On some approaches to the preservation and protection of traditional family values in Russian law

Gorokhova Svetlana Sergeevna ORCID: 0000-0002-4919-1093 PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of International and Public Law; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 109456, Russia, Moscow, 38 Shcherbakovskaya str., room 805 Swettalana@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

At the same time as humanity realized itself as a species and stood out from nature, biological instincts gradually began to be supplemented by more abstract standards designed not only to ensure survival, but also to create such conditions for the existence of society and an individual that would correspond to the level of development of human consciousness. At a certain stage of evolution, customs were added to biological norms, then moral, religious and, ultimately, legal regulators. All of them still stay with us one way or another. Another thing is that the proportion of certain types of standards in the total mass of social regulators over time, and under the influence of other factors, is constantly changing, transforming and qualitatively. Religious norms, moral categories, or legal prescriptions come to the fore in turn. The content of the social norms themselves is being reviewed. The effectiveness of their impact on people is also subject to changes.

Russia is not exceptional in this regard. Indeed, once upon a time Russian society was guided by a fairly organic combination of legal and religious regulation of public relations, which together formed the patriarchal Orthodox traditional morality.^[1] Then, under the influence of revolutionary processes and, at that time, considered progressive civilizational views, religious norms at the state level were rejected,^[2] the balance shifted towards an ideology-based socialist morality, which was designed to become the "faith of atheists." The traditional foundations of Russian society were seriously tested, aggravated by the background historical events of the beginning of the formation of the Soviet state. But even without their influence, tectonic changes in the approach, it would seem, to the unshakable foundation of any society, the family – the legalization of divorce, the invalidation of church marriages, the course towards the emancipation of women^[3] and free love^[4] – could shake anyone. Nevertheless, atheistic faith in a bright future allowed society to stand and rally around new ideals, including internationalism, universal equality and the pursuit of social justice, forming the moral image of the builder of communism. To a large extent, for most people, this became a worthy replacement for the lost patriarchal way, especially since the results on the chosen path were really inspiring.^[5]

However, the twentieth century prepared new trials for Russia, when, after all the hardships of the Great Patriotic War and the restoration of the destroyed national economy, the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics became a new blow in the early nineties, with the collapse of the moral ideals of developed socialism naturally following this event.

It suddenly turned out that communism and universal equality are utopias, and private property, competition, and the secondary nature of public and state interests in relation to the rights and freedoms of an individual are the highest good.^[6] The situation was further aggravated by the fact that even these liberal values did not legally become state ideologies, although in fact, against the background of the constitutional ban on the existence of state ideology as such, they penetrated into many areas of legal regulation, but still, without completing the ideological transition to the end and leaving a gaping void in place of public morals.

As a result, researchers of key indicators of the effectiveness of the legal system began to record a significant increase in such negative phenomena for the state as family instability, deformation of legal awareness, critical or negative attitude towards the state and the law, a drop in the level of legality, an increase in crime and many others.^[7]

Lacking a reliable foundation in the form of faith, a clear ideological guideline, and a strong basis in the form of an ideologically sound law, at some point, society largely lost the ability to form a new morality, in conditions of comprehensive pluralism, unable to agree on what can generally be considered an ideal, what is good, what is evil, and where else is there room for a feat. The next scrapping of the state and social system, which disembodied strong social ties, also affected the basic unit of society – the family, the foundations of which were also shaken, leading many to believe that freedom at the level of family relations is an unpunished possibility of fornication, and termination of pregnancy is a completely acceptable substitute for contraception. This was largely facilitated by the excessive liberalization of legislation in these areas.

