[ad_1]
In the so-called Garliava pedophilia case, the request of the accused son of Neringa Venckienė to allow him to see the state-protected cousin Deimante Kedytė entered the court marathon.
Unfavorable solution
Karolis Venckus, son of N. Venckienė, former judge and parliamentarian residing in the United States of America, asked the State Service for the Adoption and Protection of Children’s Rights (VVTAĮT) for permission to see a relative who had been handed over to his mother Laimutė Stankūnaitė eight years ago. However, in June, he received an unfavorable decision from the service.
K. Venckus stated that the aforementioned VVTAĮT document establishes that his younger cousin D. Kedyte and his mother L. Stankūnaitė (who are victims in the so-called Garliava pedophilia case – Past aut.) Are covered by the state protection against criminal influence . Therefore, as has been said, detailed information on the organization of the protection of protected persons is information that constitutes a state secret.
According to K. Venckus, the SCRPA decision states that the service is unaware and unable to provide information about its younger cousin. It is also stated that the SCRPA has no objective possibilities to implement the provisions of the Civil Code “with respect to a possible dispute over the communication (dating) of the child with a family member with whom the child may have emotional ties.”
The complaint was not accepted
Believing that the SCRPA’s decision was illegal and unfounded, N. Venckien hijo’s son said he had appealed to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (VAAT). In his complaint he asked for two things: “that the SCRPA’s decision not to allow the disappearance of the involuntary cousin be annulled; order the service to expedite the expulsion of the involuntary cousin.”
“I received a ruling from Judge Jolanta Vėgelienė of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court who refused to accept my complaint. It was stated that in the present case the dispute over the conditions for reuniting with a relative is a matter of family law regulation,” taught by the son of N. Venckienė.
In other words, the complaint was not admitted for examination by clarifying that K. Venckus must go to a court of general jurisdiction and not to an administrative court regarding the creation of conditions to see a relative.
Not all circumstances have been investigated
After receiving an unfavorable reply again, the interlocutor stated that he had appealed the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (SACL) to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. “By the ruling of the panel of judges of this court on October 28, the ruling of the judge of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court Jolanta Vėgelienė was annulled and the question of accepting my complaint was returned to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,” said K. Venckus.
Audris Kutrevičius, VAAT spokesperson, when asked by journalists from the newspaper why the complaint by N. Venckienė’s son against the SCRPA decision was rejected, stated that: “In the opinion of the court, this (family dispute – past aut. ) the complaint should have been examined by the general courts. “
However, the final judgment of the SACL, which referred the question of admissibility to the court of first instance, indicates that K. Venckus, “stated that he did not even have the theoretical possibility of defending his violated rights in the manner indicated in the judgment. of the VAAT appealed, the place of residence of her cousin and her mother is unknown, whose details can be modified by means of protection against criminal activity.
According to it, the son of N. Venckien noted that he is appealing against the decision of the SCRPA, which was adopted by this entity of the public administration (service – Aut. Past) in the performance of duties delegated by law on protection of the rights of the child, so your complaint should be considered not of general jurisdiction, in an administrative court.
The ruling of the SACL panel of judges, having examined the separate complaint of N. Venckienė’s son, establishes that: “taking into account the content of the Decision (VAAT – Aut. Past) and the complaint of K. Venckus, no it can be unequivocally concluded at this stage that the dispute prevails over the family legal relationship and that the dispute is civil law “.
The SACL ruling also emphasizes that “when examining the controversy in principle, it should be assessed, among other things, whether the reasons for refusing to carry out the actions requested by the son of N. Venckienė as a subject of public administration are justified” .
“Not all the circumstances have been investigated, so the question of acceptance of the complaint was returned to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court for reconsideration, establishing additional factual circumstances,” SACL representative Neringa Lukoševičienė told the newspaper.
Does not provide information
“Kauno diena” asked VVTAĮT about D.Kedytė’s case. The following questions were submitted to the Office in writing: What functions does the Office perform when a minor is protected by the state, is updated information on that person provided to SCAC representatives, and how often?
“The child is protected from criminal influence by the decision of the Lithuanian Prosecutor General and the Lithuanian Police Commissioner General, therefore comments should be directed to the aforementioned institutions,” said Vaiva Arnašė, a representative of the service.
