Listen to the article
A Samarkand regional court has overturned a ruling that stripped a mother of her parental rights, finding that the lower court failed to establish the facts of the case and did not support its conclusions with adequate evidence. The decision, issued on 2 June 2026, leaves unresolved a set of grave allegations against the father — including claims that he gave cognac to the couple’s two daughters, aged 12 and seven, and walked naked in front of them.
The first-instance court had removed Lola Bahodirova’s parental rights on 28 April 2026, just fourteen days after a separate ruling on 14 April had rejected her application to have the children returned to her. The appeals court found that the lower court had not fully established circumstances material to the case and had not grounded its conclusions in sufficient evidence. Crucially, the appellate ruling noted the absence of evidence that Bahodirova had committed any crime against the life or health of her children, and found no adequate proof that her personal conduct was causing physical or psychological harm to the girls, that she had treated them cruelly, or that she had subjected them to humiliation.
The Samarkand regional court also addressed conclusions drawn from two reports — numbered 25 and 26, dated 21 April 2026 — issued by the Inson social services centre, which had recommended that the question of terminating parental rights be considered. The appeals court declined to treat those reports as independently sufficient evidence.
Allegations against the father
According to Bahodirova’s account, her former husband gave their daughters alcoholic drinks, specifically cognac, and appeared naked in their presence. She also states that she was subjected to pressure and coercion during previous pregnancies. Among the most serious of her claims is that she was pregnant five times, and that on three occasions, after the foetus was identified as female, the pregnancies were terminated under duress.
The article presenting these claims is careful to note that they remain Bahodirova’s allegations and have not been independently confirmed. However, the central question it raises is whether those allegations were examined with the same rigour applied to scrutinising the mother’s conduct. Specifically: whether the claim about cognac was investigated; whether the children’s living environment with the father was independently assessed; whether specialist conclusions on the children’s psychological and physical condition were obtained; and whether the conditions offered by each parent were evaluated against identical criteria.
The confirmed legal fact on the mother’s side is that Bahodirova was convicted of causing bodily harm to her former husband, a finding documented in court records. The appeals court did not treat that conviction as automatically rendering her dangerous to her children, but it remains part of the legal record.
The children’s stated preference
Bahodirova says her daughters told her they love her but chose to remain with their father. She alleges that choice may not have been made freely. The Family Code’s Article 68 requires that a child’s opinion be taken into account in matters affecting their interests, but the question of whether the girls expressed their preference independently and without pressure is, according to the reporting, unresolved.
A further procedural question concerns which version of the relevant legal norm applied to the case. The appeals ruling was issued on 2 June 2026, while an amended version of the norm came into force on 1 July 2026. Which edition governed the proceedings has not been clarified.
What the timeline raises
The sequence of rulings is notable. On 14 April, the court rejected Bahodirova’s request to have her daughters returned to her. Fourteen days later, on 28 April, the same court stripped her of parental rights entirely. The full text of the 14 April ruling is not available, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the interval alone — but the chronology, as the reporting notes, underscores the need for all case documents to be examined in full.
The termination of parental rights is among the most consequential legal measures a court can impose, directly shaping a child’s future. The appeals court’s decision to overturn the first-instance ruling does not resolve the underlying dispute over where the two girls should live, nor does it answer whether the allegations concerning the father’s behaviour have received the independent, evidence-based scrutiny that was applied — and found wanting — in the mother’s case. Effect.uz, which published the analysis, said it would continue to follow the proceedings.