Obstructing the Enforcement of a Court Judgment: Requiring a Certificate as a Form of Sabotage

Introduction: Abuse of Right in Family Conflicts

The enforcement of court judgments, especially those concerning the custody arrangement with a child, often involves attempts by one party to create artificial bureaucratic obstacles. A situation where a grandmother or grandfather (hereinafter referred to as "grandfather") from the mother's side, who lives with the child, at the moment determined by the court for transferring the child to the father, requires additional documents (for example, a certificate from the father himself or other papers), is a classic example of the abuse of right and procedural sabotage. This is not a legitimate requirement, but a tactical maneuver aimed at disrupting the enforcement of the judgment, creating conflict, and further discrediting the father.

1. The Legal Nature of an Enforcement Document and the Role of Third Parties

An enforcement document is a document issued by the court based on a legally binding judgment. Its content is mandatory for all persons concerned. The court judgment on the custody arrangement clearly stipulates the time, place, and conditions for transferring the child. No additional conditions not specified in the judgment can be demanded.

The legal status of the grandfather: The grandfather, who is not a party to the enforcement proceeding (creditor or debtor), acts in this case as a person actually holding the child. Legally, he is obligated to transfer the child to the father without any hindrance based on the presented enforcement document. His personal disagreement with the court's decision or his subjective "requirements" have no legal force and are arbitrary actions.

2. Motivation and Objectives of Such Requirements

The requirement of a certificate or other document at a critical moment of transfer pursues several strategic objectives:

Disrupting a specific meeting: Creating an artificial conflict and delaying time. While the father tries to explain the illegality of the requirements or (worse) runs to obtain an unnecessary certificate, the appointed court time expires. The goal is achieved — the meeting is disrupted.

Provoking conflict and documenting "inappropriateness": Calculating that the father, encountering an absurd requirement, will show anger, frustration, and enter into a confrontation. This gives the grandfather or mother the opportunity to later claim in court or to the guardianship authorities that the father "acts aggressively, unconstructively, and cannot negotiate," and therefore it is "dangerous" to transfer the child to him. The fact of the requirement of a certificate is omitted, only the video recording or witness testimony about the conflict remains.

Establishing one's own "control" over the procedure: This is an attempt to impose an additional procedure not provided for by the court, thereby placing the father in a dependent position and demonstrating that real power over the process remains with the mother's family.

Creating a negative precedent: If the father once submits and provides some unnecessary certificate, the next time two certificates or another document may be demanded. Thus, an illegal additional procedure is formed, the refusal from which will be used as a pretext for refusal.

3. The Legal Nullity of the Requirement of a "Certificate from the Father"

From a legal standpoint, the requirement is completely meaningless:

The enforcement document is an exhaustive document. It is sufficient for the bailiff and for persons obligated to enforce the judgment to present this document. The father's identity is verified by his passport.

A certificate is not a document confirming the right. No regulatory act provides that for obtaining his child by court decision, the father must have a certificate issued to himself.

Violation of the principle of legal certainty: The judgment of the court must be enforced in the form in which it is formulated. The introduction of conditions by third parties is an attempt to undermine the authority of the judicial power.

Example from judicial practice: In one case, the Moscow Regional Court, the grandmother (the mother of the respondent) refused to transfer her grandson to the father, requiring him to provide a certificate of health and a work performance evaluation. The court, considering the issue of her liability for failure to enforce the judgment, stated that her actions are "malicious obstruction of the enforcement of a judicial act, not based on the law," and imposed a significant fine under Part 2 of Article 113 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings."

4. Algorithm of Actions for the Father: How to React Legally and Effectively

It is crucial to act not emotionally, but procedurally competent, documenting each step.

Documentation of the fact of the requirement. When meeting with the grandfather, it is necessary to turn on a dictaphone or video recording (complying with the rules of two-way conversation recording if required by regional norms). Clearly and calmly ask clarifying questions: "Are you refusing to transfer [name of the child] based on the court decision No… dated [date]? Do you require me to provide a certificate? Which one? On what grounds? Where is this requirement written in the judgment?"

Calm refusal and explanation. Explain that the requirement is illegal, and you are acting based on the enforcement document. Show the grandfather your passport and the enforcement document. Offer him to call the bailiff in charge of your case immediately for clarification.

Immediate notification to the bailiff. If the transfer does not take place, it is necessary to notify the bailiff in writing of the fact of obstruction on the same day. Attach an audio/video recording to the notification, and it is desirable to provide witness testimony (for example, from your relative who was present at this). Demand from the bailiff:

Prepare an act of non-compliance with the court judgment.

Issue an order imposing a fine on the grandfather (as a person holding the child) under Part 2 of Article 113 of the FZ "On Enforcement Proceedings" (fine for individuals from 2,000 to 2,500 rubles, and in case of repeated violation — up to 10,000 rubles).

Take measures to compel the grandfather to appear for clarification.

Consider the issue of establishing a place for forced transfer of the child (for example, in the premises of the FSSP office or in a neutral public place under the control of the bailiff).

File a statement with the court to determine the custody arrangement, indicating the place of transfer. If incidents recur, the father may apply to the court with an amended claim, where he will detail that the transfer of the child should not take place at the place of residence of the mother/grandfather, but at a neutral, controlled place (such as the entrance of a police station, the lobby of a school/daycare center, a park near a monument), in the presence of a bailiff or, initially, a representative of the guardianship authority. This excludes the possibility of creating private obstacles.

5. The Psychological Aspect and Work with the Child

The child, who has become an involuntary witness or hostage of such a situation, experiences severe stress. It is important:

Never discuss negatively the actions of the grandfather or mother in the presence of the child.

Explain to the child clearly and simply that dad came because the court allowed him to meet with him, and that this is normal and legal.

If the meeting is canceled this time, tell the child that you are very upset, but you will definitely see each other next time according to the schedule. This gives the child a sense of predictability and safety.

Conclusion: Obstruction as a Systemic Problem

The requirement of a certificate at the moment of executing a court judgment is not a trivial matter, but an intentional tactic of procedural sabotage. It is aimed at testing the father's determination, his legal literacy, and emotional resilience.

It is possible to counteract this only by strictly adhering to the letter of the law and actively using the mechanisms of mandatory enforcement. Passivity and attempts to "settle things amicably" in such a situation play into the hands of the opposite side, reinforcing their sense of impunity. The bailiff in this situation is a key ally, and he must be involved as quickly and documentarily as possible. Every documented fact of obstruction should become the basis for procedural sanctions, bringing the moment closer when the judgment of the court will be enforced unconditionally.

Permanent link to this publication: