The team of the Podgorica Center for Social Work, although lacking jurisdiction, is attempting to take the child away from a woman from Podgorica

The woman from Podgorica, who since February of last year has refused to allow contact between her daughter and the father except under controlled conditions and professional supervision, after the girl complained that her father had beaten her following a weekend spent with him, is now facing the possibility of losing custody. This comes after the expert team of the Podgorica Center for Social Work, in a new report submitted to the court, proposed that custody of the child be transferred to the father, completely ignoring the psychological evaluation stating that the child „does not show signs of emotional closeness to the father, but perceives him as a threat“?!

The expert team of the Center for Social Work failed to take into account the expert opinion of psychologist Radmila Stupar Đurišić, who conducted the assessment by court order several months ago, in November last year, and was explicit that „any attempt at forced handover could lead to traumatic reactions and a deterioration of the child’s emotional state“.

NEW PROPOSAL, OLD DEMAND

The report of the expert team also lacks assessments from the „support person“ appointed by the court to assist the girl.

- Both of these findings were duly submitted and must have priority in any procedure concerning the protection of the child. However, the Center for Social Work believes that the child should be taken away from me as the mother and handed over to the father, and that I should see her only under controlled conditions, even though both the court-appointed expert psychologist Stupar Đurišić and the support person explicitly stated that the child shows pronounced fear, anxiety, and refusal of contact with the father. It is also stated that the child reports specific forms of violence and perceives the father as a source of threat and insecurity, with no signs of emotional closeness whatsoever. Despite this, none of these expert conclusions were even mentioned, let alone analyzed, in the Center’s opinion - the young woman from Podgorica said bitterly.

In addition, she points out that the Podgorica Center for Social Work no longer has jurisdiction in this case, as she has changed her place of residence and the case should therefore be taken over by the department in Golubovci. This was confirmed to her by the Center itself, via email seen by the ETV Portal.

Nevertheless, despite all this, their team appeared at the most recent hearing before the Basic Court with a new proposal to strip the mother of custody.

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

Outraged by the conduct of Judge Jelena Anđelić in this case, the woman from Podgorica submitted a request for her recusal, among other reasons because she believes that „despite having the findings of the psychologist and the support person at her disposal, she did not issue a single temporary measure to protect the child“.

- This is a legal obligation in situations where there is a risk to the psychological and emotional integrity of a minor. Instead of protecting the child, the court responds with pressure on the parent who is seeking lawful and urgent intervention. Ignoring expert findings, the lack of reasoning, and the absence of urgent measures represent a serious violation of the child’s best interests and raise the question of the responsibility of institutions that were obliged to protect the child - and failed to do so - the woman from Podgorica stated categorically.

At the end of October last year, while seven months into a high-risk pregnancy, this young woman even ended up in prison by court order for failing to comply with a decision to hand the child over to the father. After about ten days, she was released by order of Justice Minister Bojan Božović.

She has still not received the court’s decision on her request for Judge Anđelić’s recusal, and believes that the judge can no longer act in the case, among other reasons because she allowed three social workers from the Podgorica Center for Social Work to attend the hearing, despite being informed that this center no longer has jurisdiction over her child’s case, which should instead be handled by the department in Golubovci.

- I was informed of this by the Podgorica Center for Social Work through a written notice that was forwarded to me by email more than two weeks ago. Such conduct is contrary to the decision on jurisdiction and is grounds for the immediate suspension of the hearing - she emphasized in her request for the judge’s recusal.

PRESSURE ON THE CHILD

She also pointed out that over the past four months „multiple experts have issued opinions, and there is no reasonable suspicion whatsoever that the mother is delaying the proceedings“.

She claims that the judge, through the attorney who attended the hearing, told her that she must behave with dignity.

- However, before the Court sends any message to me, the judge is obliged to act in the best interests of the child and in accordance with the findings and opinions she has received. The lack of reaction is proof that the Court is not doing so. Moreover, there is serious doubt regarding the judge’s impartiality - the woman from Podgorica claims, pointing to contacts between her former attorney and the judge, due to which, she insists, the judge „cannot remain on the case“.

By order of Basic Court Judge in Podgorica Ina Hrković, under whose decision the woman from Podgorica ended up in prison last year despite being seven months pregnant, attempts were made on two occasions to hand the girl over to the father, which she refused, experiencing intense stress.

After being released from prison, she filed criminal complaints over the inhumane treatment of institutions toward her daughter.

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

The Government’s Strategy for the Prevention and Protection of Children from Violence 2025-2029 emphasizes that a significant novelty in the amended and supplemented Family Law includes, among other things, „the introduction of an explicit ban on corporal punishment of children, as well as the possibility for a child to file a lawsuit for the protection of their rights“. The document also warns that „the social and child protection sector, despite numerous trainings, still faces difficulties in responding to cases of violence against children“.