Legal Proceedings to Bring Leon Home

Last updated: February 27, 2026 (includes full court decision translation and February 2026 counsel memorandum)

Background
Hague Convention Case
Appeals & Setbacks (2025)
Paternity and Custody Lawsuit
Visitation Lawsuit and Complaints
Indonesian Social Ministry Inspection
Criminal Complaint Against Guardianship Officials
Documentation of Anna Lyudniovskova's Arrest in Finland
Strategic Communication and Political Support
Constitutional Court Challenge
Legal Opinion on Guardianship Violations (2025)
Court Decision Denying Visitation (12 December 2025) — full English translation
Counsel Memorandum (December 2025)
December 2025 Lawyer's Note – Strategy & "Dolina Case" (External Update)
AI Analysis: Judicial Bias in the Levenstein Case (External Update)
Nicholas' Reply to the Lawyers' Memorandum (December 2025)
Counsel Memorandum Update (February 2026)

BACKGROUND

After the passing of Leon's mother in December 2023, guardianship over Leon was given to his maternal uncle (his mother's brother) Andrei Malevanny, without informing the child's father, Nicholas Levenstein. Despite holding full parental rights, Nicholas has been denied custody and even visitation.

Key early events:

Dec 5, 2023 – Death of Anna Lyudinovskova (Leon's mother).
Dec 6, 2023 – Preliminary guardianship granted to Andrei Malevanny (Appendix No. 11).
Dec 21, 2023 – Nicholas learns of mother's death through acquaintances.

HAGUE CONVENTION CASE

Filed in April 2024, sought Leon's return to Malta under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

Apr 2024 – Hague petition filed in Tverskoy District Court (Case No. 02-3254/2024).
Jul 8, 2024 – Petition denied (Appendix No. 69).
Oct 30, 2024 – Moscow City Court upholds denial (Appendix No. 74).
Apr 1, 2025 – Second Cassation Court denies review (Appendix No. 76).
Jul 25, 2025 – Supreme Court refuses transmission of cassation (Appendix No. 78).
Aug 2025 – Further cassation submitted to Acting Chairman of Supreme Court (Appendix No. 79).

PATERNITY AND CUSTODY LAWSUIT

In August 2024, Nicholas filed for recognition of custody rights. Paternity confirmed, but custody denied in March 2025.

Aug 1, 2024 – Custody lawsuit filed (Case No. 02-0698/2025).
Mar 10, 2025 – Custody denied (Appendix No. 96).
Russian decision (PDF): 05-10-25-judgement-for-defendents-on-paternity-su-it.pdf
English translation (DOCX): Russian-Transcrip-toina-and-English-tranlsation-of-judgement.docx
Apr 2025 – Appeal filed to Moscow City Court (Appendix No. 97).
Aug 14, 2025 – Moscow City Court upholds lower ruling after perfunctory 15–20 sec deliberation (Appendix No. 122).
Nov 2025 – Cassation complaint prepared and filed (under review).

VISITATION LAWSUIT AND COMPLAINTS

The refusal issued on 12 December 2025 in the visitation case later formed the factual and legal basis for a renewed constitutional complaint filed in January 2026.

Current legal strategy emphasizes an adaptation period to restore the parent-child relationship through supervised or neutral-venue meetings involving qualified psychologists and pedagogues. A request for assistance has been sent to the Family Mediation Center "Preobrazhenie," awaiting their response.

Dec 3, 2024 – Visitation case filed in Golovinsky District Court (Case M-0462/2025).
Jan 2025 – Series of applications for visitation filed (Appendix Nos. 89–93).
Aug 13, 2024 – Complaint lodged against Malevanny for obstructing access (Appendix No. 98).
Jan 13–15, 2026 – Counsel attended court to obtain reasoned decision; not yet prepared. Motion filed.

INDONESIAN SOCIAL MINISTRY INSPECTION

Parallel to Russian proceedings, Indonesia's Ministry of Social Affairs conducted independent inspections confirming Nicholas's fitness as a parent.

