In Perm, authorities removed three children from a city family after investigators confirmed several youngsters were living in unsanitary conditions inside a warehouse used for illegal drugs. The regional federal enforcement agency’s press service reported that the scene triggered grave concerns about the children’s welfare and safety. Local welfare authorities had previously noted a pattern of neglect, and law enforcement officials acted as part of a coordinated effort to protect the minors. The family resided in a building that failed to meet basic safety standards, and inspectors cited exposure to hazardous substances and a chronic lack of sanitation. The seizure underscored the delicate balance between protecting family privacy and the state’s obligation to intervene when children are at risk. The intervention was carried out under child protection laws designed to safeguard minors living in vulnerable circumstances.
The Perm household, already home to several children, had apparently turned part of the residence into a makeshift operation tied to illegal drugs. For years, the three younger children endured unsanitary conditions, while the mother reportedly used illegal substances and did not consistently provide care. The youngest child among them was ten years old. Social workers documented ongoing neglect and raised concerns about basic needs such as clean drinking water, warmth, and a safe sleeping space. The case drew attention to the challenges faced by authorities when families slip into neglect while trying to preserve privacy and family unity. In the months before the intervention, multiple agencies tracked the household and noted patterns of dysfunction, prompting closer oversight and discussions about protective steps for the children.
Custody authorities filed a lawsuit to remove parental rights in relation to the three children. When bailiffs arrived at the residence, the door stood open and the mother voluntarily surrendered custody of the eldest and youngest daughters to officers. She said she did not know where the middle child was located. A few days later the sixteen-year-old was found at a relative’s home and placed under protective care away from the family. The episode underscored the precarious circumstances that emerge when parental capacity is in question and protective services decide to act to ensure safety. Officials noted that such actions follow thorough evaluation and legal procedures to safeguard the minors involved.
Regulatory authorities have long marked the family as dysfunctional in official records. The mother spoke repeatedly about choosing a path of reform and seeking help for the sake of her daughters, but those assurances did not win the confidence of social workers or inspectors who had monitored the household for some time. The case illustrates how repeated warnings and documented neglect can lead to decisive protective measures even when family ties are strong.
In Arkhangelsk, a separate report described a man who was intoxicated and who assaulted his daughter and grandson prior to police intervention. Neighbors reported hearing noises and marks were found on the victims when social workers arrived. Investigations followed to determine the risk to other household members and to arrange temporary housing and medical care where needed. The case underscores persistent risks of domestic violence and the role of welfare agencies in safeguarding vulnerable relatives across regions.