsh. Many people say me that I came unprepared to divorce. Indeed, I was prepared emotionally and mentally, but I purposely did not prepare legally, because I believed that having live with a man for almost twenty years and as I think, being a good wife. I did not want to take anything from him. All my life I worked hard and plow much for my family. Those who had visited my home know how I have it is beautiful, tasty and cozy, what wonderful children I have and how miraculously they are raised. I always liked to create, and even now when I have to live away from home during more than five months, the home style, which I introduced, works well and smoothly in my absence. And I naively believed that this is insurance for the way my children were born, for supporting Volodya. Often contrary to my convictions, my opinion …

Maybe you did not have to do this?

Maybe it was not necessary, but I always tried to be a good wife, to be “behind the husband”. And how could I not to believe the closest person – the husband and the wife become the most close friends, we finally tear off from the parents. But at one good moment I realized that I cannot resume any more. That is, I destroy myself. Is this good or bad or it is a midlife crisis – one can call it arbitrarily, but I think it will be more honest. You can live, grow old with each other, losing each other’s attraction, or you can try to start a new life and allow your partner to find himself too. Everyone has the right to be happy.

But I am not satisfied by the procedure.

I am not satisfied by the procedure too. I do not want to be a bitch, did not hide any property, did not take away children. Because I am absolutely sure that I have no right to separate children from the father who loves them very much, and they love him. When I received the statement of claim, it was a shock. He gave me the condition – everything will be quiet, if you sign the documents, let the children live with me; “you may come and see them at any time”. But how can I leave my children? How a mother can voluntarily push away her children? It is always better for children to be with their mother, especially for the young children. Because of nature, because God ordered so. In the today’s situation Volodya behaves monstrously selfish and cruel. Nothing can justify the trauma, which was received by two defenseless children deprived of their mother, and the pain felt by my elderly parents and me. What is happening today with my family, it seems to me absolutely crazy: this confinement inside the house, tommy-men, isolation, children do not even go to school. I cannot see them, cannot give them anytrhing, I cannot call, my parents – their grandparents – also cannot contact them. I mean the man is a priori more aggressive and stronger than woman, no matter how strong a woman is. In fact, I’m not weak, I am engaged in business for many years and I can take a punch, but cannot beat myself, I am not able, and do not want to, you know? So when a woman fights a man in the man’s rules, it is very cruel. It is terrible to aware that you were betrayed.

Were you close friends once? What the fucking is going on?

You see, I answer your questions, I have no anger, no animosity toward Volodya, I feel only great sorrow and pain of the injustice that happens to me. First, your head are turned a little bit in different directions, then more and more. And finally they look completely in the opposite directions. Only your backs are touching. And it turned out that I didn’t not feel Volodya’s back. Maybe my problem is that I have not tried hard to talk to him on this subject. And most of all, he understood the obligations of marriage and obligations to his wife in a different manner than I did.

When it all began?

It seems to me that all this is mixed up on the mental component. He’s Cabbalist, he teaches, and he has devoted pupils. Volodya has a very clear idea of how he can and should act in certain circumstances. I cannot say that we stopped talking. At some moment Volodya just stopped hear anyone. He does not talk, he broadcasts, you know. And it was impossible to argue with him. He thinks he knows everything much better than any of the mortals. What could I tell him how could I argue with him? And on what subject? What topics do you discuss with your wife?

Absolutely any. Every evening when the child is already sleeping, we drink wine, talk. For me – this is my home where lives my closest friend.

Sometime ago we talked a lot with Volodya. But, you know, once I became aware that I am afraid of the way he thinks of himself, of the world, his relations with other people, his fears. We have become very different; his views concerning people, world, life, child-rearing differed from my views. Volodya is sure that the faith and God – this is love. He says the right things, but words with deeds need to match. You can also preach and distribute any ideas, but you need to act in accordance with what you teach others. If we are talking today about my divorce, I do not know, how can a believer commit such acts.

Do not forget that from a traditional point of view, you left him. In archaic culture only a man can leave. You have another situation. It is very difficult psychologically for a men.

I agree with you. But what now? However, times have changed. During the twenty years I have waited much, hoped much that tomorrow something will come true, something will change. But I saw only changes for the worse.

Not many people getting better over the years.

That’s not the case that someone becomes worse. We’re talking about some hopes of some confidence in the man. And it turns out that faith in him, in his truth was an illusion in fact. I think the problem is that he was lost somewhere in the nineties. He is a man, held success in the nineties, start his business with zero, as we all started in the 90^th, in a new country, a new system of relations in the new morality (or rather – in its absence). Then the strongest survived. Just as at gladiatorial contest – we went to the arena and the most resistant has survived. As a result, people – especially men, because they are the major climbers of our time, in the presence of vast opportunities for creativity, enrichment, formation, political careers and in the absence of legislation and morality (the old one withered away, and the new one was not created) used to achieve certain goals by relying on force, power and money. These are the three components, which gave people the opportunity to success. Unfortunately, now, to solve completely human, family problems – in my case – the same is used. And it is not an isolated case in our country.

I have a theory of original sin of Russian families that had been created in the 90′s. Because very often they were established on the phantom foundation of the profits. Beauty in exchange for money.

