A court denied a large family from Tuapse access to baby food for their daughter.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC, OR CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC.

Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov from Tuapse received a court ruling by mail denying their claim to provide their newborn daughter with specialized nutrition, citing that the girl had already grown. The parents intend to appeal the decision, citing numerous violations.

As reported by the "Caucasian Knot," instead of the 78 cans of free baby food due, the daughter of spouses Sergey Kartashov and Tatyana Pimenova received only 39. The prosecutor's office, to which the parents appealed, found no violations in the situation. "You did not submit a request to extend the provision of specialized baby food," I. Kliminchenko, head of the Kuban Prosecutor's Office's Department for Supervision of Compliance with Laws Concerning Minors and Youth, explained to the couple on January 12. The Social Welfare Department, however, assured the couple that "the period for providing specialized food will be extended without requiring a request." The prosecutor's office informed the parents that the facts of the failure to provide food will be included in the submission to the Kuban Ministry of Labor and Social Development. It was I. Kliminchenko who informed them of this.

On May 5, parents of many children, Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov, received a reasoned decision from the Tuapse District Court, dated April 24, denying their claim to provide their newborn daughter with specialized nutrition. "They refused to issue us a decision, and it only arrived in the mail more than ten days later." "However, the text itself indicates that it was finalized on April 28," Tatyana Pimenova told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

The decision, a copy of which is in the possession of "Caucasian Knot," states that the family received food from February to April 2025, but was subsequently denied food due to a lack of information about an extension of the monthly child benefit. The court stated that provision of childcare is declarative and depends on the fulfillment of a number of conditions, including the receipt of the benefit. "Having information about the lack of benefit assignment for a new period, the administration came to the reasonable conclusion that there are no grounds for extending the period of food provision," the court decision states.

Provision of specialized food products to older children is not provided.

Furthermore, it is noted that at the time of the case hearing, the child had already reached the age of one year and four months and does not fall into the category of children under six months who are provided such food. "Provision of specialized food products to older children is not provided," the document states.

The parents consider the decision unlawful and intend to appeal it. According to Tatyana Pimenova, significant procedural violations were committed during the case hearing. "The judge was handling our case, but serious violations were committed during the hearing. "In particular, the court cited documents from the defendant that were not provided to us. I only learned of their existence from the text of the decision, which deprived me of the opportunity to defend my rights," she stated.

The judge considered claims that were not originally included in the lawsuit.

Also, according to her, the court went beyond the stated claims. "The judge considered claims that were not originally included in the lawsuit, while previously denying my request to clarify the claims without issuing a written ruling," Pimenova explained.

She also noted that the court did not consider the Krasnodar Krai Prosecutor's Office's submission regarding violations in the provision of child nutrition. "This document could have confirmed the systemic nature of the problem, but it was not included in the case," the mother of many children believes. She also drew attention to what she believes to be a significant error in the decision. "The document states that I applied for benefits in May 2026, although it was supposed to be in 2025. The court used this error to conclude that my application was untimely," she said. Sergei Kartashov added that they believe the court failed to apply federal law. "This applies, in particular, to federal laws and the presidential decree, which stipulate that the situation of large families must not be worsened." "The court limited itself to citing regional regulations," he told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

The court's findings raise questions regarding the completeness of the case's investigation, according to lawyer Elena Pavlova. "The court essentially focused on formal compliance with regional regulations for providing meals, but did not evaluate arguments about possible violations in their application. Furthermore, if the plaintiff was indeed not provided with the defendant's documents, this could be considered a violation of the adversarial principle," she explained to a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

According to the lawyer, the issue of the dates of application for benefits also requires verification. "If an error is made in the decision that affects the court's conclusions regarding the timeliness of the plaintiff's actions, this may serve as grounds for its overturn or modification on appeal," Pavlova added.

Even if the child had lost the right to food due to age at the time the case was heard, the court had to assess whether a violation had occurred during the period when this right existed.

She emphasized that assessing compliance with the child's rights is particularly important in such cases. "Even if the child had lost the right to food due to age at the time the case was heard, the court had to assess whether a violation had occurred during the period when this right existed," the lawyer noted.

The parents intend to file an appeal with the Krasnodar Regional Court. They say they hope to achieve recognition of the violations and the restoration of justice, despite the fact that their daughter has already passed the age limit for specialized nutrition. "This is a matter of principle and the rights of thousands of other children who may also be deprived of this nutrition simply because the system carefully conceals what children are entitled to, erecting a multitude of bureaucratic obstacles and barriers, which parents must jump through to ensure their children receive what they are legally entitled to," Pimenova stated.

She noted that previously, medical workers themselves issued certificates and the required nutrition, but this has now become impossible due to bureaucracy and the increasing complexity of the procedure. "If the prosecutor's office, as a supervisory body, sees what's happening, then it should itself stand up for low-income families and initiate a simplification of this procedure in the system so that newborn children don't suffer from bureaucracy," said Sergei Kartashov.

"If we've fought so hard and haven't been able to achieve anything even in court, then what can we say about the parents who may not even know about their children's right to free meals," he concluded.