File no.

3150/279/2009 - entrusting under age

setting visiting minor program-

ROMANIA
JUDICIAL COURT PIATRA NEAMŢ
NEAMŢ COUNTY
CIVIL DECISION NO. 3446
PUBLIC SESSION FROM 25.08.2009
The court is established from:
PRESIDENT OF THE COURT – CRISTINA SUGARU
COURT REGISTRAR – ANICA STAN

It is examined the civil cause on the applicant TOMA ALINA CRISTINA

inconsistent with the defendant CIOBANU CLAUDIU and the guardianship authorities
from the LOCAL COUNCIL PIATRA NEAMŢ and the LOCAL COUNCIL ROMAN,
having as object entrusting an under age and setting visiting minor program.
At the nominal appeal made in the public session have responded the plaintiff
assisted by lawyer Burcă Dorel having the power of attorney to the case file and for the
defendant lawyer Danciu Iuliana with the power of attorney to the case file, default being
the legal representatives of the guardianship authorities.
It was made the oral report of the cause by the session registrar, which evinced:
- legal procedure fulfilled
- the litigation is at first hearing date
Attorney Burcă Dorel for the plaintiff shows that he has no claims to draw
up.
 Attorney Danciu Iuliana for the defendant shows that she has no claims to
draw up.
There being no longer to formulate other claims or other evidences to
adduce , the court holds the cause in state of judgment and gives the word within the
underlying debates.
Attorney Burcă Dorel, the defender of the complainant, claims the
admission of the action the way it was formulated, entrusting to the plaintiff, toward
growth and education of the under age Alexandru-Marian with the duty of the defendant
to pay an alimony established based on the minimum wage income, given that from the
brief motion it results that he has no job. With regards to the establishment of the visiting
minor program, he requests to be taken into account that from the specifications made by
the defendant through the brief motion he has no job, no domicile, and thus would require
the establishment of a visiting program at the applicant’s home. The plaintiff agrees to set
a visiting program for the under age one week in the winter holiday and 2 weeks in the
summer holiday. She does not claim for legal costs.
Attorney Danciu Iuliana, the defender of the defendant, presents that he
agrees to entrust to the complainant toward growth and education the under age
Alexandru-Marian and constrain the defendant to pay an alimony established based on
the minimum wage income. She requests to be admitted also the counterclaim filed by
defendant, in the sense of establishing a visiting program of the minor thus: once a week,
from Saturday from 9 o’clock in the morning until Sunday to 6 o’clock in the evening
and in summer time in July, and one week in the winter holiday, taking the minor at the
defendant residence, specifying that the defendant lives with his parents. He does not
claim for legal costs.
The debates have been pronounced closed, thereupon;