Our story was different. I’m an athlete, came home on vacation, the first time I had a single trip with friends. Just when I registered at the hotel, Volodya came, made an acquaintance with me. For me he was a man of the new world: an athlete, charming, clever. He operated the words like “Dow Jones”, which I either did not know at all or only met earlier in Dreiser’s novels. There was some very different ambitions – the Moscow one. And, of course, width. His courting was beautiful. All this could not leave me indifferent. But after years, I began to think that something goes wrong. For example, the children – how to rise them, what to give them, what is the most important? It became a bone of contention for us. We arrived at the marriage from two very different families. My family – the extremely emotional mother and father, St. Petersburg intelligentsia, who during seven days a week at least four days were either in a theater or visited friends, or dad playing solitaire, or they received guests at home. At the same time they worked very hard. Dad still works. My mother is a doctor, father is a lawyer, they are successful people. Nevertheless, despite the mother’s daily duty assignment, father’s business trips, they were very active, traveled abroad on the tourist trips in all socialist countries, bought clothes from the profiteers and collected antiques, seek for gourmet food and were very, very fond of me and took care of me. Sometimes they quarreled violently, and then rapidly put up. In short, my parents are emotional and very sincere people. Despite the fact that they are both from a fairly humble families, all their material wealth was created by themselves, since my childhood I was taught to work, a woman should not sit at home. This is also a way, also a choice, but still, my parents believed a woman should do somehow useful for the society. Now they worry strongly of us, they are almost 80 years old, I am a late child. I thought that when I tell them about my decision to part with Volodya, they will scold me – well, where are you going, you are not 20 years old. But it turned out that they seemed to have waited for this. Volodya has a completely different family. Loving and devoted to each other parents. But they live inside the perimeter of their apartment. That is my house – my fortress. When provincial relatives come they are happy. Sleep at their home on the sofa, on folding beds, not in the hotel. Such a way of life. I lived there, I came to their apartment. And else. My parents have never been members of the Communist Party. On conviction were not. And always abused the regime. Nevertheless, they are romantically loyal to their homeland. Such a romantic sense of duty to our country, a kind of sacrifice was raised in the Soviet Union. But Volodya’s parents were the members of the Communist Party and even the secretaries of primary communist organizations. They have handed over their membership cards at a time when anyone would kick the Communist Party, and are very proud of it. Once approached the retirement age, they both retired, did not want to continue to work, although they were fine professionals. Returning to the children, I wanted to raise them as the people who will not think only about themselves, but also about what surrounds them, worry, feel responsible for what happens in the country and in the world. So I wanted them to know several languages, to be immersed in different cultural environments. They are Russian, but still – this is what we do not have enough, – we are not cosmopolitan. We grew up in a much closed society, it hinders us. Therefore we traveled with them from the smallest age, always talking on various subjects. My children always were very open and positive. Volodya says: when you grow up, your genes become more evident. And it’s true, I agree with him. His lifestyle more and more resembles the way in which his parents live, he does not go anywhere, does not go to theaters, shows, to guests, watching the movie only at home. I thought that children should always be occupied. We have the opportunity to give them a good education and many skills, so they know languages are involved in sports, are able to draw, play musical instruments that will enable the child to choose what he would be interested in in adult life, what is their talent . Volodya says that they do not need to be overloaded that they should come home from school and just run, jump and watch TV. He cited himself: we played in the yard with the boys after school. But you cannot compare that time and the new one. New millennium, new opportunities.

You never even tried to talk with his mom?

She thinks her son is doing everything right. My dad tried to talk to Volodya’s dad, but it was useless.

And what were the arguments?

Who is not with us is against us.

The arguments that I see on the Internet, are as follows: in addition to any dirt it is said that you did not deal with children, and worked for your career and social duties.

Well, obviously. What else could he spread? That I was a wonderful wife and mother? Vladimir hits the sickest points for women – children, parents’ health, reputation.

I honestly do not see nothing monstrous in these charges. Marriage can always fall apart because of lack of love. And about the children – yes, probably I also could give my son more time. But I have such job. And you have such.

Let’s start with the children. I remember how we grew up. I do not know whether you had a string key, and soup in a large thermos bottle which my mother prepared for me at home.

Certainly, I had.

And how many roads had you to cross on the way to school? And we did everything ourselves. Why? Because our parents worked. Is this good or bad? Yes good! Moreover, children often visited me at work. When I carried out Festivals of Sport, I always took the children with me to show them what I’m doing, what is my job.

If children see that their parents work hard, it is rather good. They understand where the money comes from.

Absolutely true. You can ask anyone in the club: they greeted everyone whom encountered. I always told them: Look, those people – employees of the company, they bring us prosperity. I brought up respect for people who work in our company. Without them we are nothing. There was no celebration, significant event in the lives of my children which I missed. Even if I had to leave, such as for a convention in the States, I always took my children with me. Because at the same time, we have visited Disneyland. And in Vegas we went to different shows. We went to the New York City. Even the kids club World Class arose after the Misha’s birth. I analyzed which physical development I would like to give him. The idea of the club emerged based on our conversations with the fitness director. When Misha grew up, I got the idea of sports sections, because Moscow is big, people often cannot reach the children’s sports schools. And it is so convenient you are training at the same time as your child does.

In Internet is written that he filed for a divorce because you fooled him around.

