When considering the case under the lawsuit of the guardianship authority regarding the deprivation of Mamaev’s parental rights and the transfer of a five-year-old child to a father, the court suggested that the latter substantiate the claims, and the representative of the guardianship and trusteeship office should confine herself to giving an opinion on the case. So they did. Mamaev entered the first with explanations on the merits of the claims claimed by the guardianship authority in accordance with Art. 174 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and the inspector of the Department of Education (representative of the guardianship authority) gave an opinion in accordance with Art. 189 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, proposing to satisfy the claims.
Questions:
1. Define the procedural position of the guardianship authority, a five-year-old child and the Mamaev spouses.
2. The body of guardianship is the following: a local government body, a state body (select the correct answer, in your opinion).
3. Did the judge have the right to initiate proceedings on the deprivation of Mamaev’s parental rights at the suit of the guardianship authority?
4. Does the guardianship authority have an obligation to pay the state fee when applying to the court with lawsuits and applications?
5. Did the court apportion responsibilities for proving legal facts in this situation?
6. Can the guardianship authority refuse a claim or application? What are the consequences of such a failure?

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2004-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.