The mother is convinced that the finding stating the child perceives her father as a threat was deliberately ignored

A woman from Podgorica, who has refused to hand over her daughter to the father since February last year, because the girl claims she was physically abused while staying with him and therefore refuses any contact, has received a report from the Ministry of Social Welfare, Family Care and Demography, according to which the Ministry’s commission found no irregularities in the actions of the Centre for Social Work, whose team recommended to the court in October last year that custody be granted to the father, prompting the mother to request an urgent review of the team’s conduct.

- This is a systemic ignoring of violence against a child. This is another attempt at institutional concealment of facts and a conscious suppression of key evidence that clearly points to abuse - the woman from Podgorica told Portal ETV.

Administrative manipulation

She particularly stresses that the court-ordered expert psychological assessment dated November 10th last year, conducted at the request of the Basic Court in Podgorica, was completely ignored.

- That expert opinion explicitly states that the child shows a high level of fear and anxiety at the mention of contact with her father, perceives him as a source of threat, and refuses any contact due to specifically described forms of violence. The omission of this expert report is not an oversight - it is a deliberate decision - she believes.

She further points out that „the child was not heard, no professional assessment of her emotional state was conducted in accordance with the law, and her voice was completely ignored, thereby grossly violating domestic regulations and the state’s international obligations“.

- Instead of protecting the child, institutions are using administrative manipulation to create an illusion of „cooperation“ and „the child’s best interest“, while in practice legitimising violence. This is not a single case of ignorance or error. It is a pattern of institutional conduct that shields the perpetrator and exposes the child to further trauma. Responsibility for such actions lies with specific individuals and positions, and this responsibility can no longer be hidden behind collective signatures and empty phrases, specifically Minister Damir Gutić, as the authority responsible - she stated.

She is outraged that Basic Court judge Jelena Anđelić, despite having at her disposal an expert opinion dated November 19th of last year, commissioned by the court in another proceeding, failed to impose any interim protective measures for the child, disregarding, she says, both domestic law and international regulations that explicitly require such measures in cases like this.

- The report clearly states that the child refuses contact with the father, shows pronounced fear and anxiety when he is mentioned, lacks a sense of safety and emotional bond with him, and describes specific forms of violence. Instead of protecting the child, the court, namely Judge Anđelić, responded promptly only to the father’s request, issuing a ban on the child leaving Montenegro, which remains in force. This constitutes a brutal violation of the principle of the child’s best interests - our interlocutor emphasises.

Disregard for the law

She is convinced that this cannot be described as mere omissions, but rather as „an institutional scandal with direct consequences for the child’s safety“.

- It is outrageous that a Basic Court judge does not act in a family case to protect the child, but instead consistently protects the father’s interests, despite clear evidence of violence. As I have already stated, we have expert reports, photographs of injuries, medical findings, and video and audio statements from his uncle and mother describing how the child was beaten. All of this has been submitted to the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office and the Basic Court in Podgorica and is included in the case file - she adds.

According to our interlocutor, Minister Gutić, having signed the Ministry’s report, „bears direct institutional responsibility for the actions of bodies that, despite clear and unequivocal expert findings, sided with the abuser rather than the child“.

- Despite documented fear, refusal of contact with the father, elevated anxiety, and allegations of specific forms of violence, the Ministry led by Gutić issued an opinion that effectively legitimises the removal of the child from her mother, ignoring basic principles of child protection, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Istanbul Convention, while completely omitting any reference to expert findings and other relevant evidence. In doing so, the Ministry became an active accomplice in institutional violence rather than a body of protection, further exposing the child to risk, fear, and retraumatisation. This is no longer a matter of professional error - it is a conscious assumption of responsibility for the consequences that may befall the child, with complete disregard for the law and Montenegro’s international obligations - she stated firmly.

She ended up in prison

Portal ETV has been following the case of this young woman, who was even imprisoned on October 24th of last year in Spuž Prison while in the seventh month of a high-risk pregnancy. She was arrested on the order of Basic Court judge Ina Hrković. She was supposed to serve 15 days in prison, but on November 3rd the Ministry of Justice, acting upon a request from her lawyer Stefan Jovanović, ordered her release due to pregnancy.

In May last year, Judge Hrković ruled that the woman must hand over her daughter to the father during periods specified by the court ruling and imposed a prison sentence in the event of non-compliance.

While the mother was in prison, the court attempted on two occasions to force the girl to go to her father, which the child refused, crying.