No, it’s a lie. Imagine how it hurts me and uncomfortable for a woman who was slanged with false mud from head to toe. People who do so should hate my children, because when the children will read this, they will be hurt more than me. I confess to you that the information about Volodya’s privacy is not interesting for me from the moment when I decided for myself that I cannot be his wife. It’s not fair – to be introduced into personal space.

It seems to me that it is better not to do so even in un-dissolved marriage.

I think so too. There is always the explanation: why betray occurs? Always is considered to blame the betraying party. And had the other party applied the efforts to avoid this? How much the other party will and was able to give happiness and satisfaction. I speak not only about men, but also about women. Living in a marriage, we are sometimes lazy to support the degree of relationship. This is a work, a labor. It would seem that if a person lies near you why you should conquer him/her? But essentially one should conquer every day. One should be interesting to the partner. As for me, for many years Volodya did not attend me anywhere for many years.

And you have never asked him?

I asked him many times. It is very unpleasant for a woman when you come to someone’s birthday or event, you’re dressed, your hear brushed, but you have no one even to push the chair. And little by little by the inviting begin to place me as a single. They have not even scored a place for Volodya. Maybe it’s my fault. Maybe I’m too independent. I thought I can do everything myself. I can raise a heavy bag, can earn money, can practically give birth to children. To solve a problem, to go through a battle, to pass the operation, to revive after anesthesia, staggering, and go to the hotel to lick the wounds. I can myself. And my fault was that I allowed, or rather, deprived Volodya the opportunity to make an effort over himself. Did not insisted that he was near me.

Vladimir has not lost any process. Do you think you have a chance?

Yes, he has not lost any process. But as my dad says, and my father is a lawyer, for one simple reason: those people over whom he won, really have committed illegal acts. One can argue about the rigidity of punishment, but a wrongful grain is evident. I am not privy to the details of these processes, moreover – it was distasteful to me, I’m like an ostrich trying to hide my head and said to myself: I do not know, I do not hear, I do not see. But I had not done anything wrong; the truth is on my side. The only thing I need is a fair trial. The mother’s truth is on my side – I cannot see their children for six months. Every night I dream, I meet with my children, up to the physical sensations. So I take my daughter Anna, and I think – how heavier she became during this time, she grew. Up to the physical sensations, tears of joy. And I even do not want to wake up. Because when I wake up I realize that it’s not real. The truth should win. Good must win.

A well-known business woman, the head of a network of fitness clubs World Class for the first time talks about his divorce with her renowned husband

Olga Slutsker – one of the most successful women in Russia, the creator of a network of fitness centers World Class well-known in Russia and in the CIS.

Until recently, her family was regarded as an exemplary: two wonderful children, a husband – a member of the Federation Council, a former businessman.

Recently the rumors emerged that the couple not just get divorced, but are going to divide in the court not only millions of property, but also their children. Press has called the upcoming process the “century divorce in Russia. But the wife did not give any comments.

And finally, Olga Slutsker broke the silence and agreed to tell the “Komsomolskaya Pravda” about her family drama.

We met with Olga in her office in the centre of Moscow.

Peaceful divorce FAILED

- Olga, does it means that all rumors of divorce and the upcoming court proceedings is the pure truth?

- Unfortunately, the truth is much more terrible. My husband hid my children from me and does not let me into our house in Serebrianyi Bor. He sued in court for divorce, that our children should live with him, and on the partition of property.

- Where do you currently live?

- At my friends.

- Do you really have no other housing in Moscow?

- No. My parents live in St. Petersburg, in the apartment arrested by Vladimir. My father is a prominent lawyer and always earned good money. When my parents bought an apartment, they asked me to execute records in my name, because they are mature people and the grandchildren would get the apartment without unnecessary formalities.

- When a discord with your husband occurs?

- All flared gradually. In September 2008 we together with Vladimir decided to divorce. The only thing he asked me was to suspend the formalities, because at that time he participated in two trials. He promised: we’ll settle peacefully. But during these months he with his lawyers was preparing for the divorce. Then he put a choice in front of me: if you leave children and leave home – and then I will not touch you. You may work, make your business. And if you do not agree …you’ll see what happens. You still will never get your children. And he filed a lawsuit in court. On June 3 the guard simply did not let me into my house, to my children, and since that time neither me nor my parents are not allowed to communicate with them.

Gunpoint

- How was it?

- In the morning my children as usual came into my room to wish me good morning, and we discussed with them plans for the weekend. I went to work, and when I returned, security at the gate said that Vladimir Iosifovich ordered not let me in. “Olga Sergeevna, we have nothing to do, that’s an order”. It was a shock for me. How could it be in the XXI century, in Russia – a civilized country – not to let a person into her house, a mother – to her young children? And this was not according to the court ruling, without legal justification. My husband – is a member of the Federation Council, but unlike his colleagues he seriously concerns his security, which is maintained by the certified officers of the Moscow regional Fast Response Detachment.

So imagine a woman who is sitting in his car at the gate of her house, surrounded by professionals, armed with automatic weapons aimed at her. One of the officers asked my husband: If you want, I will break the window and pull her out? But at this moment they saw a militia patrol approaching the house, whom I called by phone “02″. Militia men tried to clarify the situation and to help me. But Vladimir said that he is a member of the Federation Council, he has a parliamentary immunity, introduced his guards as the state-appointed protection, and that his house is a place of residence of the owner of the same immunity. And then he just left. And we together with the militia officer were left alone in front of the locked gate, behind which were my children of the age of 5 and 10 years.

