Timeline of allegations and legal contention between Guf and his former partner
The dispute centers on ex-wife Yulia Koroleva, who under her real name Alexey Dolmatov raised serious accusations regarding threats to Tina, their daughter. Koroleva shared in posts on social media that threats to her life and to Tina had occurred, and she described encounters where music videos depicted a tense confrontation at their residence. The statements highlighted a difficult relationship and sharp disagreements about safety and custody. The situation drew attention to the impact of family conflict on a young girl and the role of social media in amplifying such claims.
According to the account provided by Koroleva, Tina was reportedly out of reach at the edge of an island location, with Guf and his supporters actively pursuing the child and her mother. The Queen, a public figure who spoke of a fever at the time of the report, indicated that medical concerns arose but she chose not to leave Tina unattended. The claim underscored the fear and the seriousness of potential health risks during a period of heightened concern about infectious illness, complicating travel to medical facilities.
Separately, a blogger involved in the case asserted that Guf had publicly defamed him. The blogger indicated plans to seek parental rights through court proceedings, framing the matter as a legal dispute over custody and responsibility for the child’s welfare.
On October 20, Dolmatov and Koroleva confirmed their divorce in Moscow, marking a formal separation after years of public attention and private strife. The termination of their marriage intensified the subsequent custody discussions and public interest in the family dynamics surrounding the artists and their daughter.
Later, on November 29, a video surfaced showing Guf approaching the private residence of Yulia Koroleva and Tina in Phuket. In the clip, he appeared with protective brass knuckles while speaking to a security guard in English, requesting access to the home. The footage prompted renewed discussion about safety, residence rights, and the feasibility of parental access in complex situations involving international locations and high-profile individuals.
The ongoing dispute raises questions about the appropriate processes for determining custody and visitation rights in cases marked by alleged threats, public scrutiny, and cross-border considerations. Legal observers note the importance of formal mediation and judicial oversight to safeguard Tina’s wellbeing while addressing parental responsibilities. The parties are currently navigating the appropriate legal channels to resolve the custody arrangement, with a focus on the child’s best interests and safety concerns as the central priority. Citations from regional media and official court records provide context for the timeline and the evolving status of the case, though details remain subject to the courts and ongoing reporting. This case illustrates how personal disputes involving public figures can intersect with family law and child welfare considerations, often leading to prolonged legal processes and heightened media attention.