After her release, the woman filed a criminal complaint against Judge Hrković for violation of the right to liberty and security under Article 25 of the Constitution of Montenegro and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, endangering health due to her high-risk pregnancy with documented bleeding, and violating the child’s right to protection and stability under Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the complaint, she warned of inhumane treatment of her daughter by institutions.

- During and after the deprivation of liberty, enforcement against the child continued, even though the child categorically refuses contact with the father, with severe emotional and physiological reactions (crying, trembling, urination), as confirmed by letters from the Centre for Social Work dated 28, 30, and 31 October 2025 - the complaint states.

In addition to Judge Hrković and police officials, she also filed criminal complaints against her former husband and his lawyer, as well as employees of the Centre for Social Work.

Social services ignore alarming warnings

In the document by which the Centre for Social Work proposes to the court the restriction of the woman’s parental rights, it acknowledges that the girl expresses fear and refuses contact with her father – „the child covers her eyes with her hands“, „refuses communication“, „cries and repeats that she does not want to go“. However, the Centre’s team concludes that the mother is responsible for the child’s refusal of contact with the father.

On the other hand, psychologist Radmila Stupar Đurišić submitted an expert opinion on November 10th of last year, in which she concluded, among other things, that the child does not show emotional closeness to the father but perceives him as a threat. The report was prepared at the request of Judge Hrković.

The opinion states that „the child shows pronounced fear, anxiety, and refusal of contact with the father“, that „during the conversation with the psychologist, the child clearly and persistently verbalised refusal (‘I don’t want to see him,’ ‘I don’t want to go to him’)“. It further notes that the girl „describes specific forms of physical violence (‘He hit me in the stomach,’ ‘He beat me with nettles on my legs’)“, and that she „shows high internal tension, pronounced helplessness, and intense emotions“. The psychologist also concluded that the child „does not show signs of emotional closeness to the father, but perceives him as a threat“.

The expert was unequivocal in stating that „the enforcement of decisions on contact or the handover of the child must be gradual, without coercion, and carried out in a safe environment“, and that before any attempt the child must be emotionally prepared and the presence of a professional with an established relationship of trust with the girl must be ensured.

- Any attempt at forced handover may lead to traumatic reactions and deterioration of the child’s emotional state. It is necessary to simultaneously involve the child in psychological support and work with the parents to reduce conflict and facilitate the adjustment process - the court expert report states, adding that „the mother was informed that if she fails to prepare the child for contact with the father, her parental competencies may and will be examined“.

Children’s best interests only „on paper“

UNICEF’s 2024 report on the state of children’s rights in Montenegro states that „challenges remain in the effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), primarily due to a weak accountability framework, lack of systematic monitoring of existing laws and strategies, and insufficient technical and financial capacities in the field of children’s rights“.

In the chapter on protecting children from all forms of violence, it warns that „several consecutive EU reports for Montenegro have highlighted concerns regarding gender-based violence and violence against children, pointing to an overall weak institutional response and limited availability of services“.

The Government’s Strategy for the Prevention and Protection of Children from Violence 2025–2029 defines „violent discipline“ as „a method of disciplining children that relies on physical punishment and/or psychological aggression“.

Physical punishment is defined as „shaking, hitting or slapping a child on the hands/arms/legs, hitting the buttocks or other parts of the body with a hard object, spanking or hitting with a fist on the buttocks, hitting or slapping the face, head or ears, as well as repeated beatings of potentially greater intensity“.

Corporal punishment is further defined as „any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however mild“.

The Strategy also defines institutional abuse as „the maltreatment of children by systems of power, occurring in institutions where children are placed or may be placed“.

The Government document highlights that a significant novelty in the amended Family Law is „the clearer definition and mandatory application of the child’s best interests in all proceedings concerning the child, the obligation to enable the child to express their views and participate in proceedings in a manner appropriate to the child and without risk of victimisation within the justice system, including through the introduction of support persons during proceedings, as well as aligning the definition of a child with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and introducing an explicit ban on corporal punishment of children, along with the possibility for a child to file a lawsuit to protect their rights“.

The Strategy also warns that „“social and gender norms exist that accept violent behaviour as natural and discourage seeking help“, citing excerpts from the GREVIO Report on Montenegro (2018), including that „social norms regarding physical punishment of children within families persist“.

- There is strong respect for the traditional family, including among professionals responsible for family interventions - the GREVIO report notes.

The Government Strategy further warns that „the social and child protection sector, despite numerous trainings, still faces difficulties in responding to cases of violence against children“.