- But your personal belongings were carried out from the house?

- No, I stayed on the street wearing the same clothes in which I left for work. My bag and my car. I have lost all the favorite clothes, but I am not really sorry. Now I understand very clearly that material wealth does not matter, all this is vain. The most important thing in the world – is to be with own children!

RIGHT TO HAPPINESS

- Why did your marriage failed?

- We met in the late 80′s. When married, I moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow. It was not easy for me to adapt in a new city, where had no one friend. Volodya was actively engaged in business, and I had a lot of free time, which I, a professional athlete, not accustomed to sit back, decided to dedicate to the creation of a fitness club, a first one in our country. Moscow became my hometown, where I have made lots of friends, have got a favorite work, public activities, and, of course, because my children live here. But I began to wonder: am I happy in marriage and are my life values and aspirations the same as my husband’s?

- Weather the cause of discord in the family is that Vladimir Slutsker had another woman or you had another man?

- In his statement of claim, Vladimir wrote that the family was broken long time ago, the marriage relationship terminated, a common household is not conducted. The resumption of family relations is impossible. So what’s the difference whether someone has another woman or another man or not. If he has another woman – let him be happy. All have the right to personal happiness.

- And in general are there any happy families in your circle?

- Of course there are,. They have the most important – love. When there is love, warmth, sincerity, you can forgive a lot.

About your business

- You have a seriously successful business, you are a wealthy woman. Could you create World Class without the help of your spouse?

- You know, I could, like many other women in my circle, go to resorts, walk to shops to buy beautiful things – why not a pleasant pastime? But I prefer to work much. Vladimir says that his name gave me the opportunity to develop my business. But this is not quite true. Ask any person in my industry. I built this business from scratch, there were very difficult periods. Volodya said me from the very beginning, rather harshly, that I should deal with the case myself and not implicate him. There were moments when I asked him for help, and he helped me. But always the most important assistant were my staff. And if there anybody who supports me now – these are my team and partners. It worth much. I have been assured in the thought that had spent 16 years of life with the right people. We started to build sports complexes in the early 90′s, when many people thought only about how to quickly make a lot of money. We wanted people to develop physically, to have strong body and psychologically resistant, live in harmony of body and soul. We have 40 excellent sports centers in Russia. I cannot and do not want to go anywhere from my country. Maybe other business people have the opportunity to live abroad and operate from there. And I have everything here. I rise with my country, is it really of no impotence? Why no one will not appreciate and will not help?

POWER STATUS

- Before June 3, you lived together with your children?

- Yes, I always lived with my children in our home in Serebrianyi Bor. I built this house myself, all created, settled in it by myself. And Vladimir lived in this house. In was not easy, but I thought that the main thing – that children do not suffer. So I was shocked, having received Vladimir’s statement of claim, where he asked to determine the place of residence of the children with him and where the absolute lie was written that I do not live in our house in Serebrianyi Bor, together with our children.

- And before what court the case was brought?

- Before Presnensky court. I was very hurt, but I’m ready to compress the nerves in the fist and wait for a fair court decision. Vladimir Slutsker is known as a hard man, actively using his status as a member of the Federation Council to create advantages for himself. My lawyers are seriously concerned about the possibility of administrative pressure on the court.

- Do you have reason to believe that the court is under pressure from Vladimir Slutsker?

- I am a rather successful businesswoman. And I think that the truth always wins, and this belief has helped me to build a successful company, which values are accountable to owr country and society. But now, I feel the difference. I am separated from my children, I cannot get into my house, and the law enforcement agencies not only can help me to come to the territory inhabited by a member of the Federation Council, but even to get his explanation. But why? Is it possible that some citizens live under the law, and others having immunity?

- You have not asked for help to the Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov?

- Apparently, the time has come when I have to do it.

- Mr. Slutsker is a Senator from Chuvashia. And have you addressed the president of Chuvashia Fyodorov, the members of parliament of Chuvashia?

- Not yet. Do you think they will be able to help?

HELP of FRIENDS

- You have many friends in common, including high-ranking. What is their reaction in this situation?

- Most of them support me. My friends will come to the court to testify. Many of them are very successful public persons and they live by the laws of Russia. But we face a man who was elected in the highest legislative body of our country, who probably would uphold the law, but it turns out that he uses his high government position for his own purposes. And, unfortunately, the state does not intervene in the case of violation of parental rights of the mother by the man, endowed with the status of immunity. Once being involved in this most complex situation, having a business-quenching and means to invite good lawyers to protect my interests, I think with horror what could do an ordinary woman. Can a women in our country defend herself?

- As far as I know, the court considered a property claim of your spouse to you for some tens of millions of dollars, but mostly he wants to seize works of art from your collection.

- I am ready to give everything I have, for the sake of being near my children.

- There was information that when Vladimir Slutsker left for the Federation Council, he transferred entire business to you. And now he wants to get it back.

- Yes, it was for some short period of time. Now nothing that belonged to him is transferred to me.

Was it hard to get children?

- You were the first ventured to tell that your son was born with the help of a surrogate mother.