Today, under the influence of new negative factors, finding itself in a situation of radical polarization of the world, the country is faced with the consequences of all this in full, seriously thinking about the formation of moral foundations and the revival of traditional values,^[8] including as an antithesis to unfriendly countries. Many Russian scientists, including those whose works we cite in this article, have become interested in certain aspects of the problem of reviving traditional moral values. Therefore, taking into account all these factors, it should be stated that this moment is the best suited for an inventory of moral and moral categories in family law, leveling the legal landscape from the point of view of its compliance with the new tasks of the Russian state, its ability to withstand external and internal threats of modernity. In addition, such a goal is explicitly outlined in the Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and strengthening of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 11/19/2022 No. 809 "On approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and strengthening of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values" // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 11/14/2022, No. 46, art. 7977). This document, calling traditional values the moral guidelines that shape the worldview of Russian citizens, indicates that the ideological and psychological impact on citizens (carried out mainly from outside the state) leads to the imposition of a system of ideas and values destructive to Russian society, including the cultivation of selfishness, permissiveness, immorality, denial of the ideals of patriotism, the values of a strong family, marriage, large families, creative work, the destruction of the traditional family through the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations. As we can see, the greatest attention is paid to the preservation of traditions in the family, and organically related social institutions. It is obvious that the minimum task is to preserve the remaining traditional foundations of society, protecting citizens from destructive influences, and the maximum task is to revive lost value orientations. Note that some steps have already been taken in this direction, but it seems that we are only at the beginning of the road.

So, in accordance with the new version of paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation, among other things, ensures the implementation of a unified socially oriented state policy in the field of preserving traditional family values in the country.

This constitutional provision, which is of the most important, basic importance for the legal system, assumes that detailed regulation of the established norm will be implemented in the current legislation. Let's see if this is true. But before proceeding directly to the moral and at the same time legal category of "traditional value", let's consider what the category of "family" is for Russian law.^[9] Strangely enough, the only federal law that contains a direct definition of the family is not the Family Code of the Russian Federation, but the Federal Law of 24.10.1997 N 134-FZ "On the subsistence minimum in the Russian Federation" (Federal Law of 24.10.1997 N 134-FZ "On the subsistence minimum in the Russian Federation"// Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation, 10/27/1997, No. 43, Article 4904), which establishes that a family is a person related by kinship and (or) property, living together and running a joint household. There are several questions here. Firstly, the absence of this definition in the Family Code of the Russian Federation, which, in our opinion, is fundamentally wrong, since it creates a stable impression of linking the family, as a basic social institution, not to marital relations and relations between parents, children and other relatives, but, first of all, as an association of persons in an attempt to find out their income and need for social assistance. Secondly, based on the definition, this group of relatives or in-laws (sisters-in-law) is not connected with each other by anything other than cohabitation, household management and collective efforts to achieve a living wage. No mutual rights, duties and responsibilities, nothing.

Of course, it is quite understandable that for the purposes of determining the minimum subsistence level of a family, such a definition is advisable. However, taking into account the implementation of state policy aimed at reviving traditional moral values, it would probably be necessary to give the family, as a legal category, a more significant status that would more fully correspond to the state tasks of strengthening the family, marriage and stabilizing the demographic situation in the country. Moreover, the mutual rights and obligations of family members are certainly reflected in family legislation, but for some reason they did not get into the very definition of a family.

Separately, we note that, in our opinion, in order to increase the effectiveness of legislation in general and to achieve goals related to strengthening the family, in particular, the emphasis in the legal regulation of marital and family relations (and not only them) should be placed not on the rights, but on the duties and responsibilities of participants in these legal relations. Forming a responsible attitude towards the family, associated with a clear understanding that being a family member is, first of all, to have obligations to preserve this family, to show respect for all its members, to provide assistance and support, including material, to those family members who need it.

Of course, for more than thirty years of the existence of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which formed modern Russian legislation, we have already become accustomed to the humanistic basis of law, expressed primarily in the priority of the rights of an individual, however, if you look at countries where, for example, the state of demography does not cause much concern, you can see that all of them They adhere to a different outline in legal regulation, relying on duties as the basis of the legal status of an individual. Of course, this does not mean that a person should not have rights and freedoms, or there should be fewer of them, no. It just means that responsibilities should not be forgotten, in an attempt to imagine that respecting our rights is a prerequisite, but fulfilling responsibilities is a secondary function. There should also be no situation in law in which the prohibition is legally established, and responsibility for its violation is not provided.

