Protecting the interests of a US citizen in a restraining order case

In early 2020, the US citizen addressed to our attorney-at-law Oleh Holubnychyi regarding the case of divorce with Ukrainian citizen. Divorce proceeding was initiated, and due to complete disregard of the process, the defendant received a court decision on divorce in absentia in May. Due to quarantine restrictions, the court decision did not enter into force until the end of July 2020, when the defendant filed an application for review of the decision in absentia and additionally an ungrounded application for restrictive order against the US citizen. The application referred to facts of physical and psychological and economic violence. Sure enough, no violence was committed by the US citizen, neither against his ex-wife, nor against their children.

Attorney-at-law Oleh Holubnychyi represented the Client’s interests in both proceedings. The proceeding of reviewing a decision in absentia was faster than the one related to issuing a restrictive order. In this regard, due to the competent support during the process of reviewing of decision on divorce in absentia, attorney-at-law Oleh Holubnychyi obtained a sufficient amount of evidence, which was used in the proceeding of issuing of restrictive order:

  1. The complainant (opponent) filed a statement of “conciliation”, which in fact contradicted the content of the statement on issuance of restrictive order, and this was used during the proceeding related to issuing a restrictive order.
  2. In the process of providing explanations the complainant (opponent) mentioned a large number of facts, including the events when the facts of violence allegedly took place, which contradicted to what was stated in the application for restrictive order. As a result, audio recordings of the court meetings were attached to the case file on the issuance of restraining order.
  3. Between the hearings, the plaintiff and the defendant communicated with each other, visited their children together and spent time with them in recreational areas, evidence of which was provided to the court, and which, among other things, showed no violence on the part of the Client in relation to the family.
  4. The essence of the application for restraining order was reduced, first of all, to the applicant’s financial claims against the US citizen, which is the subject of a completely different case – the recovery of alimony, to which the attorney-at-law drew the court’s attention. In general, all the above facts became the grounds for rejection of the application for restraining order.

Link to the court decision: