Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Legal Studies
Reference:

Peculiarities of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity under the legislation of the Russian Federation

Purge Anna Rolandovna

PhD in Law

Associate Professor at the Department of Private Law of Vladivostok State University

690014, Russia, Primorsky Krai, Vladivostok, Gogol str., 41, office 5502

a.purge@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2024.2.69755

EDN:

GCIIFQ

Received:

02-02-2024


Published:

09-02-2024


Abstract: The subject of the study is the norms of Russian family legislation regulating relations related to the procedure for establishing the fact of recognition of paternity. The object of this study is family and procedural relations arising in connection with the establishment of the fact of recognition of paternity. The concept of "illegitimate children" is one of the oldest in the history of law. His appearance is associated with the strengthening of the monogamous family. The universal principle of equality, declared for the first time in Soviet law, demanded the equalization of illegitimate children, including in rights with children born in marriage. However, until the very end of the action of the CPC of the RSFSR, such a fact as the recognition of paternity was absent from it. Since the procedural features of the proceedings to establish the fact of recognition of paternity could not be reflected in the IC of the Russian Federation due to the material nature of the regulated relations, for the purpose of uniform application of civil procedure legislation regulating the procedure for considering cases of special proceedings, the fact of recognition of paternity was for the first time included in the list of facts of legal significance established by the CPC of the Russian Federation. Thus, the date of occurrence in the Russian civil procedure legislation of the institution of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity is (if we do not accept the judicial practice that created it) the date of entry into force of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 2002. In the course of the work, general scientific and special methods of cognition were used: comparative legal in the analysis of new and previously existing family legal norms, as well as the formal legal method. It cannot be said that the procedural rules for establishing paternity have not been the object of research in Russian jurisprudence. However, issues of nonsearch proceedings, issues of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity - attention in these studies has not been adequately paid, although procedural features and the presence of a considerable number of problematic aspects of the consideration of this category of cases are beyond doubt. So far, this institution has not been significantly demanded by judicial practice, but a special military operation implies an increase in its relevance, since in the absence of the serviceman himself, the court requires any evidence of the fact that he recognizes paternity in relation to the child. Currently, this status is particularly important for receiving social benefits that the State has guaranteed to members of military families.


Keywords:

kid, fatherhood, special procedure, the fact of recognition of paternity, dispute over the right, protection of the right, protection of legitimate interest, court, being dependent, illegitimate child

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

The crisis of traditional official monogamy, the increasing spread of civil marriages and the formation of new, nontraditional models of family relations are inevitably accompanied by an increase in the number of single-parent (mostly with a single mother and child) families. This trend, which is quite clearly defined for Russia in modern sociological research [1, pp. 106-107], requires, in order to protect childhood, special attention to the problems of legal regulation of the procedure for establishing paternity. On the one hand, as the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as the UN) notes, the Russian Federation pursues a purposeful policy of countering the modern "liberation of morals", on the other hand, it contributes to the formation of gender equality in Russian society [2], but at the same time cannot but tighten the policy of legal responsibility of parents.

However, any policy of strengthening the responsibility of parents for the upbringing and maintenance of children, namely, it seems optimal in the modern demographic situation [1, p. 109], requires, first of all, detailed and clear rules for establishing the very fact of parental relations. In this regard, it is difficult not to agree with A.M. Nechaeva that "the rules on establishing the origin of children can be called a kind of "litmus test" of the state's attitude towards motherhood and children" [3, p. 19].

The special military operation currently being conducted by the Russian Federation inevitably involves the death, capture or unknown absence of many male persons who recognized their children, raised them, but for various life reasons did not register their paternity in a timely manner with the civil registry offices. In order to restore the family legal status of a child, Soviet legislation, since the time of the last wars, has provided for a special institution in the civil process that allows, within the framework of a special, i.e. indisputable, production (production to establish facts of legal significance), to recognize his kinship with the deceased, deceased or missing father. According to tradition, this institution was also transferred to the Russian civil procedure legislation in 2003. Currently, this status is particularly important for receiving social benefits that the state has guaranteed to family members of military personnel, including those mobilized in the order of partial mobilization from 09/21/2022.