As an illustration, let's take the prohibition of marriage between persons established by Article 14 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, of which at least one person is already in another registered marriage. There is a ban, but is there any responsibility for such actions, or a deliberate attempt to conclude such a marriage? There is no responsibility. The only legal consequence of such a situation may be the recognition of the marriage as invalid, and then only at the request of the person concerned.

At the same time, a similar situation, that is, remarriage in the presence of a spouse or marriage with a person who is knowingly married, for example, in the People's Republic of China, in accordance with Article 258 of the Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China (Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China / under the general editorship of Prof. A.I. Chuchaev and Prof. A.I. Korobeeva. - M.: 2021) are punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years or short-term arrest. As you can see, responsibility has been established, not only for a person who already has a spouse, but also for someone who deliberately marries such a person. And it's not just China that does this. In many countries of the world, including such liberal ones as the USA (where at the moment bigamy is a criminal offense in virtually all states except Utah) (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/12/us/bigamy-decriminalized-utah-trnd/index.html ). And in Utah, where for decades bigamy has been a third-degree felony, legally punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000, now a new law qualifies it as an offense, equating the consequences for its commission to receiving a fine for violating traffic rules. It is significant that the decision of the authorities to mitigate responsibility for bigamy was not supported by all residents of the state itself (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/utah-bigamy-law.html ?ysclid=lyiso8kify386871805).

In England, in accordance with Article 57 of the Crimes against the Person Act 1861, anyone who, being married, marries another person is guilty of a criminal offense, and is subject to correctional labor for a period not exceeding 7 years (Offenses Against the Person Act 1861 // https://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/oap1861 /).

In Scotland, bigamy was considered an offence under common law until the adoption of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 / URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/pdfs/ukpga_20130030_en.pdf ), when it became a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine.^[10]

Well, in the end, let's remember the responsibility for bigamy (polygamy) in Soviet law, and try to answer the question, does modern Russia really need legislation that is more liberal than any liberal in the world? Or maybe the fact is that the level of legal awareness of Russian citizens is so high that such an act is out of the question? Not at all. If we turn to judicial practice, we can see that such cases still become the subject of judicial review. Let us give as an example, the precedent described in the Review of judicial practice in cases of invalidation of marriage, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in December 2022 (Review of judicial practice in cases of invalidation of marriage" (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12/14/2022) // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, No. 3, March, 2023). In accordance with this document, A. appealed to the court with a claim against M. for recognition of the marriage concluded between N. and M. as invalid. In support of the claim, A. indicated that in January 2019, his father N. died, after whose death the inheritance was opened. After contacting the notary with an application for acceptance of the inheritance, he became aware that the rights of M., who is the spouse of the deceased, were claimed for the inheritance. Meanwhile, at the time of the marriage with M., his father was in a registered marriage with G.. A similar case is described in the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 10/20/2003 N 22-B03-5 (Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 2004, N 12). That is, bigamy has not yet been eliminated in our society, and the lack of practice cannot be the reason for the lack of responsibility for it, since it exists.

Of course, it can be argued that Russia is a multinational and multi-religious country, and according to the all-Russian population census of 2023, more than 14 million Muslims (about 10% of the total population) live on its territory, which traditionally allow polygamy. But, in the same USA, there are also quite a lot of Muslims, not to mention Mormons, for whom polygamy is also considered the norm.

Maybe Russian law should still determine its position, either to find out the legitimate possibility of polygamy in the legal field, or to complete the legal construction of the legal prohibition of bigamy. In addition, if, after all, the religious views of citizens in a secular country are so important, the question arises, why in Russia, church marriages are still not considered official, and equal to those concluded in the registry office? Indeed, for Orthodox Christians, of whom there are obviously many in Russia, the sacredness of the bonds of marriage, that is, the mandatory coverage of the marriage union by the church, is the most important religious postulate. Here, again, one can cite the example of the practice of other states – the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Spain, Italy, etc., where citizens have a choice – to marry in civil institutions or in the church. Moreover, the only possible form of marriage - religious - is established in Israel (also a secular state), Iraq, Iran, and others.^[11] Perhaps, in the light of the state's policy of reviving traditional marriage and family values, we should be consistent here, and revive the foundations that were abolished more than 100 years ago? After all, the question is far from idle, since the family in Russia is not at all in the best condition, judging by the demography and the number of divorces, according to which the Russian Federation, according to the UN, occupies the top lines of the rating of "divorcing" countries of the world (Demographic and Social Statistics / https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/dyb_2022 /).

