Legal Proceedings to Bring Leon Home (Updated December 26, 2025)

Legal Proceedings to Bring Leon Home

Table of Contents

Background

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

This case, filed in April 2024, sought Leon’s return to Malta under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Courts repeatedly rejected Nicholas’s petitions.

  • 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).

Appeals & Setbacks (2025)

  • 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. His paternity was confirmed, but custody was denied in March 2025. Appeals are ongoing.

Appeals & Setbacks (2025)

  • 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 against the Basmanny District Court decision and appellate determination (under review).

Visitation Lawsuit and Complaints

Alongside custody proceedings, Nicholas has pursued visitation rights and repeatedly complained about Malevanny’s obstruction of access.

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).

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).

Appeals & Setbacks (2025)

  • Ongoing obstruction of access by guardian; mediation refused by Malevanny despite Commissioner involvement (Appendix No. 99, 104).

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, leading to ongoing appellate litigation.

  • 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).

Appeals & Setbacks (2025)

  • 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 Levenstein’s Arrest in Finland

Evidence concerning Anna Levenstein’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. The case was dismissed without review.

  • 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 in Basmanny Court (pending consideration).

This legal research opinion, prepared under Agreement No. 2025-118-1 dated May 20, 2025, investigates the legality of transferring Leon Levenstein (born 27 February 2020) into the guardianship of Andrei Yuryevich Malevany. It was conducted to identify violations committed by Moscow’s guardianship officials and the guardian himself during the appointment and supervision process.

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 (“Failure of officials to provide timely or accurate information regarding minors in need of guardianship”).

Full Text:

Court Decision Denying Visitation (12 December 2025)

On 12 December 2025, the court issued a decision denying the application regarding visitation / determination of a communication procedure. The decision, its English translation, and the audio recording of the court hearing are linked below:

Counsel Memorandum (December 2025)

For readers who wish to review the referenced court file and translation:

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.

We will send you the opinion of the guardianship authority, and I believe you will be no less shocked by its content.

Thus, contrary to all facts and reality, the guardianship authority stated that we applied to the court prematurely and that we need to resolve this issue with Andrei through a settlement agreement. We were in complete disbelief upon reading this opinion and immediately noted that entering into a settlement agreement had been proposed to Andrei by the authorized body; we ourselves repeatedly contacted the guardianship authority, and moreover, the court directly raised this issue during the hearing. However, Andrei refused any settlement agreement. We then raised the question before the guardianship and trusteeship authority as to how, seeing this and knowing all the circumstances, they consider it possible to conclude such a settlement agreement. Naturally, this question was immediately ignored, and no one even considered it necessary to respond.

We honestly admit that, of course, we will prepare an appeal and appear before the cassation court on 18 December 2025, but we have stopped believing that you can restore your right within the Russian justice system.

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.

It seems absolutely incredible to us to hear a statement about the need to refuse because a settlement agreement should be concluded, when the guardianship authority makes such a statement while obviously knowing that the other party (the guardian) does not wish to do so. And even more shocking is the court’s agreement with such an opinion, when the court itself proposed concluding a settlement agreement and received a refusal. But what will shock you even more is the following: we will send you an audio recording in which the judge, having refused us, directly states that she nevertheless recommends that the defendant not create obstacles. We are deeply shocked when a judge refuses us a decision, yet immediately thereafter, in her own speech, without embarrassment, says that she believes the defendant should not create obstacles.

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)

Short description: This external update links to the “Strategy & The ‘Dolina Case’ Precedent” section of the December 25 letter translation. It argues that legal appeals are likely to keep being ignored unless the case becomes publicly visible in political circles, and it cites the widely publicized “Dolina Case” as an example of how intense public scrutiny can pressure outcomes in high-profile Russian proceedings.

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

Nicholas’ Reply to the Lawyers’ Memorandum (December 2025)

Read Nicholas' reply to the lawyers' memo above here: https://www.bringleonhome.org/nickreplydec252025

AI Analysis: Judicial Bias in the Levenstein Case (External Update)

Short description: This external update links to a bilingual AI-focused write-up that compares how three systems (Gemini, Grok, and 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