Of course, for civilian life, this institution has largely lost its importance due to the development of biotechnologies and, in particular, technologies for determining the similarity (identity) of DNA, however, it is the uncertainty created by military operations that does not always allow such a study due to the lack of necessary biological materials for appropriate expertise. Thus, the problem of establishing by the court the fact of recognition of paternity is now again relevant.

It cannot be said that the procedural rules for establishing paternity have not been the object of research in Russian jurisprudence. These issues were considered both in periodic publications and in specialized studies by Soviet (M.V. Materova [4]) and Russian (A.M. Akhmedkhanova [5], V.N. Vyglovsky [6]) authors. These issues were also partially addressed in the dissertation studies of N.A. Chudinovskaya (2007 [7, pp. 114-126]) and O.Y. Khudyakova (2009 [8, pp. 139-158], which provides a comparative characteristic of this institution with the most developed Anglo-American law in this regard).

However, issues of nonsearch proceedings, issues of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity - attention in these studies was not adequately paid, although procedural features and the presence of a considerable number of problematic aspects of the consideration of this category of cases are beyond doubt.

The institution of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity has undergone a complex evolution. In the post-October period, the slogan of equality for all children whose parents were or were not married was accompanied by simplified rules for establishing paternity, since, after all, origin alone, without state recognition, was not enough to record a man as the father of his child. However, the extreme simplicity of the paternity procedure did not always meet the requirements of generally accepted morality, so it became necessary to complicate it. By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated 07/08/1944, any establishment of paternity was prohibited. Later, the Code on Marriage and Family of the RSFSR (hereinafter referred to as the Code of the RSFSR), having again resolved it, conditioned the satisfaction of the claim for establishing paternity with a number of strict conditions. The RF IC reduced them to a minimum and thereby strengthened the moral principles in solving such a complex social problem. Thus, in this part, the requirements of the norms of family law prevail and subordinate the norms of morality. In other rules concerning the establishment of paternity, for example, on a voluntary basis, an innovation has appeared - the possibility of voluntarily establishing paternity before the birth of a child. Thus, the Family Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the IC RF) opened the way for the manifestation of the moral qualities of a potential father. In addition, for the purpose of uniform application of civil procedure legislation regulating the procedure for considering cases of special proceedings, the fact of recognition of paternity was for the first time included in the list of facts of legal significance established by the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter CPC RF) (in Art. 247 CPC RSFSR such a fact was absent, although it is by its legal nature and not it can be attributed to the facts of family relations).

It is possible to highlight the following features.

1. According to Art. 264 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, in the order of special proceedings, the courts do not establish any legal facts, but only those that are relevant for the emergence, modification or termination of personal or property rights of citizens and organizations.

Consequently, in relation to special proceedings, the legislator distinguishes between the concepts of "legal fact" and "fact of legal significance". From the point of view of the theory of law, a legal fact is a specific life circumstance with which the norms of law associate legal consequences (the emergence, change or termination of legal relations) [9, p. 341]. Accordingly, a single legal fact in itself may not entail the emergence, modification or termination of legal relations, but only serve as an element of the legal composition necessary for such a change. With regard to special proceedings, not any legal facts can be established within its framework, but only those that directly entail the emergence, modification or termination of personal or property rights of citizens or organizations, that is, facts of legal significance in the narrow sense of the term.

In the light of the above, the question arises about the legal consequences of the applicants' appeal to the court with demands for the establishment of facts that do not really have legal significance in the above sense. This problem is resolved ambiguously in the literature. International law does not allow refusal to appeal to the court (Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) [10]. However, A.N. Chashin considers it possible to use the rules of paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 134 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation" [11, p. 321], since such statements are initially deprived of legal protection. M.K. Treushnikov also points out the possibility of refusal, pointing out that if the fact stated for establishment does not entail legally significant consequences for the applicant, which he expects, the judge has the right to apply paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 134 of the CPC of the Russian Federation [12, p. 355].