Another point that should be mentioned, speaking about the presence in Russian law of incomplete legal structures in the field of regulation of marital and family relations, is that in addition to the prohibition of bigamy, the Family Code of the Russian Federation also establishes a ban on marrying close relatives in ascending and descending lines. However, the situation here is exactly the same as with bigamy, if not to say that from a moral point of view, it is much worse, since not only marriage, but also cohabitation outside of marriage with relatives of such a close degree of kinship certainly looks unacceptable both from the point of view of morality and from the point of view of biological preservation of the species, which means it must be suppressed by all possible methods. However, Russian legislation does not provide for any legal consequences for such actions, except, again, for the mechanism of invalidation of marriage. At the same time, considering possible legal liability for incest,^[12] it is also possible, as in the case of bigamy, to turn to foreign experience, since such a crime is currently provided for by most European countries: Germany, France, Spain, etc.^[13] In the United States, incest is also a criminal offense in most states (except New Jersey and Rhode Island). Although there are no federal laws prohibiting incest, it is illegal in 48 US states with varying degrees of criminalization (Incest Laws by State / https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/incest-laws-by-state/0 ). In general, listing all the countries where incest is prohibited and punishable is a rather thankless task, since there are most of them in the world, and only some, no more than a dozen, among which, unfortunately, Russia is also, do not provide for responsibility for such behavior.

Another, until recently, indisputable traditional value in marital and family relations was marital fidelity. Today we recall it again, including in connection with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2022 No. 411 (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2022 No. 411 "On the Day of Family, love and fidelity"// Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 07/04/2022, No. 27, art. 4811), according to which in order to To preserve traditional family values and the spiritual and moral education of children and youth in the Russian Federation, July 8 is established as the Day of Family, Love and Fidelity. Of course, this is an excellent undertaking, taking into account the fact that marital fidelity itself is significantly devalued from the standpoint of modern Russian morality, and in fact is not protected by national legislation in any way. Indeed, what consequences can one of the spouses expect if he betrays the trust of the other and does not remain faithful to the relationship in marriage? Practically none, except for the very vague prospects of a civil claim for compensation for moral damage caused by adultery^[14] and a reduction in the amount of alimony in case of divorce, if the spouse can prove the fact of the other spouse's infidelity.

Of course, you can divorce an unfaithful spouse, but you can also divorce a faithful spouse, since there are no such conditions in Russian legislation that could prevent the dissolution of marriage, whether it is the desire of one of the spouses.^[15] At most, the husband (and only the husband) will have to wait for the completion of his wife's pregnancy and wait another year after the birth of the child. Is this the case everywhere? Not everywhere. Of course, virtually all people in the modern world have the opportunity to divorce (the only exceptions are probably the Vatican and the Philippines), and states do not try to preserve the families of their citizens at any cost. But the attitude towards adultery in many countries is completely different than in Russia.^[16] Of course, the criminal prosecution of unfaithful spouses in the modern world is the exception rather than the rule. One can name only a limited number of states where it is still criminal, for example, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, some US states, etc. Among the last Western European countries to decriminalize adultery were Belgium (1987), Switzerland (1989) and Austria (1997). However, even where adultery is decriminalized, adultery can have serious legal consequences, especially in jurisdictions with fault divorce laws, where infidelity is almost always a reason for divorce and can be a factor influencing the settlement of property relations, child custody, etc. Adultery is not a reason for divorce in countries that have adopted the model of a no-fault divorce (which, by the way, includes Russia), but still this fact can be taken into account in disputes over custody of children and property.