- For the sake of the child’s birth, I was ready to do anything, to undertake any procedure, even insanely painful. I went through all possible, all this terrible pain … Seven years I struggled. Desperate, I decided to resort to this method. In that time it was impossible in our country, and an American woman was pregnant with the child. Mischa was born in America. My son’s birthday was the happiest day in my life. Now my boy is ten years old. When people find out how Misha was born, our phone burst, desperate women grandmothers, grandfathers called – all asked to give the address of the clinic where can help. I told about how my son was born, because I felt responsibility to all childless families, who have passed all possible in medicine, but failed to have a baby. I think that hundreds of coveted kids were born, hundreds of women, hundreds of grandparents were happy, as my parents were. I have wonderful smart kids. They speak three languages.

- And how your daughter was born?

- Just like Misha. But Anya was born in Russia.

- How does the happening affect children?

- Now children are exposed to enormous psychological pressure, the father frightens them by terrorist acts. A sense of danger and threat from the outside world is instilled to them. As a result, they became afraid to leave the yard. They are surrounded by strangers – security, psychologists and staff. I am the mother, and I want to save my children from the damaging effects on their psyche.

- Are you afraid?

- Yes, I’m afraid, especially for my children.

Larisa KAFTAN asked the questions

View from the 6-th floor

When divorce becomes public

There is nothing surprising in the history of the Slutsker pair. In the recent years we have repeatedly seen the ugly public farewells of the famous and wealthy people. At one time there was a lot of noise around divorce suit of the head of “Severstal”, Alexei Mordashov and his first wife Helena. A few years later, after the family was broken, ex-wife told the press how few money pays her ex-husband oligarch to her and her son and demanded $20 million alimony. Alexander Rutskoi, ex-vice-president of Russia has passed through a lawsuit on the division of property; Alexander Pochinok, former Minister of Labor had not quickly made arrangements with his former wife. Viktor Kazantsev, the former presidential plenipotentiary publicly cleared up the views with his wife Tamara, Alexander Chernogorov, the ex-governor of Stavropol Territory – with his wife Irina. But if previously they mostly had divided the acquired good, at the last time the rich have litigations concerning their children. Viktor Baturin and Jan Rudkovskaya sworn most loudly. Passions boil also in the families of lesser-known persons. Millionaires from Rublyovka frequently seize the successors from ex-halves. Thus, the wives from Rublevka, wholly dependent on their husbands, are often not only lose livelihood, but also the last argument in the property war.

Olga Slutsker of course is an exception. She is a self-sufficient and popular woman. Despite this, the war declared by her husband, is waged with the same set of hostilities, that wealthy men use against the financially dependent wives.

Olga VANDYSHEVA

Hello! № 37 (283), 14-21 September 2009

http://hello.ru/articles/Slutsker.html

Olga Slutsker: frankly about personal, simply about complex

“I did not attack, I defended and protect from a man waging against me brutally, without rules, with the real masculine aggression”

In the recent months, the life of this famous woman, the president of network of fitness clubs World Class, resembles a detective. Her divorce with her husband, Senator Vladimir Slutsker, is a dramatic and difficult story. It already gone beyond their private affairs, becoming the subject of numerous publications in the press. Olga Slutsker agreed to present her version of events in a frank interview with HELLO!.

Olga Slutsker is a well-known figure: the successful entrepreneur – the founder and president of a network of fitness clubs World Class, a permanent member and coach of Russian team in the popular TV game “The Great Race”, socialite, a member of the Top-100 most beautiful people in Moscow. About two years ago, HELLO! has already presented material about her. Then Olga told not only about her business, but also about her husband, Senator Vladimir Slutsker, her children Misha and Ana, who were given so hard to her. It was difficult to imagine that this union, apparently so strong can ever fall apart. But … a few months the story that occurs between the once-happy husband resembles a detective. All started with the fact that once when she came home from work, Olga was unable to get into the house – the guard was told not to let her in. Until now, ex-husband and his ex-wife have not peacefully agreed nor about with who will live their children, nor about the division of joint property – proceedings go on. The story is emotional and dramatic. Olga Slutsker agreed to present her version of what is happening in a candid interview. We met in her office. Despite the experience, Olga did not seem depressed, but rather resembled a compressed spring ready to loosen at any time to continue the fight for her maternal rights.

- Olga, how do you assess your emotional state today?

- In recent months, from late March, I experienced a range of emotional states, but I feel myself very collected, I do not have tantrums, feelings of hopelessness, no desire to escape from the circumstances to the end of the world, there is no hatred or malice in my heart. At the same time I certainly feel a great longing for children and a great desire to defend my choice.

- Who supports you morally?

- Of course, my friends and my team, with whom I work, and even those whom I considered as just my friends or acquaintances sometimes offer help. I am very grateful to them. But most of all I feel support of my parents. And from the pages of the magazine, I again would like to admit they love. I admire these two elderly people, their courage, their strength of love to me and my children – Ana and Misha. Of course, parents are the most reliable support for me. But we have ceased to live together for a long time. They live in St. Petersburg, I in Moscow. Yes, and I was going in for fencing in childhood, from the age of 12 I started to travel much over the USSR at the gatherings, competitions, was located outside my home. And then I married and began to live separately. I always tried to protect parents from my problems, spared their health. What happened now was impossible to hide, and I am very worried about their reaction, because my mother survived a stroke half a year ago, father’s heart, too, was playing tricks. Thinking how they would react to everything, I even expect that they can insist that I had to compromise in order not to disturb the already arranged quiet, secure life. My parents fully accepted my point of view and join me in seeking to pass this difficult time with dignity. They hope that the situation will be resolved favorably for all of us.

