Russia’s Supreme Court allows father to keep daughter taken to Russia without permission, citing France’s ‘unfriendly’ status and NATO membership

Russia's highest court has permitted a man to keep his daughter in Russia, despite her mother's attempts to bring her back to France. The case involves Veronika Tishkova, a Ukrainian citizen who married Russian national Alexey Yermakov in 2018. They resided in Kyiv, where their daughter was born. Their marriage ended in 2021, and the child remained with her mother. After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Tishkova moved to France with their 3-year-old daughter, while Yermakov remained in Ukraine.

Yermakov sought a Kyiv court order to have his ex-wife transfer their daughter to Ukraine every six weeks, but his request was denied. He also pursued legal action against his former wife in France. In April 2024, he agreed to the child's permanent residency in France. However, in March 2025, he attempted to take the child on a vacation to Turkey and Slovakia, promising the court he would return her within two weeks. He did not return her, and it was revealed that he had taken the child to Russia.

Tishkova subsequently sought a court order in Novosibirsk to have her daughter returned to France. The girl was granted Russian citizenship at her father's request during the proceedings. Despite this, the court ruled in favor of Tishkova and ordered Yermakov to return the child to France, citing the Hague Convention. The court noted that the girl had integrated into life in Russia and that moving to France could negatively impact her.

Additionally, the court cited the Hague Convention's provision allowing refusal to return a child if there is a "grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm." The court also mentioned that the girl has Russian citizenship and that France is an "unfriendly" country and a NATO member.

Tishkova appealed the ruling, which is currently under review by Russia's Supreme Court. Her lawyer criticized the court for applying a political interpretation rather than the applicable law, while Yermakov's lawyer stated the court's stance was in line with international practice.