However, the possibility of refusal to accept such applications is questionable. It is known that paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 134 of the CPC of the Russian Federation allows refusal to accept an application if the application is not subject to consideration and resolution in civil proceedings, since it is considered and resolved in a different judicial order. Probably, taking into account Article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a different judicial procedure should be understood as constitutional, criminal or administrative proceedings. Thus, it is obvious that the law does not provide for a "different judicial procedure" for establishing legal facts. Accordingly, the application must be accepted for court proceedings, considered on the merits, otherwise the court will inevitably violate the citizen's right to judicial protection provided for in Article 46 of the Constitution of Russia [13]. In addition, it seems that it is possible to establish the non-legal nature of the fact only at the stage of judicial proceedings, but not at the initiation of the case. Accordingly, if, as part of the consideration of the case on the merits, the court establishes the non-legal nature of the fact sought, it is necessary to refuse to establish it to the applicant.

For comparison, it can be noted that the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter the APC RF) does not contain the institution of refusal to accept an application at all: paragraph 1, part 1, Article 150 of the APC RF allows only the termination of proceedings in a case if it is not subject to consideration in an arbitration court. By virtue of Article 218 of the APC of the Russian Federation, cases on the establishment of facts that are not legally relevant to the rights and obligations in the field of entrepreneurial activity are not subject to consideration in an arbitration court. Thus, in the framework of the arbitration process, an application for the establishment of a fact that has no legal significance must initially be accepted for production. If, however, the commercial court does establish its non-legal nature during the consideration of the case, the proceedings in the case are subject to termination.

2. Within the framework of special proceedings, the court may establish only legal facts of a substantive nature. The establishment of procedural legal facts is typical for the claim proceedings and proceedings in cases from public legal relations. As for new types of proceedings (Chapters 45-47 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), then, as V.V. Yarkov correctly notes, the courts of general jurisdiction, when resolving applications for challenging arbitral awards, for the enforcement of foreign judgments, mainly examine procedural legal facts as grounds for resolving applications from interested parties [14, p. 462].

3. In order to establish legal facts in a special procedure, a set of a number of additional conditions is necessary:

1) the applicant must not have the opportunity to obtain or restore documents certifying the sought fact out of court;

2) the law should not provide for a different procedure for establishing the relevant facts;

3) the establishment of legal facts must meet a specific purpose.

The analysis of these conditions will be carried out later.

4. The current procedural legislation contains a list of facts to be established in the framework of special proceedings. Despite the fact that this list is not exhaustive, its very existence, in our opinion, indicates that not every legal fact can be established according to the rules of special proceedings.

5. It is important to note another significant difference between the establishment of legal facts in the framework of claim proceedings and proceedings from public legal relations, on the one hand, and special proceedings, on the other.

The purpose of the special proceedings is to identify and establish certain circumstances with which the law associates the emergence, modification, termination of certain rights and obligations of the applicant. However, it is important that the rights arising from these facts are not violated (challenged) themselves, do not require their protection and can be implemented by authorized entities without resorting to additional recourse to the court, according to procedures outside special proceedings. The tasks of judicial activity include only the establishment of factual circumstances (actual composition), whereas all the rights that follow from these facts can already be determined by other public authorities.

As for the claim proceedings, when considering a claim, the court must not only establish the presence or absence of certain facts of legal significance, but also draw legal conclusions from the facts established by it, that is, directly resolve the dispute.

Thus, despite the fact that legal facts are established in civil proceedings in all types of production, their establishment within the framework of a special production is a special and ultimate goal of this type of production.

However, we are not talking about two alternative facts, but about two different manifestations of the same fact, the first of which is of a material nature, and the second is of an immaterial nature.

Firstly, if we are talking about a dependent, then the legislator "thinks out" for the deceased, assuming (in essence, we are talking about a legally established axiom) that the deceased supported his child. In other words, in this case, from one fact of dependence established by the court, the legislator imperatively establishes the fact that the deceased was the father of the child. This consequence is not a presumption, since the establishment of the fact of dependence is considered not just a basis for an assumption (which can be refuted), but an indisputable basis for establishing the fact that a citizen recognizes paternity in relation to a child. This consequence is also not a legal fiction, since the latter, by definition, is a formal confirmation of a fact that does not actually exist (the consequence of which is the concept of fiction). However, the relationship between the child that the deceased man took care of may turn out to be far from fictitious, which excludes the possibility of nonapplication of the legal category of fiction to the recognition of paternity. In turn, the very fact of recognizing paternity does not yet mean paternity and an unambiguous kinship, but the legislator "thinks out" for the deceased man, and in fact also imperatively establishes from the fact that he recognizes the child as his own, the kinship of the deceased with this child, creating for the latter all the legal guarantees arising from this status (in particular in particular, social security and hereditary). In other words, we are talking about a "bundle", the consistent application of two legal axioms: the first one proceeds from the fact that the material maintenance of a child is already a recognition by a person of paternity in relation to this child, the next one from the fact that recognition by a person of his paternity in relation to a child, indeed, entails the truth of the fact of his biological paternity.

