Sochi parents were outraged by the refusal to initiate a case against the teacher.

Following the incident, the parents accused the institution's management of concealing child abuse and failing to act. Mothers of kindergarten students, Elena Baranetskaya and Irina Yatsko, received administrative fines for insulting the principal and her daughter. Both are currently appealing the fines in cassation. A juvenile affairs inspector for the Adler District Police Department in Sochi has refused to open a criminal case against Lyubov Kalinichenko, a former teacher at Kindergarten No. 121. The ruling states that "her actions do not contain elements of the crimes stipulated by Articles 116, 117, and 156 of the Russian Criminal Code—battery, torture, and cruel treatment of minors."

The investigation was prompted by statements from parents and a video recording showing the teacher grabbing a three-year-old girl during lunch and dunking her face in a plate of food, then passing the plate to another child. The video, filmed in early March, had previously prompted a collective appeal by the parents to law enforcement and widespread public outcry.

Dunking a child's face in food, yelling, and humiliating her—is this normal?

The parents, who sought a criminal investigation into the incident, categorically disagree with the police findings. "They basically told us: if the child doesn't have fractures or a concussion, then nothing terrible happened. But dunking a child's face in food, yelling, and humiliating them—is that normal? Such a person shouldn't have the right to work as a teacher," Elena Baranetskaya, the mother of one of the children, told a Caucasian Knot correspondent.

According to her, the teacher's resignation "at her own request" without any legal consequences only exacerbates the situation. "No punishment." "She lives her life peacefully, she can get a job at another kindergarten—and everything will happen again," Baranetskaya believes.

This isn't proper upbringing, it's psychological and physical abuse. Refusing to prosecute is a signal that anything can be done to children.

The mother of another child, Irina Yatsko, emphasizes that this isn't just one incident. "When we started talking, it turned out the children were afraid, cried, and refused to go to kindergarten. Many simply couldn't talk—they don't speak yet. "Such people shouldn't be allowed near children; it's a safety issue," she said.

 Anna Lapina, another parent who sought an investigation, notes that the teacher's actions were humiliating. "They dragged my child to the toilet while screaming, sat him on an adult toilet, and screamed at him. This isn't proper parenting; it's psychological and physical abuse." "The dismissal of the criminal case is a signal that anything can be done to children," she said.

Parents recall that back in the spring they were hoping for a response from law enforcement. However, instead, as the "Caucasian Knot" previously reported, administrative reports were filed not against the kindergarten staff, but against the mothers themselves.

"It's absurd: we ask for our children to be protected, and in the end, we are the ones being prosecuted. And the person who used force against the children simply leaves of their own accord," says Elena Baranetskaya.

Parents emphasize that they do not deny responsibility for harsh words spoken under stress, but consider what is happening a systemic problem.

"We can pay a fine for our emotions. But "Who will be held accountable for the humiliation and fear the children experienced? And who will guarantee that this won't happen again tomorrow at another kindergarten?" — Elena Baranetskaya asks.

According to the parents, they view the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings as the state's failure to protect the most vulnerable—young children—and intend to continue seeking a review of the decision in court and with the prosecutor's office.

Roman Pavlov, a lawyer unconnected with the case who previously reviewed the video recording and investigation materials, considers the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings questionable.

"Article 156 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not require the occurrence of serious consequences. The key is cruelty on the part of the person responsible for raising the child. Humiliation, the use of physical force, unacceptable methods of 'education'—all of this can constitute a crime," he told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

"I would recommend appealing the refusal to the prosecutor's office under Article 124 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code and to the court under Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, as well as seeking a civil and disciplinary review of the actions of not only the teacher but also the institution's administration. A separate issue is the lack of a mechanism to prevent such teachers from being reemployed," the lawyer added.