T H E I N S TAN C E
Reviewing the application filed, it observed the followings:
From the application registered pending on this instance at 14th of May
2009, under the number 3150/279/2009, the complainant Toma Alina-Cristina,
summoned the defendant Ciobanu Claudiu, requesting the instance that, through the
resolution which will be pronounced, to be entrusted to her toward growth and education
the minor Ciobanu Alexandru-Marian, forcing the defendant to pay an alimony for the
under-age, as well as to pay the legal costs.
In fundamenting the petition, the complainant evinced that from her
relationship of living in concubinage with the defendant resulted the under age Ciobanu
Alexandru-Marian, born at 8th of September 2006.
Because after the birth of the minor the relationships between her and the
defendant started deteriorating, in June 2008 the parts separated in fact.
The complainant showed also that from the date of birth until present, the
minor has been in her care and sustentation, being helped in parenting of this by her
mother, at whom the minor has lived, in the recent period of time. Also, she specified that
she has better material conditions than the defendant, and between her and the child has
grown a strong attachment, reason held for being in the interest of the minor to be
entrusted to her.
In fact, she alleges the provisions of art. 65 and 100 rap. to art. 42 C.fam.,
as well as the provisions of art.86,94 and 107 from the C.fam.
In proving the action, the applicant requested evidence-taking with
defendant questioning, with statements of witnesses and with docket entries and filed, in
the latter evidence, the copy of the birth certificate of the minor, as well as the copy of her
and the defendant identification card (f.5-7 ds.).
The action was legally stamped with a judicial stamp fee of 6 Romanian
lei and a judicial stamp of 0,3 Romanian lei.
The defendant, legally summoned, has formulated a counterclaim,
through which has claimed the establishment, in his favor, of a visiting program for the
minor Ciobanu Alexandru-Marian, by taking him, at his residence, after the following
program: once a week, from Sunday, 9 o’clock in the morning, until Sunday, 6 o’clock in
the evening, one week in the winter holiday and one month in the summer holiday,
respectively, in July, as week as forcing the complainant to pay the juridical costs.
The defendant specified in the content of the counterclaim that he agrees
with the entrustment of the minor to the complainant toward growth and education,
showing that he agrees also with the payment of the alimony in the favor of the under
age, alimony to be establish, though, based on the minimum wage income, taking into
account that he does not realize incomes on a periodic basis, being unemployed.
In justifying the counterclaim, the defendant-plaintiff showed that from his birth
and until one year ago, the under age lived with him and his mother, and for one year he
has been living with his grandmother, since both him and the applicant are working
abroad.
In this whole period of time, the defendant-plaintiff demonstrated that he has kept
in touch with the minor, he was always interested in his health and evolution, he regularly
sent him money and goods necessary for his growth and education and he visited him
whenever he went home, thus between him and the under age has been established a
strong emotional connection, which cannot be maintained just through keeping in touch
with the minor.
In this cause were ordered social investigation at the parents’ residences, with
regard to growth and education of the minor resulted from the cohabiting relationship,
parents’ behavior, the attachment of the minor to the parents and to the persons from the
extended family, the reports made being submitted to the case file (f.15 and 17 ds.).
Analyzing the acts and the file papers, the court retains the followings:
From the cohabiting relationship of the parents resulted the minor Ciobanu
Alexandru-Marian, born at 8th of September 2006. This was recognized by the defendant-
plaintiff as being his son and took the surname of the father, “Ciobanu”, having thus
established the parentage from both parents.
According to the provisions of art.65 Family Code if the child’s parentage outside
marriage is established from both parents, his entrustment, as well as the parents’
contribution towards the expenses for growth, education, teaching and training will be
established based on the provisions of art.42-44 Family Code, which are applied by
similarity.
Corroborating the parties’ claims with the conclusions of social investigations
made with respect to this cause, it results that both parties live in present in the United
Kingdom and the minor has been living from October 2008 at the residence of
grandparents, where he has optimal conditions for growth and development. Both parents
are attached to the minor, keep in touch with him and contribute to his livelihood.
 To those exposed, to the conclusions of social investigations and option of both
parties, the instance appreciates that considering the best interest of the minor he should
be entrusted to the mother towards growing and education.
So as, based on the dispositions of art. 65 reported to art.42 paragraph 1 from the
Penal Code, the court will admit the claim of the complainant-defendant for entrusting
the minor, disposing consequently.
Taking into account that the minor will be entrusted to the mother, the court
orders the defendant-plaintiff to pay an alimony in the favor of the child, according to the
provisions of art. 65 reported to art.42 paragraph 3 from the Family Code.
In this respect, art.86 paragraph 1 and art. 107 paragraph 1 from the Family Code
regulates the obligation of child maintenance of their parents. This obligation is
independent of the fact that the child has the character of a child inside a marriage or
outside the institution of marriage, and gaining some incomes by the debtor which will
allow him to fulfill his legal obligation.
So as, taking into account the age of the minor and the payment possibilities of
the defendant, which is not employed with work contract and has not proved that has
another person in his maintenance, the court will oblige him to pay a monthly alimony for
the under age amounting 150 Romanian lei, based on the minimum wage income in the
country.
The date at which the contribution for maintenance is due is that of delivering the
judgments, taking into account that from the claims of the defendant-plaintiff, undeniably
by the counter part, it results that he contributed until present to the maintenance of the
minor, and this obligation will take up to the child’s age of eighteen.
As regarding the claim filed by the defendant-plaintiff, having as object the
establishment of a visiting program of the minor, the court retains the followings:
According to the art. 43 paragraph 3 Fam.C. , “ the divorced parent, to whom the
child was not entrusted, keeps the right to have personal relationships with this, as well as
ensuring the growth, education, teaching and training.”
Also, according to art. 14 paragraph 1 from the Law no. 272/2004, “the child has
the right to keep personal relationships and direct contacts with parent, relatives as well
as other persons to whom the child developed attachment relationships”.
 In the light of the texts from the law mentioned, the instance appreciates that de
claim filed by the defendant-plaintiff is founded.
As regards with the concrete way of exercising this right, the instance retains that
it is in principle that the parent to whom the minor was not entrusted to be created the
possibility to maintain personal relationships with him, without any constraint and
without being embarrassed by the presence of the other parent. With this respect, the
claim of the defendant-plaintiff, to be granted the possibility to take the minor to his
residence, during the established program, appears normally.
Withal, the court will appreciate that is fair that each of the parents should enjoy
the presence of the minor during the school holidays as well as during the weekend,
reasoning for which he will entrust to the defendant-plaintiff to visit the under wage
during the school holidays and as well as during the weekend, but once at two weeks and
not every weekend, as he requested.
So as, the court will admit only partially this part of claim and consequently, will
grant the defendant-plaintiff to have personal relationships with the under age Ciobanu
Alexandru-Marian, after the following program: in the second and forth week of every
month, from Sunday, 12 o’clock until Sunday, 5 o’clock in the evening; one week during
the winter holiday, respectively, in the second week and two weeks in the summer
holiday, respectively in the first two weeks of July ( and not the whole month, as he
requested, taking into account the early age of the minor and the fact that turning over for
such a large period of time from the environment he was accustomed to, it might produce
a severe perturbation of his program, with negative consequences over his psychic), with
the obligation of the defendant-plaintiff to take the minor to his residence and bring him
back to the residence of the complainant-defendant by the end of the established program.
Also, the court will take act that both parties renounced to the claims regarding
the payment of the legal costs.
 FOR THESE REASONS,
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW
DECIDES