Mar 2025 – Psychological evaluation certifies Bali villa suitable for child (Appendix No. 85).
Sep 4, 2025 – Social Report No. 1520/4.2/PI.00/9/2025 confirms Nicholas's eligibility as foreign guardian (Appendix No. 107).
Sep 16, 2025 – Affidavit of assistance filed by Ekaterina Kiseleva to support Leon's adaptation (Appendix No. 108).

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST GUARDIANSHIP OFFICIALS

Nicholas's lawyers filed a criminal complaint against Deputy Head Svetlana Istomina for abuse of office in unlawfully granting guardianship. Authorities refused to register it.

Nov 25, 2024 – Criminal complaint filed in Basmanny Investigative Committee (Appendix No. 109).
Dec 2024–Jun 2025 – Complaints escalated to Investigative Committee leadership and Moscow Prosecutor (Appendix Nos. 110–111).
Jul 24, 2025 – Basmanny District Court refuses to hear complaint (Appendix No. 114).
Appeal lodged to Moscow City Court (Appendix No. 115).
Nov 2025 – Cassation complaint filed against refusal to accept complaint under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (pending review).

DOCUMENTATION OF ANNA LYUDNIOVSKOVA'S ARREST IN FINLAND

Evidence concerning Anna Lyudniovskova's March 2023 arrest in Finland should be properly notarized to ensure its authenticity and admissibility before Russian courts.

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND POLITICAL SUPPORT

Given limited judicial progress, counsel recommends initiating coordinated strategic communication within political and media spheres. Letters of appeal may be addressed to influential legislators and officials. Recent positive remarks by President Vladimir Putin regarding Mrs. Melania Trump's statement on Ukrainian children may indicate openness toward humanitarian family-reunification matters involving foreign citizens.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CHALLENGE

Nicholas challenged Article 121(1) of the Family Code as unconstitutional, arguing it allows arbitrary removal of custody despite a living parent.

Jul 12, 2025 – Constitutional complaint filed (Appendix No. 116).
Jul 22, 2025 – Constitutional Court returns complaint without consideration (Appendix No. 117).
Nov 2025 – Renewed petition submitted following conclusion of appellate review (pending).
Jan 13–15, 2026 – Constitutional Court accepted the renewed complaint, currently under review by judges.

• KSRF Petition No. 9488/15-01/2026 — "Under review / being studied by a judge" • KSRF Petition No. 6362/15-01/2026 — "Notice sent regarding non-compliance with formal requirements"

LEGAL OPINION ON GUARDIANSHIP VIOLATIONS (2025)

Legal research opinion prepared under Agreement No. 2025-118-1 dated May 20, 2025, investigates the legality of transferring Leon Levenstein into the guardianship of Andrei Yuryevich Malevany.

KEY FINDINGS:

No notification was sent to the U.S. diplomatic mission or competent foreign authority despite Leon's foreign citizenship.
Authorities failed to prepare or register the mandatory "Child Profile" or include Leon in the state database of children left without parental care.
Leon's father's details—Nicholas Levenstein's contact information and passport data—were omitted from official records.
No court decision or law enforcement evidence confirmed the "loss of parental care."
Authorities ignored the grandmother's preferential right to guardianship and failed to document her refusal.
Failure to verify criminal record and authenticity of Malevany's income certificate.
Guardian left Moscow with the child without notifying authorities, violating the order of supervision; no official sanction followed.

CONCLUSION: The report concludes that the guardianship authority's conduct grossly violated Leon Levenstein's rights and may constitute an administrative offense under Article 5.36 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses.