-Two years ago you told HELLO! about your wonderful family relations. What has happened?

- I think this is typical for any woman – to persuade herself that all is fine. Probably, in that interview I somewhat convinced myself that what is happening with our family relationships is well, no worse and no better than in the other families. But during two years we alienated from each other even more, those values that I believe in and those Volodya believes in, remained the same, only in words, we apparently fill them with different content. In fact, for many years, I, living with husband, was absolutely one. Volodya until the beginning of divorce showed no interest in our family life with children. Almost all the holidays we spent separately. He was not with us on any of the children’s holiday. For many years, for the sake of children, I did not admit to myself that as a woman I am very unhappy, but children need a happy mom. I felt categorical disagreement with the lifestyle, which Volodya prefers. I do not blame him, I just cannot accept it. I could not fit in my head, why a person, and our children together with him 24 hours a day should be under heavy guard? We lived, as in a zone! We constantly feel the atmosphere of danger. And it was one of my biggest worries, because children are growing up and are about to begin to realize that they are restricted in the freedom of movement. Misha, 10 years old, at this age boys begin to live the life of adolescents – to go to some camps, to travel with their class without parents, to go to the movies with friends. And all this without a ring of guards. But Vladimir said that the same will be always, weather I want it or no. I could not put up with it.

- And had you disagreements on the children’s education?

- Yes. We have different views on parenting. The simplest and at the same time the dangerous – not to restrict your child’s desires. It is very difficult when one parent allows everything – unlimited game with PlayStation, hours-long views of cartoons, when he does not demand to study. Volodya could answer Misha’s question concerning homework that it is sheer nonsense and that he can reject this job. It is clear that after that it was difficult to explain to my son that homework still need to be finished. I had to deal with his discipline in spite of husband, to impart the hard work and respect for the surrounding people and the world to children. Now when I have no opportunity to be with Anna and Misha, they do not attend school!

- Mr. Slutsker filed for divorce, division of children and property at the end of March, and you – much later. Why?

- In September 2008, my husband and I had as I thought, a very good talk, I tried to convince him that he should not fight with me, I’m a woman, who was a good wife for many years, I am the mother of two our children, and, whatever one may say, we will be bound for life by our children. He assured me that the divorce will take place in a civilized manner, painlessly and quietly. The only thing he asked me was to wait 4-5 months, until the end of two trials. Of course, I agreed and waited, I could not imagine that a man with whom I lived for 20 years, secretly preparing to attack against me. This was not fit in my coordinate system. On the advice of the lawyers came my claim – as an emergency measure. I did not attack, I defend and protect against a man belligerent with me brutally, without rules, with the masculine aggression.

- It is known that one day, returning from work, you could not get home – the guards, fulfilling the order of your husband did not let you in. Why so suddenly?

- This “suddenly” does not mean suddenly, it’s a deliberate plan of action. The fact that under Russian law, a child who has is 10 years old, could be interrogated in the court about with whom of his parents he wants to live after the divorce – with mom or with dad? Therefore, isolation of children from me and my parents was a planned action, giving Vladimir opportunity for psychological treatment Misha (Anya is still small – she is 5 years old) and prepare him for the trial. On June 3, I woke up, my children came into my bedroom to wish good morning, we discussed our weekend, and I went to work. When I returned home at 18.30, the gates were closed. A guardian came out and said that he has an order of my husband not to let me go home. I was indignant: why, by what right, it’s my house! Just imagine, you come after work to your home, to the house that you built, where your children live, a dog that you gave to your son lives, where there is a garden that you cultivate, and you are just not allowed to come in! I called Anechka (at that time I could call my children). She says: “Mummy, why did you leave for London?” Apparently, they were told that I have gone. I answered: “I’m not gone. I’m here at the gate. Come to me. I naively hoped that now the children will come and everything will be settled. She handed the phone to my son who was gentle with me in the morning as always, and he completely incoherent, with brainwashed frightened voice began to repeat after the whispers of some woman: “Mom, you have to wait for Dad. Mama, Papa decides so. Dad is always right “. And disconnect. I call my lawyer – what to do? He said that have to do anything strictly according to the law and advised to call “02″ for militia I called. At this time Vladimir came out surrounded by six of his guards with machine guns. They surrounded the car, I’m inside, I’m afraid. Volodya began to bang on the window: “Come out of the car.” “I’m afraid” – I say. Then one of the guards suggested: “Vladimir Iosifovich., if you wish I’ll break the window and drag her out?” At this moment in my happiness detachment of militia arrived, and I explained: “I was not allowed to go home. There are my minor children, I’m nervous! “And then Vladimir said a strange thing: that children are under stress, they are afraid of their mother, that is me, that now they are with a psychologist, and added that as a member of the Council of Federation, he will not explain about what is happening, that’s a decision of the Supreme Court. But militia insisted that he must let me in. Volodya promised, and he left. While I filled the protocol, while I accompanied militia to the car … So when I went back to the gate, those were again closed, and the guard said again: “Sorry, Olga Sergeevna, but Vladimir Iosifovich ordered that you are not allowed.”

- And where do you live now?

- I live with my girlfriend.

- How children respond and react to what is happening?