Secondly, we are talking about committing non-material actions against a child, i.e. not about material maintenance, but about, for example, upbringing, giving advice, walking together, accompanying a child to institutions (for example, to a hospital) and about performing all other actions expressing care for him. In this case, the first of the legal axioms has a specific basis, consisting in the uncertainty of the initial premise: the actual actions with which the legislator associates the fact of recognition of paternity by a person are not specified, however, if the fact of recognition of paternity follows from these actions, the second (subsequent) legal axiom begins to act in the same way as it acts in the first case.

In other words, there is a common (i.e. similarity) and difference between the two given grounds in the first of the legal axioms established by the legislator.

The similarity of these grounds lies in the fact that both property security and actions related to the upbringing and care of a child are real, factual, that is, different from legal, actions of a person who recognizes his paternity. On the contrary, the direct statement of a person, even if oral or written, that he is the father of a child, does not yet give the court grounds to establish the fact of recognition of paternity: such statements are evaluated only along with other circumstances in the case. In other words, it should be emphasized once again that a direct, oral or written recognition of a child as one's own, even without performing actions related to taking care of a child, is not considered by the legislator as a legal fact that allows establishing kinship relations: it is not legal statements that are necessary, but actual manifestations of caring for a child.

The difference is that the second of the grounds of the first legal axiom (the commission of certain actions as a basis for establishing the fact of recognition) is formulated less concretely in the second case. If the transfer of any property for the maintenance of a child does not leave room for judicial discretion, then the commission by a person of certain actions, from which the actual recognition of himself as the father of the child follows, allows the court to interpret them quite broadly.

So, the second option of the same behavior is not a direct, but an actual recognition by a person of himself as the father of the child, i.e. recognition of the parental relationship by actual actions. However, for some reason, actions related to the direct recognition of paternity by a man in relation to a child by a legislator are not taken into account, i.e. they are not considered sufficient.

Summarizing the above, it should be stated that when considering this category of cases, the court must carefully and comprehensively evaluate the evidence presented on the recognition of paternity before the death of the alleged father of the child. In the course of judicial evidence, the truth of the facts forming the subject of proof is established. In addition to witness testimony, written evidence plays an essential role in establishing the fact of paternity recognition by the court.Since no other deadlines have been set for the category of cases under consideration, it should be recognized that the total period for their consideration is two months.