Naturally, there is a reasonable criticism of legal liability for adultery under the law, and we generally agree with it. A particularly weighty argument here, in our opinion, is the definition of the limits of interference in the private lives of citizens by the state. However, in the light of solving the problem of reviving traditional family values, it is probably necessary to provide an opportunity for spouses to independently determine such responsibility, for example, in a marriage contract, since now Russians, in accordance with family law, do not have it. As you know, the Russian marriage contract is designed to regulate exclusively property relations between spouses, and then only up to a certain limit – without putting one of the spouses in an extremely unfavorable financial situation. At the same time, the ban on the regulation of personal non-property relations is established without alternative. This is a very materialistic approach, the validity of which is in great doubt. It should be noted that some foreign analogues of the marriage contract fully admit the possibility of regulating personal non-property relations and related property relations in this agreement, including material consequences for adultery. Take, for example, the Code of Laws on Marriage and Family of the Republic of Belarus, in accordance with Article 13 of which, in order to enhance the culture of marital and family relations and the responsibility of one spouse to the other, to determine the rights and obligations of spouses in marriage and (or) after its dissolution, persons entering into marriage, spouses at any time and within the scope of their rights and obligations, they have the right to conclude a prenuptial agreement, including provisions on determining their personal non-property and (or) property rights and obligations both during the marriage and after its dissolution.

Separately, with regard to determining the purpose of concluding a marriage contract in Belarus, we note what we have already written about earlier, speaking about the shortcomings in the formulation of the definition of "family" – the definition itself focuses on the mutual responsibility of spouses,^[17] which certainly distinguishes it from the Russian version, according to which: "An agreement is recognized as a marriage contract persons entering into marriage, or an agreement between the spouses defining the property rights and obligations of the spouses in marriage and (or) in the event of its dissolution." That is, in our case, the emphasis is not on increasing the culture of marital and family relations and the responsibility of one spouse to another (this is simply not mentioned), but on a very likely (judging by statistics) upcoming divorce. Which, in our opinion, simply cannot but have a negative psychological impact on future spouses. Perhaps it is not only and not so much in the words that the legislator uses when formulating legal prescriptions, but still, the effectiveness of the educational impact that the law should have on citizens, especially in a situation of a systemic crisis of morality and faith, largely depends on what legal formula will be used in the law when describing socially significant institutions.

Another aspect that, in our opinion, directly relates to the moral foundations of family law and family state policy is the situation with children left without parental care, as well as other family members (the elderly, the sick) who are unable to serve themselves independently.

First, let's talk about the moral aspect of the problem. Despite the fact that, according to Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Tatyana Golikova, there is a positive trend in Russia in reducing the number of orphans and children left without parental care (https://ria.ru/20231127/siroty-1912054434.html ?ysclid=lrhkg5scy6940663430), however, 36.7 thousand children are currently in specialized institutions for children left without parental care. In addition to this number, according to the parents themselves, 20 thousand children were placed in social institutions. (Figure of the day: Russians handed over 20 thousand children to orphanages Figure of the day: Russians handed over 20 thousand children to orphanages URL: https://newizv.ru/news/2023-08-28/tsifra-dnya-rossiyane-sdali-v-detdoma-20-tysyach-detey-417705 ?ysclid=lrhldzmid6240761055). Unfortunately, such a phenomenon as secondary orphanhood is also common in Russia.^[18] In Russia, of course, the situation with the placement of children left without parental care is not the most critical, but nevertheless, unfortunately, it is impossible to say that such a problem does not exist at all.

Just as it cannot be said that adults, but family members in need of help and care, always find it with their relatives and friends. From the point of view of law, the situation here is very strange. As you know, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in its article 38, establishes the duty of parents to take care of their minor children, as well as the duty of able-bodied children over the age of 18 to take care of disabled parents. Moreover, let's pay attention to the word used by the Constitution of the Russian Federation – care. These responsibilities are partly regulated in other regulations. Thus, there are obligations of parents towards children established by the Family Code of the Russian Federation (Chapter 12), and responsibility for their non-fulfillment is provided for (Articles 156 and 157 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). That is, responsibility is established not only for non-payment of funds for the maintenance of children (Article 157), but also for non-fulfillment of duties for the upbringing of minors (Article 156), which seems quite logical.