- I do not know. Since the morning of June 3, I had never seen them, and since June 5, had not even heard – they are connected neither with me, nor with my parents. I tried to call Vladimir, but he is under various pretexts, avoided conversation. I even sent him telegrams to all the addresses where he can live and work, to appoint the time and the place of meeting with children. Silence. I wrote and sent telegrams to the custody Khoroshevo-Mnevniki (the place of residence of children), because the custody might try to influence Vladimir, because it has such rights. But the custody behaves indifferently. I’m very excited, because I do not have any information about the health of my son and daughter, their psychological state. I know that they are surrounded by people close to Vladimir. I am absolutely sure that my parents never would allow me to do the same as Vladimir is doing now with us.

- There are reports that Mischa reportedly wants to live with his father. Is that true?

- How do we know? The fact is that until June 3 there was no such question, because children did not know about divorce, or the fact that there are some problems in general. They are just kids who love their mom and dad. But now a psychologist stays with Misha and Anna, he works with them very tight … Even adults can be manipulated, not only children. I believe that it is unacceptable to interrogate a 10-year-old child in the court – only a weak person can take advantage of this. We must be very strong, wise, and infinitely loving parent, not to fall into temptation and not to take advantage of child vulnerability.

- Psychologists say that father is unable to replace the children’s mother completely. What are the arguments in his favor are led by Mr. Slutsker?

- The problem is that Vladimir Slutsker does not produce any arguments. The petition, filed by him in court, reflects only the wording that the marriage and the family broke up and cannot be recovered, please divorce him with Olga Slutsker, define the place of residence of children with him and a list of property to which he claims. A few months my lawyers are asking the court to order the plaintiff Vladimir Slutsker to argue why he believes that we should get a divorce and why the children should live with him. By law the plaintiff must specify the grounds for his claim or circumstances on which he bases his claim. Then the defendant could build his own defense in court. But still I do not know from what I must defend myself.

- But one of the arguments was voiced in the press that you do not give enough time for the children. It that true?

- I’ll say: such an accusation can bring to any working woman who has reached some career growth. There are millions of such women in our country, so all of us have no right to raise children? I have a usual five-day working week. Yes, I would go to work at 10 am, finishing at seven in the evening and return home to spend time with my children, could leave again for an event – I’m a public person and I have to attend the high society. I always spent weekend with my children. When Anya was born, I purposely refused the post of general director of the company, realizing that the operational management activity takes more time than the post of the president. During 10 years of life of Misha and 5 years of Anya’s life there was no single holiday or vacation, no important event in their lives that I missed. We’ve traveled together, skied together, in any weather, I stood in line for rides, was always near them when they were sick. I do not think all this is a merit – it is a normal maternal life. And now I was faced with the fact that every time before the next hearing a portion of provocative lies and mud is poured on me. But, unfortunately, as Goebbels said: “The monstrous the lie is, the more people believe it.” The war, which is now is deployed against me, being on the rules of Goebbels.

- Does your personal income allow to support the level of life, accustomed to you and your children?

- I can afford the life, which makes it possible for my children to get a good education, excellent medical care, go on vacation at the popular and interesting places. However, Volodya promised that after the divorce, I’ll stay with nothing. The fact is that in most families the husband is the breadwinner, he forges welfare, and the wife is not involved in the business, but when seeking a divorce from him she tries to sue something. We have a different story: Vladimir wants to divide the property that belongs to me. The result will be determined by the court, though I do not want to lose my property. But for me, “to leave with nothing” does not mean losing the property, it means to lose oneself.

- Divorce, the courts … To avoid mistakes, such cases need to be addressed with a cool head. What helps you mentally lead yourself in order to remove stress?

- Probably the will. When the cutting children from me occurred and I went to the departments, I was full of emotions. I ran the offices, trying to break through to the influential people, to cry out, that a wild injustice is going on, begged to help me, but always came up against either indifference or unwillingness to deal with the Senator. I ignored myself – wore the same clothes, did not use makeup, I almost had no time to pack my hair and make a manicure, I grow thin wildly. I was in a state approaching collapse, even one high-ranking official said: “Olga, turn off the emotions!” But I could not take calm down, switch on the clear mind. After another three weeks, when I looked like a shadow, one of my good friends said to me: “Maybe this is just what Vladimir seeks – that you have ceased to be yourself, that stress burned you? But your children need a healthy and beautiful mother, so gather up yourself! “One of my friends, a very wise woman and a wonderful mother, suggested: “You now cannot think of the children. If you’re going to think about them every second, you will not hold out and win. Just your brain will not work in the right direction. “And I gathered up my will. During the day I learned to concentrate and to think not about children, but about what I still have to do to achieve truth and justice.

- Your story is gradually overgrown with some kind of detective events: once the case evidence is stolen from the opposite side lawyer, once you seem to illegally make a duplicate passport for your son to take your children abroad. These facts have occurred?

- Every parent has the right to make any type of document for his/her child, but it is not possible to take the child abroad without the consent of the other parent. Yes, and it is absolutely not my story – running with the children around the world. This is absurd. Why do I need to run from my country? Why to hide children from their father? These accusations are untruthful and groundless. As regular robbery of Vladimir’s lawyers (ironically) – I have on comments on this topic. (Smiles.)

- There was a controversial interview with your former driver in press. You can comment on that?