After the journalists communicated with the representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, the comments also refrained from pointing out that the data on persons protected by the State are classified information.
The only concern is
When K. Venckus, who was on the court carousel, asked why he wanted to meet his cousin only now, he assured that he could not request permission to see D. Kedytė earlier, because he was a minor. However, to take advantage of that opportunity starting in 2012. that his mother N. Venckienė and his grandparents tried several times, but were not allowed to see him.
I would love to meet live, but since we have not been allowed any contact since 2012, I would also enjoy a long distance conversation, such as through a scythe.
“For almost a year, when my mother’s criminal case was being investigated, it was not possible to conduct a survey of Deimantė remotely. L. Stankūnaitė’s lawyer, Neringa Grubliauskienė, claimed that Deimantė does not speak Lithuanian. Is that logical “It seems to me that something happened to her. I would like to meet her. Live, but since we have not been allowed any contact since 2012, she would be happy to have a remote conversation, for example, through a scepter,” K. Venckus told Kauno Diena, and mentioned that what matters most to her is whether her cousin is okay.
When asked if she would have a chance to see the state-protected cousin, N. Venckienė’s son said she was convinced this would not be the case. “I have the guarantee that I will never hear it from her lips. Unless L. Stankūnaitė and those next to him will not allow it. Diamond has said ten times that he does not want to live with her, but they broke her arms, she they pulled her neck and forcibly stretched her. from her native home “, – K.Venckus said excitedly.
Seen six years ago
N.Venckienė told Kauno Diena that her parents Vytautas and Laimutė Kedžiai saw their granddaughter for the last time in 2014 on October 14, when a remote survey was conducted. According to her, the girl cried all the time and was wearing a wig.
Long time ago: N. Venckienė said his parents last saw their granddaughter in 2014. Photo by P. Peleckis / Fotobankas
“The lawyer said that Deimantė did not speak Lithuanian, and at the next hearing she said that he spoke with an accent. It was clear that any questioning of Deimantė was being avoided,” said the former judge and parliamentarian.
It is not yet clear when VAAT will reconsider the question of accepting K. Venckus’ complaint. According to the representatives of this court last week, the case has not yet returned from the SACL.
Lawyer: The girl is healthy and alive.
“N.Venckienė asked to interview the girl, I mean, the girl is protected. No one said she doesn’t speak Lithuanian. She speaks her best, but imagine that the girl has been learning a completely different language for many years: Lithuanian with grandparents and” There are no other possibilities to communicate with someone in the Lithuanian language. Naturally, the girl speaks with a slight accent, “said Neringa Grubliauskienė, a lawyer representing L. Stankūnaitė and D. Kedyte.
He added that L. Stankūnaitė is scheduled to be questioned remotely during one of the court hearings in December. Although N.Venckienė has submitted a request to separately interview his daughter D.Kedytė, whether it will be necessary will be decided only after L. Stankūnait entrevista’s interview.
N.Grubliauskienė also hinted that D.Kedyte is in a certain therapy that helps to overcome the experiences of past events.
“You understand well: what if they told you today that your life, which has been until now, no longer exists. It brings you, creates history for you and the past no longer exists for you. Anyone here needs the help of a psychologist. I’m not talking about experiences that happened before, “reasoned the interlocutor, but when asked if she had to speak or communicate with D. Kedyte, she refused to reveal, because this type of information related to the victim is a state secret.
L. Stankūnaitė. Photo by A. Morozov / Fotobank
Earlier for Kauno Diena, the lawyer has stated that L. Stankūnaitė and D. Kedytė live outside of Lithuania, their identities are different.
“But I tell you 100% that the girl is healthy, alive and happy. And without those relatives of hers (N.Venckienė and her surroundings – aut. Past). Who declare a great love for her here. Later, when they took her , much older, has written a letter to those grandparents (V. and L. Kedžiai – past aut.) and clearly said that: “I don’t want to communicate with you.” Then (grandparents – past aut.) explained that the girl is “No one will jump according to the bagpipes of N. Venckienė or anyone else. The fact that they are curious is their problem, “said N. Grubliauskienė.
[ad_2]
