Baranka IM, who also has a restraining order from her ex-partner, claims that her case is proof that victims of domestic violence are not completely safe even when they leave a violent relationship, and that loopholes in the law and procedure and the negligence of the officials of the competent institutions do not allow them to and her three-year-old daughter feel safe.
IM, who is permanently settled in Bar, by the judgment of the Basic Court in Kraljevo, and which was recognized by the Bar Basic Court, has full custody of her daughter as well as a restraining order against her ex-partner within 200 meters.
According to the decision, which "Vijesti" had access to, the father and ex-partner, a citizen of Serbia TS, completely renounced custody and accepted that it belongs to the mother. After leaving the violent relationship with the child, IM returned to the Bar with her parents, but her problems did not stop there, because TS occasionally comes to the Bar and violates the restraining order, and stalks and directly threatens IM
He was convicted of domestic violence, i.e. death threats and physical violence. It is written in the judgment that he admitted that he sent IM threatening messages and said that he was going to kill her. According to IM, he threatened to kill her if she took her daughter to Montenegro with her parents, even though he forced her to leave the house in Kraljevo.
IM claims that the police officers in Bar who dealt with her case acted according to temporary measures, and not according to a final court verdict, despite her pleas and the lawyer's warnings, and she wonders how this is possible. That is why she wrote to the authorities, all the way to the Minister of the Interior Danilo Saranovic.
As she said, she reported each case of violation of the restraining order and judgment to the Bar Security Department, and was interrogated several times. She claims that the police officers in Bar are fully aware of her case because she was forced to explain to them on several occasions, which is also confirmed by the statements from the police.
According to IM's story, she did not meet TS for almost two years until it happened at the bar police station. Namely, IM informed the Center for Social Work that her daughter was ill and that she could not bring the child to the meeting with the father and submitted a medical certificate. He then reported her for disobeying the temporary measure that regulated how he could see the child. The Bar police then called for an interrogation, and she informed them that she could not come that day because her daughter was sick, so she would call tomorrow between 19 and 20 p.m.
When she did that, she found TS in the waiting room of the Bar police, after which she called her lawyer. As she told, the inspectors told her that he was "15 minutes early", and that they called him "to supplement the statement from yesterday" and that they could not know exactly when she would arrive between 19 and 20 pm.
"Not only did they call me to give a statement based on an incomplete application, because they called him that day to complete it, but they deliberately scheduled the interviews at the same time," she told IM and added that every application against her was rejected, which confirms that this is just one of the ways in which he mistreats her, which the police enable him to do.
Although the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence guarantees privacy of procedures and confidentiality of information, IM claims that Bar police officers violated this. Namely, when she once went to a hearing after reporting TS for violating the restraining order, as she said, the inspector told her in the hallway that TS "just wants to see the child" and commented on her case in front of other citizens and officials who were there. found.
"I didn't feel protected by anyone in the Bar police, nor did I find understanding. My impression is that all officers and inspectors were on the side of the bully, whom they constantly justified, advised me to solve problems with him. The second situation was in Podgorica, where I encountered understanding and professionalism," said IM
She knew what to expect on her daughter's birthday, so the day before, on December 7, she went to the Bar police chief and informed him that her ex-partner was harassing her, and that he would definitely report her tomorrow in order to spoil her daughter's birthday as well, and that they would be in the playroom, at the party, and call right away tomorrow morning. According to IM, they told her not to worry and that everything would be fine. Despite that, as she said, tomorrow they called her to call urgently by 15 pm because the father wants to see the child. If she doesn't do that, they said they will send an intervention unit to get her. She claims that the police in Bar defend and protect him, several times in conversation with her, even though they know that he threatened her with death, for which he was convicted.
As told to "Vijesta" from the Police Directorate, officers of the Bar Security Department have received several reports from the common-law spouses of TS and IM since May 2023, and one in the Podgorica Security Department, which was forwarded to the police in Bar.
"Also, the IM addressed letters to the Minister of Internal Affairs a couple of times, which were answered about all cases of actions of the officials of the Bar Security Department according to the reports of the IM or TS", they stated.