Full text:

English Version (.docx)
Russian Original (.pdf)

COURT DECISION DENYING VISITATION (12 DECEMBER 2025) — FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

[Full Russian PDF: 12.12.2025-judgment-rendered.pdf] [English DOCX: 12.12.25.-english-trnaslation-of-court-decision.docx] [Audio of court hearing: 2025-12-12-audio-of-court-hearing.mp4]

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

December 12, 2025, City of Moscow

The Golovinsky District Court of the City of Moscow, composed of presiding judge O.M. Ivanova, with secretary K.P. Blinova, having considered in an open court session civil case No. 2-3865/2025 on the lawsuit of Nicolas Loewenstein against Andrey Yuryevich Malevany, regarding the non-creation of obstacles in communicating with a minor, determining the procedure for communicating with a child, and compelling actions,

ESTABLISHED:

The Plaintiff, N. Loewenstein, filed a lawsuit with the court against the Defendant, A.Yu. Malevany, in which he requested:

1) Oblige defendant to eliminate obstacles in communication of N. Loewenstein with his son Leon Loewenstein (born February 27, 2020).

2) Establish 6-month adaptation period during Nicholas's stays in Russia: guardian to provide father access at minor's residence (Moscow, Kronshtadtsky Boulevard 49, bld 1, apt 198) on weekends 12:00–15:00 and one weekday 18:00–19:00. Translator allowed if Nicholas brings one.

3) After 1 year: weekday access 16:00–20:00 outside the home (places of leisure, culture, recreation). Weekend access 10:00–19:00 outside the home. No guardian present.

4) After 1 year passes: 2-week vacation abroad every 2 months, at Canggu/Bali address (Villa G Blue, Komplek B Garden, Canggu).

The court considered the evidence including:

Death of A.Yu. Lyudinovskova on 05.12.2023
Preliminary guardianship order dated 06.12.2023 (No. 1187-OP)
Extension of preliminary guardianship 06.06.2024 (Order No. 01/5-14-303/24)
Permanent guardianship established 05.08.2024 (Order No. 01/5-20-2/24)
Plaintiff's repeated applications to guardianship authority
Tverskoy District Court ruling 08.07.2024 denying child return (Case 2-3254/2024)
Basmanny District Court ruling 10.03.2025 denying custody (Case 2-698/2025)
Indonesian Ministry of Social Affairs social report confirming Nicholas suitable as foreign guardian
Description of villa in Canggu, Bali (300 sqm, 3 bedrooms, pool, play area)
Inspection of guardian's apartment on Kronshtadtsky Blvd (act dated 29.09.2025) — established satisfactory conditions
Statement from guardianship authority (TD No. 5) that claims are "filed prematurely" and that amicable settlement is preferred

GUARDIANSHIP AUTHORITY POSITION: claims premature because Nicholas resides in different country, has no permanent residence in Russia, minor "does not know and does not remember his biological father," and "plaintiff has not participated in the upbringing of the minor for a long time."

COURT REASONING (refusing the claims):

Court acknowledges plaintiff retains parental status; parental rights not restricted or terminated
"The very existence of parental status does not entail an automatic obligation for the court to determine a specific and extended communication procedure if such intervention at this stage does not meet the interests of the child"
Claims deemed "premature in nature"
"Determining the procedure for communication is a measure of legal impact applied in the presence of an ongoing conflict that hinders the realization of parental rights and is not amenable to settlement by other means"
Family Code RF "proceeds from the priority of the voluntary and coordinated exercise of parental rights, and judicial intervention should bear an auxiliary, and not a substitutive, character"

DECIDED:

To deny the satisfaction of the claims
To recommend that Andrey Yuryevich Malevany not create obstacles to Nicolas Loewenstein's communication with his minor son Leon Loewenstein

The decision may be appealed to the Moscow City Court within one month.

Decision in final form: 06.02.2026 Judge: O.M. Ivanova

COUNSEL MEMORANDUM (DECEMBER 2025)

"Good evening, Nicholas!

While preparing this message, we struggled for a long time to find the right words to describe the situation, because what happened in court, in our view, went far beyond any acceptable deviations, and today's incident is so outrageous that it deserves to be examined independently in the history of unjust judicial decisions.

When applying to the court with a request to determine the procedure for communication, we were guided by Article 66 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, according to which, in the event of disagreements between parents or guardians regarding the upbringing or communication with a child, such a procedure is established by the court.