References
1. Teleryanskaya, I.V. (2017). Monogenetic family in the past and present. Logos et Praxis, 4, 105-112.
2. Human development report 2021-22 (UN Human Development Report 2021-2022). Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2021-22
3. Nechaeva, A.M. (2016). Legal problems of family education of minors. Moscow: Prospect.
4. Materova, M.V. (1972). Judicial review of paternity cases. Mscow: Legal literature.
5. Akhmedkhanova, A.M. (2003). Establishing paternity in an administrative and judicial manner (based on the materials of law enforcement practice of the Republic of Dagestan): dis. ... cand. jurid. sciences. Makhachkala, 223.
6. Vyglovsky, V.N. (2000). Judicial review of paternity cases: dis. ... cand. jurid. sciences. Moscow.
7. Chudinovskaya, N. A. (2007). Establishing facts of legal significance in special proceedings of civil and arbitration proceedings: dis.... cand. jurid. sciences. Yekaterinburg.
8. Khudyakova, O. Yu. (2009). Establishing the origin of children under the legislation of the Russian Federation and the USA: a comparative study : dis. ... cand. jurid. sciences. Moscow.
9. Alekseev, S.S. (2014). General theory of law: textbook. 2nd ed., reprint. and additional. Mjscow: Prospect.
10. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_120805
11. Chashin, A.N. (2018). Article-by-article commentary on the Civil Procedure Code. Moscow: Eksmo.
12Civil procedure. Textbook. Edited by M.K. Treushnikov. (2021). Moscow: Gorodets Publishing House.
13. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted by Popular vote on December 12, 1993. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_28399
14Civil procedure. Textbook. (2017). Edited by V.V. Yarkov. 10th ed. Moscow: Jurist.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as follows from its name, the specifics of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity under the legislation of the Russian Federation. The stated boundaries of the study are observed by the author. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article, but it is obvious that the scientists used universal dialectical, logical, historical, formal and legal research methods. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is undeniable and is justified in sufficient detail: "The special military operation currently being conducted by the Russian Federation inevitably involves the death, capture or unknown absence of many male persons who recognized their children, raised them, but for various life reasons did not register their paternity in a timely manner with the civil registry offices. In order to restore the family legal status of a child, Soviet legislation, since the time of the last wars, has provided for a special institution in the civil process that allows, within the framework of a special, i.e. indisputable, production (production to establish facts of legal significance), to recognize his kinship with the deceased, deceased or missing father. This institution was traditionally transferred to the Russian civil procedure legislation in 2003. Currently, this status is particularly important for receiving social benefits that the state guaranteed to family members of military personnel, including those mobilized in the order of partial mobilization from 09/21/2022. Of course, for civilian life, this institution has largely lost its importance due to the development of biotechnologies and, in particular, technologies for determining similarity (identity) DNA, however, it is precisely the uncertainty created by military actions that does not always allow such a study to be carried out due to the lack of necessary biological materials for an appropriate examination. Thus, the problem of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity by the court has now become relevant again." The scientist lists the names of the leading experts involved in the study of the problems raised in the article, and also reveals the degree of their study: "It cannot be said that the procedural rules for establishing paternity were not the object of research in Russian jurisprudence. These issues were considered both in periodic publications and in specialized studies by Soviet (M.V. Materova [4]) and Russian (A.M. Akhmedkhanova [5], V.N. Vyglovsky [6]) authors. These issues were also partially addressed in the dissertation studies of N.A. Chudinovskaya (2007 [7, pp. 114-126]) and O.Y. Khudyakova (2009 [8, pp. 139-158], which provides a comparative characteristic of this institution with the most developed Anglo-American law in this regard). However, issues of nonsearch proceedings, issues of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity were not adequately addressed in these studies, although procedural features and the presence of a considerable number of problematic aspects of consideration of this category of cases are beyond doubt." The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in a number of the author's conclusions: "if we are talking about dependency, then the legislator "thinks out" for the deceased, assuming (in essence, we are talking about a legally established axiom) that the deceased supported his child. In other words, in this case, from one fact of dependence established by the court, the legislator imperatively establishes the fact that the deceased was the father of the child. ... we are talking about a "bundle", the consistent application of two legal axioms: the first one proceeds from the fact that the material maintenance of the child is already a recognition by a person of paternity in relation to this child The following is from the fact that a person's recognition of his paternity in relation to a child, indeed, entails the truth of the fact of his biological paternity"; "Secondly, we are talking about committing actions of a non-material nature against a child, i.e. not about material maintenance, but about, for example, upbringing, giving advice, walking together accompanying the child to institutions (for example, to a hospital) and performing all other actions expressing care for him. In this case, the first of the legal axioms has a specific basis, consisting in the uncertainty of the initial premise: the actual actions with which the legislator associates the fact of recognition of paternity by a person are not specified, however, if the fact of recognition of paternity follows from these actions, the second (subsequent) legal axiom begins to act in the same way as it acts in the first case" and others . Thus, the article makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and deserves the attention of potential readers. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is not entirely logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author substantiates the relevance of his chosen research topic. In the main part of the work, the scientist examines the material and procedural features of cases on establishing the fact of recognition of paternity. The final part of the article is missing as such. The content of the article corresponds to its title and does not cause any particular complaints. The author should pay attention to the fact that all abbreviations should be deciphered when they are first used (UN, CoBS). The bibliography of the research is presented by 14 sources (dissertations, monographs, scientific articles, analytical materials, textbooks, commentaries, regulations). From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The nature and number of sources used in writing the article allowed the author to reveal the research topic with the necessary depth and completeness. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (A.N. Chashin, M. K. Treushnikov) and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly. The provisions of the work are justified to the necessary extent. There are no conclusions based on the results of the study, combined in the final part of the work, as such. Meanwhile, this part of the article should represent the quintessence of all the scientific achievements of the author. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of family law, civil procedure, provided that it is finalized: disclosure of the research methodology, clarification of the structure of the work, formulation of clear and specific conclusions based on the results of the study, elimination of violations in the design of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Peculiarities of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity under the legislation of the Russian Federation". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of the procedure for recognizing paternity under Russian law. The author examines the current legislation, identifies some problems related to the implementation of the considered norms, and suggests mechanisms for improving the current legislation. The specific subject of the study was, first of all, the norms of current legislation, the opinions of scientists, empirical data and practice. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is not stated directly in the article. At the same time, it can be clearly understood from the title and content of the work. The purpose can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects of the issue of the specifics of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity under the legislation of the Russian Federation. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as to draw specific conclusions from empirical data. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation. For example, the following conclusion of the author: "The Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter the APC RF) does not contain the institution of refusal to accept an application at all: paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 150 of the APC RF allows only the termination of proceedings in a case if it is not subject to consideration in an arbitration court. By virtue of Article 218 of the APC of the Russian Federation, cases on the establishment of facts that are not legally relevant to the rights and obligations in the field of entrepreneurial activity are not subject to consideration in an arbitration court. Thus, in the framework of the arbitration process, an application for the establishment of a fact that has no legal significance must initially be accepted for production. If, however, the commercial court does establish its non-legal nature during the consideration of the case, the proceedings in the case are subject to termination." It is necessary to positively assess the possibilities of the historical and legal research method associated with the study of the experience of various periods of history. In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: "The institution of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity has undergone a complex evolution. In the post-October period, the slogan of equality for all children whose parents were or were not married was accompanied by simplified rules for establishing paternity, since, after all, origin alone, without state recognition, was not enough to record a man as the father of his child. However, the extreme simplicity of the paternity procedure did not always meet the requirements of generally accepted morality, so it became necessary to complicate it. By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated 07/08/1944, any establishment of paternity was prohibited. Later, the Code on Marriage and Family of the RSFSR (hereinafter referred to as the Code of the RSFSR), having again resolved it, conditioned the satisfaction of the claim for establishing paternity with a number of strict conditions." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of establishing paternity is complex and ambiguous. Both legal and ethical issues intersect here. At the same time, it should be remembered that the responsibility of parents must be realized. It is difficult to argue with the author: "The crisis of traditional official monogamy, the increasing spread of civil marriages and the formation of new, nontraditional models of family relations are inevitably accompanied by an increase in the number of incomplete (mostly single-mother and child) families. This trend, which is quite clearly defined for Russia in modern sociological research [1, pp. 106-107], requires, in order to protect childhood, special attention to the problems of legal regulation of the procedure for establishing paternity. On the one hand, as the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as the UN) notes, the Russian Federation pursues a purposeful policy of countering the modern "liberation of morals", on the other hand, it contributes to the formation of gender equality in Russian society [2], but at the same time cannot but tighten the policy of legal responsibility of parents." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, is the following conclusion: "when considering this category of cases, the court must carefully and comprehensively evaluate the evidence presented on the recognition of paternity before the death of the alleged father of the child. In the course of judicial proof, the truth of the facts forming the subject of proof is established. In addition to witness testimony, written evidence plays an essential role in establishing the fact of paternity recognition by the court. Since no other deadlines have been set for the category of cases under consideration, it should be recognized that the total period for their consideration is two months." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author suggests ideas for generalizing practical problems in this area, which may be useful for practitioners dealing with this category of cases. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Administrative and Municipal Law", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the peculiarities of establishing the fact of recognition of paternity under the legislation of the Russian Federation. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, as the author considered the stated problems and achieved the research goal. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Akhmedkhanova A.M., Vyglovsky V.N., Chudinovskaya N.A., Khudyakova O.Yu. and others). Many of the cited scientists are recognized scientists in the field of paternity issues. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotes from scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the issues of improving the institution of establishing paternity in Russia. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"