Admits the main application, formulated by the complainant-defendant Toma

Alina-Cristina, living in Piatra Neamt, 71 Progresului Street, flat D3, sc. A, 1st floor,
apartment 5, Neamt County, inconsistent with the defendant, Ciobanu Claudiu,
domiciled in Roman, Liliacului Street, flat 4, sc. A, apartment 19, Neamt County
Admits partially the counterclaim filed by the defendant-plaintiff.
Entrusts to the complainant-defendant, towards growth and education the minor
Ciobanu Alexandru-Marian, born at 8th of September 2006.
Obliges the defendant-plaintiff to pay in the favor of the minor a monthly alimony
for maintenance amounting 150 Romanian lei, starting with the date of delivering the
judgments, until the age of eighteen of the minor.
Grants to the defendant-plaintiff to have personal relationships with the minor
after the following program>
- in the second and forth week of every month, from Sunday 12 o’clock
until Sunday, 5 o’clock in the evening;
- one week during the winter holiday, respectively in the second week;
- two weeks during the summer holiday, respectively in the firs two
week of July;
with the obligation of the defendant-plaintiff to take the minor to his residence and bring
him back to the residence of the complainant-defendant by the end of the established
program
Takes act that both parties renounced to the claims regarding the payment of the
legal costs.
With appeal right in 15 days from communication.
Pronounces in the public session, today, 25th of August 2009.

PRESIDENT, REGISTRER,
Signature Stamp with Trial Court of Piatra Neamt Signature
 Undersigned Gheorghiţă Laura, certified translator, (authorization number
26323/2009 issued by the Ministry of Justice), certify the accuracy of this translation in
English language and its compliance with the writing in Romanian language which was
presented to me.

TRANSLATOR,
 Subsemnata Gheorghiţă Laura, traducător autorizat, (aut. nr. 26323/2009
eliberată de Ministerul Justiţiei), certific exactitatea traducerii în limba engleză şi
conformitatea sa cu înscrisul în limba română care mi-a fost prezentat.

TRADUCĂTOR,
 Undersigned Gheorghiţă Laura, certified translator, (authorization number
26323/2009 issued by the Ministry of Justice), certify the accuracy of this translation in
English language and its compliance with the writing in Romanian language which was
presented to me.

TRANSLATOR,
 Subsemnata Gheorghiţă Laura, traducător autorizat, (aut. nr. 26323/2009
eliberată de Ministerul Justiţiei), certific exactitatea traducerii în limba engleză şi
conformitatea sa cu înscrisul în limba română care mi-a fost prezentat.

TRADUCĂTOR,
Undersigned Gheorghiţă Laura, certified translator, (authorization number
26323/2009 issued by the Ministry of Justice), certify the accuracy of this translation in
English language and its compliance with the writing in Romanian language which was
presented to me.

TRANSLATOR,

ROMANIA
BIROUL NOTARULUI PUBLIC NEAMT

INCHEIERE LEGALIZARE A SEMNATURII TRADUCATORULUI

Nr........, Anul........, Luna....., Ziua.....

...............NOTAR PUBLIC, în temeiul art.8, lit. „e” şi „j” din Legea nr.36/1995, cu
modificările şi completările ulterioare, legalizez semnătura de mai sus a lui Gheorghiţă
Laura, traducător autorizat (aut. Nr. 26323/2009) în baza specimenului de semnătură
depus pe cele 2 exemplare ale înscrisului.
S-a perceput onorariul de..................lei, cu bonul fiscal/chitanţa nr. ...............

NOTAR PUBLIC,

ROMANIA
NOTARY PUBLIC OFFICE

AUTHENTIFICATION OF TRANSLATOR’S SIGNATURE

No..........., Year............, Month............., Day.............

.........................PUBLIC NOTAY, based on the art. 8, point „e” and „j” from the
Law no. 36/1995, with subsequent amendments, hereby declare authentic the signature
above of Gheorghiţă Laura, authorized translator (aut. no. 26323/2009) bazed on the
signature specimen put on the two copies of this document.
Fee were charged in amount of...........Romanian lei, with tax receipt/bill no........

PUBLIC NOTARY,