By its meaning, this legal provision implies that the court has no possibility to refuse as such; it may only determine the procedure for communication. That is, the court may disagree with the number of days, the duration, or the period of communication; it may establish significantly less than what one party requests, or impose an obligation for such communication to take place under the supervision of third responsible persons—but it cannot refuse outright.

The very wording of the law excludes such a possibility for the court, since restricting a parent's communication with a child is permitted only in cases where the parent has been restricted or deprived of parental rights in the manner prescribed by law.

Thus, when applying to the court, we understood that the court would significantly limit our right to communicate, but would nevertheless grant a right of access.

Moreover, back in the Basmanny Court, Judge Guseva directly drew our attention to the fact that we needed to apply to the court to determine the procedure for communication.

However, to our astonishment, we cannot now even imagine, nor can we assume, on the basis of what law the court refused us. What it will place at the foundation of its decision and how it will justify such a refusal remains unclear, but the fact remains.

The guardianship authority, to our surprise, agreed with the opinion of the guardianship and trusteeship body, which leaves us perplexed.

[...]

In every document, judicial act, decision, or ruling, we desperately searched for a reference to the truth or an indication of a mistake we had made, a misapplied law; however, instead, we saw only mockery of the very idea of administering justice.

[...]

Nicholas, at the moment we cannot express an opinion on further actions—we need to rest, and Roman Meyer has fallen ill due to stress. On Monday, we will prepare our letter with our view on the next steps."

DECEMBER 2025 LAWYER'S NOTE – STRATEGY & "DOLINA CASE" (External Update)

External update linking to the "Strategy & The 'Dolina Case' Precedent" section of the December 25 letter translation. Argues legal appeals likely to keep being ignored unless case becomes publicly visible in political circles. Cites widely publicized "Dolina Case" as example of how intense public scrutiny can pressure outcomes in high-profile Russian proceedings.

Link: https://www.bringleonhome.org/december2025lawyersnote#strategy

AI ANALYSIS: JUDICIAL BIAS IN THE LEVENSTEIN CASE (External Update)

Bilingual AI-focused write-up comparing how three systems (Gemini, Grok, OpenAI) frame the feasibility, risks, and methodology of using generative AI to assess potential systemic discrimination and judicial bias patterns in an international custody context.

Link: https://www.bringleonhome.org/new-ai-research

NICHOLAS' REPLY TO THE LAWYERS' MEMORANDUM (DECEMBER 2025)

Link: https://www.bringleonhome.org/nickreplydec252025

COUNSEL MEMORANDUM UPDATE (FEBRUARY 2026)

NEW COURT DOCUMENTS & UPDATES:

Reasoned Decision – Golovinsky District Court (Russian PDF): Download PDF
Reasoned Decision – English Translation (DOCX): Download DOCX
Constitutional Court Update (KSRF Decision 1, PDF): KSRFDecision889869-1.pdf
Constitutional Court Update (KSRF Decision 2, PDF): KSRF Additional Decision.pdf

SUMMARY:

Legal team confirmed receipt of reasoned decision from Golovinsky District Court, which formally denied visitation claims. Lawyers described ruling as highly unprofessional. Team preparing:

Appeal to the Moscow City Court against the Golovinsky decision
Complaint to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the original guardianship transfer handled by the Basmanny Court

Constitutional Court complaint returned with instructions to first exhaust all Supreme Court appeal mechanisms; team plans to re-file after.

Tactically: lawyers will formally request the guardian to comply with the court's non-binding recommendation; anticipating his refusal, they intend to use this non-compliance in higher courts to demonstrate the absurdity and ineffectiveness of the lower court's legal remedy.

Continuing parallel efforts: negotiations with Children's Rights Commissioner; drafting formal letters to the Ministry of Education and local guardianship authorities.

Legal team expressed deep sympathy for Nicholas and Leon, lamenting that they are unable to celebrate the child's birthday together for the third consecutive year.