However, the legal obligations of adult able-bodied children towards disabled parents, (not to mention other family members (former family members)) in relation to each other, they are reduced exclusively to the material aspect – the payment of alimony (Article 87 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation). Obligations to provide care for those who need it, as well as responsibility for leaving without care, are not provided for by Russian legislation. Is this correct? Is it really only money that is always enough, and only in them should the constitutional obligation of children to take care of their elderly or sick parents be expressed? In our opinion, if we really revive traditional moral and spiritual family values, this aspect in the legislation should be revised, expanding the interpretation of the constitutional category "care" to the literal meaning of this word, and stop reducing it to the meaning of a completely different word now used by the Family Code of the Russian Federation – "content" (Article 87. Responsibilities of adult children for the maintenance of their parents). After all, caring is not only about ensuring material well-being, but also creating the best conditions for a fulfilling life. This is attention and respect.

In fairness, we note that in fact in all countries of the post-Soviet space, responsibility for disabled elderly citizens falls on both the state (which pays pensions, maintains special institutions for elderly citizens, provides other assistance) and able-bodied children. At the same time, the responsibility of the latter is only the payment of alimony. However, in countries such as Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc., traditions and religion have a strong influence on the family.^[19] Traditionally, in the Russian republics of the North Caucasus, as well as in Asian countries, one of the younger sons stays with his parents to take care of them. On the contrary, in the central part of Russia, ensuring a decent standard of living for older citizens falls on themselves and on the state. Therefore, it is not by chance that the happiest pensioners in Russia are those who live in the North Caucasus. (Almost half of Russian pensioners are happy with the URL: https://iz.ru/news/592256 ). By the way, we note that there are significantly fewer orphans outside families in these regions than in central Russia. At the same time, in European countries, the focus is on human rights rather than traditional family values, and most European constitutions do not enshrine the responsibilities of children to take care of their disabled parents. On the contrary, it is strongly emphasized that the care of elderly citizens is guaranteed by the State.

Naturally, there is nothing wrong with state guarantees for the elderly, but, nevertheless, if the Russian Federation has really set itself the goal of reviving family values in the traditional sense of the word, probably turning to the East in many pressing issues of the life of our state, you should turn your gaze in the same direction and on the formation of attitudes to the elderly and children left without parental care?^[20] And, if we cannot rely on our worn-out morality here yet, perhaps the law will be able to provide real help in reviving traditions again, as it has already happened in Russian history.

Summarizing all of the above, let's formulate the conclusions arising from our study.

The historical events of the current and last centuries have shaped a situation in Russia characterized by the absence of a state ideology, a crisis of morality and a significant devaluation of traditional values of Russian society. This has had the most negative impact both on the level of legal awareness of citizens and on the attitude of Russians to family and marriage.

In a situation where moral and religious social regulators have proved ineffective, special attention, in our opinion, should be paid to the legal regulation of marital and family relations as the most effective way to revive and protect traditional moral values in public life.

In this regard, it is necessary to give the family as a legal category a more significant status, which would more fully correspond to the state tasks of strengthening the family, marriage and stabilizing the demographic situation in the country. In addition, legal constructions regarding the prohibition of bigamy and marriage between close relatives should be completed, considering the possibility of establishing legal liability for violation of established prohibitions. It is also probably worth exploring the possibility of fixing the legal consequences of adultery in the marriage contract.

With regard to the constitutional obligation for citizens to take care of minor children and disabled parents, we note that the interpretation of the constitutional category "care" in the current legislation should be expanded to the literal meaning of this word, and its reduction to the meaning of another word currently used by the Family Code of the Russian Federation – "content" should be stopped.