In all cases of reporting, as they said, OB Bar officials collected information from the applicant and reported persons, and informed the duty prosecutor at the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Bar, who qualified the reports.
The judgment of the Basic Court in Kraljevo was recognized by the decision of the Basic Court in Bar and became legally binding on September 12, 2019, and is equal to the decision of the Basic Court in Bar and produces legal effect in Montenegro. The aforementioned decision became final on May 9, 2024.
"The aforementioned verdict determined that the mother IM is the guardian of the minor daughter, as well as the manner of maintaining personal relations between the father TS from Kraljevo and the minor daughter. Also, by the aforementioned verdict, the Supreme Court has determined a measure of protection against domestic violence, so it is forbidden to approach the IM at a distance of less than 200 meters and he is prohibited from accessing the area around the place of residence at a distance of less than 200 meters, with the fact that these measures do not are valid when picking up and returning a child", said the Police Administration.
When it comes to the meeting of IM and TS in the official premises of the Security Department, Bar claim that it is a coincidence in which there is no responsibility of the acting police officer. Namely, according to them, IM was invited the previous day to access the official premises in order to give notice of the circumstances of the report filed against her by TS, but that she was not able to come, and she asked to access the following day when a police officer scheduled to arrive at 19 p.m.
The police officer had already arranged with TS the previous day to come at 20:XNUMX by telephone, but he came earlier, without informing the police officers, so he was in the corridor of the official premises where he was waiting to be received at the agreed time by the acting officer. They denied that anyone talked to IM in the Bar police corridor by saying that every conversation with her, either as an applicant or a reported person, took place in the official premises designated for working with parties.
According to the verdict, TS is prohibited from coming within 200 meters of IM throughout the year. However, the competent authorities in the Bar did not take that into account, but were guided by the first temporary measure of protection, which ordered that the restraining order does not apply on Fridays and Saturdays when he has the right to see the child.
The father of the minor girl, TS, has the right to see her every other Friday and Saturday, of which the first hour is at the Center for Social Work (CSR), and the location for the remaining seven hours is not defined.
IM said that this solution, which was accepted by both the police officers and the CSR Bar, is problematic since she fears that he will take their daughter to another country because she has no way of controlling where he spends that time with her.
In addition, her daughter received child benefit from birth, while IM was entitled to material security for two months. According to the decision of the Bar CSR, in the process of review of the rights, after the performed inspection, irregularities were found and they were ordered to be removed, after which their right to that financial assistance was revoked.
She reported an attempted kidnapping, the police have no records
At the end of August, IM reported to the Podgorica police that a person from Sutomore contacted her brother to bring her daughter to Sutomore at a certain time, otherwise a third person would come to take her daughter and take her to TS. The record from the Podgorica police also says that she is aware of this the person contacted her brother to ask why her phone was turned off, and admitted that he was trying to locate her on someone's orders. Third parties also threatened her through her friends, which is confirmed by the electronic communication that IM's lawyer submitted to the prosecutor's office.
After that, the police in Podgorica informed the Security Center in Bar, after which they placed her in a safe women's house because they could not guarantee the safety of her and her daughter.
The Police Administration, however, said that no abduction of the child by TS was reported and that all reports in relation to this person were recorded only for disobeying the court verdict in the part of seeing the child. Acting on the mentioned reports TS against IM, two criminal reports were submitted to the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Bar. IM said that she was informed by that authority that both were rejected.
Not a cent from alimony
IM and her daughter, as she claims, have not received a single cent of alimony since she received custody of the child because the judgment did not stipulate this, and the Montenegrin judicial authorities, although surprised, recognized her as such.
As the director of CSR Bar Biljana Pajović told "Vijesta", in accordance with the regulations on social and child protection, all information obtained in the Centers for Social Work and other institutions in this area about the personal and family circumstances of the users is confidential, even when it comes to specific users, such data must not be disclosed, especially when it comes to protecting the interests of minors.
"The criteria that the Center for Social Work is guided by are numerous and none of them has an objective advantage over the others," she pointed out.
She said that in each specific case, the Center for Social Work works in accordance with all valid legal regulations in compliance with the Code of Ethics, and employees treat every user conscientiously and responsibly.
Bonus video: