A large family from Tuapse appealed the refusal to provide their daughter with baby food in cassation.

Parents of many children, Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov, filed a cassation appeal against the decisions of the courts that refused to oblige social protection to provide their daughter with the necessary nutrition. The parents also filed a complaint with the Attorney General.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on May 6, the Tuapse District Court refused the large family of Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov in their claim for providing their daughter with baby food. The court referred to the fact that by the time the case was considered, the girl had already reached the age of one year and four months and does not belong to the category of children under six months, who are provided with such food.

Pimenova and Kartashov pointed out contradictions in the court decisions

On August 5, Pimenova and Kartashov filed a cassation appeal to the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction and a request to the Attorney General of Russia, Alexander Gutsan. Copies of the documents are available to "Caucasian Knot".

In the cassation appeal, the spouses indicated that the judge effectively substituted himself for the pediatrician. "According to Article 52 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ 'On the Fundamentals of Health Protection of Citizens in the Russian Federation', the right to nutrition is determined exclusively by the conclusions of doctors. The judge, lacking medical education, unilaterally 'canceled' the medical prescription," the appeal states.

Moreover, the parents indicated that the girl's mother applied to the social protection department on January 9, 2025. According to their claims, the department required the submission of documents in established forms and linked the issuance of food to the re-registration of the unified benefit, although it had previously notified the spouses about the non-application procedure for extending this support measure.

The conclusions of the courts of two instances contradict the circumstances of the case, believes Tatyana Pimenova. "Our study of the two judicial acts of two instances reveals extremely contradictory and disputable conclusions of the representatives of the judiciary," she told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

The judge, lacking medical education, unilaterally 'canceled' the medical prescription

The spouses complained about the inaction of the prosecutor's office

The dispute has long gone beyond a few cans of baby formula and concerns the attitude of officials towards children's rights, Pimenova stated.

"It is fundamentally important for us to achieve justice. Our example clearly shows the false concern of officials for children. The system refuses to acknowledge its guilt and compensate for the harm caused not to us, adults, but to the child, to return her the resource that she did not receive due to negligence and indifference to official duties. When the courts cover this system, they only prove that the fates of children mean nothing to them. We went to cassation and the Attorney General's Office to check how much the higher echelons of power really care about the well-being of Russian children," she said.

Government agencies waste resources on litigation instead of providing the child with the necessary nutrition, outraged Sergey Kartashov. "Instead of acknowledging the mistake and issuing the necessary nutrition to the infant, the state machine spends a lot of resources, paper, and judges' time to prove that an infant should not have received anything. This is a system of complete alienation and bureaucratic insensitivity," he told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

In her appeal to the Attorney General, Pimenova also pointed out the inaction of the local prosecutor's office. According to her, the prosecutor, in violation of Article 45 of the Civil Procedure Code, did not intervene in the process to protect the rights of the minor child and did not appeal the court decisions.

The appeal also states that violations by social protection agencies have become the subject of an investigation by the Investigative Committee. Orders to conduct the investigation were given by the deputy head of the regional Investigative Committee and the head of the investigative department for Tuapse, as stated in the document.

The lawyer linked the position of the courts to the fear of creating a precedent

The family's position is based on federal and regional legislation, noted lawyer Elena Pavlova. "If the state's obligation was not fulfilled on time due to the fault of the social protection agency, reaching a certain age by the child does not annul the obligation of the agency to compensate for the harm caused or to provide what is due in kind or in compensation form," she told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

The defensive position of the courts and social protection agencies was linked by the lawyer to the fear of creating a precedent and the peculiarities of bureaucratic reporting.

"This is nothing but precedent fear. Acknowledgment of the claim means acknowledgment of a systemic failure in the work of the regional social protection agencies of the Krasnodar Territory. This will open the way for hundreds of similar claims from other families," Pavlova suggested.

The situation with the unreceived nutrition raises questions about the expenditure of budget funds allocated for this program, the lawyer continued.

Acknowledgment of the claim means acknowledgment of a systemic failure in the work of the regional social protection agencies

"If there are such programs, then specific budget funds are allocated annually for providing children with nutrition. Logically, one can calculate the algorithm of actions with unreceived cans: if the child was listed in the lists or had a medical referral, but the nutrition was not issued, these funds are either 'saved' and returned to the budget, which is often presented as 'efficiency', or are utilized through the write-off of supposedly expired products," she explained.

To check for possible violations, it is necessary to study the documents on procurement, transfer, and write-off of nutrition, the lawyer noted. "If the procurement for the child was listed in the documents, but the product was not actually issued, it may involve administrative offenses or crimes provided for by Articles 285 and 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – abuse of official powers and negligence," Pavlova noted.