Conflict between parents cannot deprive a child of the right to communicate with the father — Supreme Court

After divorce, conflicts between parents often escalate into disputes about the child — in particular regarding communication, upbringing, and participation in the child's life. In such situations, courts must seek a balance between each parent's right to contact the child and the need to provide a stable and safe environment for the child, preventing personal conflicts between adults from affecting the child's rights.

In case No. 639/3386/24 dated May 20, 2026, the Civil Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court considered the issue of establishing the father's communication order with the child, taking into account the opinion of the minor child, and the limits of court interference in family relations.

The Supreme Court in this ruling specifically emphasized the inadmissibility of a formal approach in such disputes and stressed that the conflict between parents itself cannot automatically lead to the destruction of the child's connection with one of them.

Case circumstances

The child's father filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles to communication with his son and to determine the manner of participation in his upbringing. He stated that after the divorce, a conflict arose regarding his involvement in the child's life, and the mother created obstacles to communication with the son.

The plaintiff indicated that he tried to maintain contact with the child and participate in his upbringing, but the parties could not agree on the order of such communication.

The child's mother filed a counterclaim to determine the child's place of residence with her. She stated that after the divorce, the child lives with the mother, and there is no agreement between the parents regarding the child's place of residence and upbringing order.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the father's claim and established the order of his communication with the son, setting the first meetings in the presence of the mother. The court denied the counterclaim regarding the child's place of residence, noting that there was no real dispute between the parents on this matter since the child already lives with the mother.

The appellate court changed the visitation order, removing the condition of the mother's presence during the father's meetings with the child and specifying the order of telephone communication. The appellate court also agreed with the conclusion that there was no dispute regarding the child's place of residence.

The mother's representative filed a cassation appeal, insisting, among other things, that the appellate court incorrectly considered the child's opinion and unjustifiably determined the father's visits without first clarifying the child's desire for such meetings.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court indicated that in cases concerning parental participation in upbringing and communication with the child, a generalized and formal approach is unacceptable, as the very existence of a dispute on this matter is a significant instrument of influence, especially in relations between former (de facto) spouses, which may be used not in the child's interests.

Each case requires a detailed study of the situation, considering various factors that may affect the child's interests, including the child's opinion if they are capable of expressing their views according to their age.

The court specifically emphasized that the mere fact of emotionally tense relations between former (de facto) spouses and personal conflicts between the parties should not violate the child's interests and their right to communicate with each parent.

The Supreme Court stresses that Article 18 of the Convention establishes the principle of joint and equal responsibility of both parents for the upbringing and development of the child, and that the child's best interests are their primary concern.

The court emphasized: "That is, the child has the right, not the obligation, to maintain regular personal relationships and direct contacts with the parent who lives separately."

The Courts found that hostile relations developed between the parties and that during the father's meetings with the son in the mother's presence, quarrels arise in the child's presence, which may negatively affect the child's psychological and emotional state.

The Court also noted that there is no information that the child emotionally rejects the father or evidence of the father's negative impact on the son in the case materials, and the presence of both parties during the father's meetings with the son will not contribute to the child being in a calm and stable environment at that time.

Therefore, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusions that it would be appropriate to change the father's visitation order with the son, taking into account the child's interests, including the need to maintain the child's usual lifestyle, considering their age, study and rest schedule, the principle of equality of parents in the right to communicate and participate in the child's upbringing, as well as the absence of circumstances that would hinder the father's communication with the son.

Determining such a manner of participation in communication and upbringing will correspond to the child's best interests, age needs, and, with the father's conscientious fulfillment of his duties, will be sufficient to ensure his participation in the son's upbringing.

At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court's conclusion stated in the reasoning part of its ruling that the father's visits with the minor child are established without the child's prior desire for the meeting. Such a conclusion is not in the operative part of the appellate court's ruling and is unnecessary since, if necessary, the court decision is enforced compulsorily according to the conclusion stated in the operative part of the court decision. Moreover, the child cannot be forced to perform certain actions against their will.

The Supreme Court also reviewed the conclusions of lower courts regarding the counterclaim about the child's place of residence and concluded that there are grounds for its satisfaction. The Civil Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the lower courts in this part and issued a new decision determining the minor child's place of residence with the mother at her place of residence.

Thus, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the mother's representative's cassation appeal: it left unchanged the established order of the father's communication with the child without the mandatory presence of the mother, while excluding from the appellate court's reasoning the conclusion about visits "without the child's prior desire for the meeting" and emphasized that the child cannot be forced to act against their will.

The case once again confirms that in family disputes, the key criterion remains the best protection of the child's interests, and conflicts between parents should not destroy the child's right to contact with each of them.

Also read: Supreme Court ruling explaining in which cases a father cannot confirm independent upbringing of a child through the court, as well as material about the initiative to establish joint custody in Ukraine after divorce and court practice that already allows alternating residence of the child with both parents.

 Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.