- (Sighs) It turns out that any driver, who had brought you to some house or hotel, where there is a number of popular restaurants, with any friend of yours, may make his conclusions about your life and give an interview on this matter. The driver was used to destroy my reputation, the public’s attitude toward me, my relationship with the children. People are weak, timid, jealous … Someone can withhold the pressure, others cannot, someone can refuse the money, others cannot. This is a personal choice of each.

- What is the main lesson you have got after passing through this truly dramatic situation?

- I realized that the woman in our country is very helpless. Even such a woman as I am, who has the financial ability to engage high-quality lawyers, has known and influential friends, is absolutely helpless in front of a man who have money and power. Unfortunately, today the State does not protect a mother, a wife, a sister. This is beautifully described in verse, which are expressively read from the scene, but in reality it is not true. So I decided for myself that: if God willing, everything will end happily, come to the favorable end, I will help women who find themselves in a similar situation, but who cannot help themselves.

Olga Slutsker prevented from seeing their children.
Last month blogs and social news lines are dazzled with reports about the very sound divorce of the year. 20-year long marriage of Vladimir and Olga Slutsker exhausted in the contest of both parties.

Famous Moscow businesswoman, the president of “Russian Fitness Group”, comprising a fitness network World Class and “Physcult”, the wife of a senator and former head of the Russian Jewish Congress, Vladimir Slutsker, Olga Slutsker told the observer of “NG” about helplessness of a woman when she faces the harsh realities of Russia. Geralina Lyubarskaya, the Olga Slutsker’s lawyer participated in the conversation.

- Olga, all Moscow is discussing a rumor about your divorce from Vladimir Slutsker, the Senator. But you have not publicly declared about it, what prompted you to do it now?

Olga Slutsker: I have not declared and was not going to do. I planned to go through this procedure quietly, peacefully and in a civilized manner. Divorce – it is always a very painful and intimae process. Especially if the family has two young children. I did not want any publicity. But now I am forced to speak with the press. The fact is that since June 3, I am deprived of the opportunity to see my children and cannot get in my own home. Faced with the harsh reality of Russia, I grasped the powerlessness of a woman whose husband has a certain power, at least in regard to divorce.

I cannot see children from that day. Moreover neither I nor my parents cannot even talk to them on the phone now.

- What points in the Russian legislation state the age of children when they are asked with whom of the divorced parents they would like to stay?

O.S.: Since 10 years. Misha is just at this age. To date, the children are in a total-stress situation. Every day of their life they had seen their mother. During all these years I even did not go for vacations without children. Now they are under-clock surveillance, surrounded by strangers, psychologists, armed guards, students and pupils of my husband’s Kabbalah studies. And it is certainly creates a negative effect on the psyche of two small children separated from their mother.

- Can one of the parents separate children from the other parent before divorce finalized?

Geralina Lyubarskaya: Of course no, especially he cannot separate children from their mother. According to the law, parents have equal rights. And if the child lives with only one parent – in this case, with the father, he even without any malicious acts creates a negative image of the mother. Kids think they are abandoned. From the age of 10 the child is asked with whom he would like to stay. A child under 10 years is also asked with whom he would live after the divorce of parents. To which of the parents he is more attached – is defined in the course of a game, conversation with a psychologist, tests. And the 10-year-old child is taken to the court as a last resort. In the U.S., for example, such cases are generally settled by a special judge, and at the time of proceedings a responsible for the child person is appointed by representative of child’s guardianship. In our country, this situation is not resolved. But the father in our case not only raises the question of transfer of the children to his care. He is going to increase his share in the divisible property due to the children. And the fact that the elder child clearly was prepared for trial, testifies this.

- What makes you assume that the child may be exploited in the court?

G.L.: Slutsker’s lawyers filed to the court a petition on bringing the 10-year-old son to participate in the process few days before the isolation of children from the mother. Anyone who cares about the child, sparing him would never take him to the court. Interrogation of the child in the court is conducted in the most extreme cases, for example, if a child has lived with his grandparents for a long time and did not want to go to the parent who had left him. In the petition Vladimir points out that the mother does not live in the house where children live. They allegedly live there with the father – that did not correspond to reality at that time. Now this is true, because my client is evicted from her own home. Children are not allowed to talk with their mother, grandfather and grandmother – that is, with their closest people. They are surrounded by strangers. False rumors about the mother are spread. The whole situation is not aimed at the benefit, but against the children. Although children always suffer awfully at the parent’s divorce, no matter how it passes.

- Well, you have told to the press about your problem, but you must understand that in addition to distrust the woman who seeks a divorce there is a distrust of the elites in our society. Most likely you will find that you will be reproached for your success and money. Moreover, the whole story would be called the sharing of capital. At least you’ll hardly get a sympathy.

O.S.: If I would ask me today, weather I am ready to give all my life-long earnings for the right to be with my children – I would not think for a second. I would give back everything.

- What would you like to achieve ideally?

O.S.: I asked the press to ensure that my story has become a signal to the society. Disgraceful fact is when a person in positions of authority, which has financial and administrative resources, uses them for his personal purposes. The state actively fighting it concerning business. But when the same methods are used against children, their souls are maimed, and in this fight grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers of children are trampled down – it is a shame for the society that considers itself to be civilized. In fact, this is a raid against the children and wife. My example shows that in our country a de facto right of a mother to be with her children is not protected.