Supreme Court: Mobilization of the Father Cannot Postpone the Child's Right to Alimony

The martial law posed a new challenge for the courts — how to ensure the rights of a serviceman without violating the child's right to proper support.

In the ruling dated May 27, 2026, in case No. 344/432/24, the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court considered the issue of the admissibility of suspending appellate proceedings in an alimony recovery case due to the defendant's military service.

This legal position is important for judicial practice as it defines the limits of applying paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine in disputes where the subject of protection is the child's right to support. The court highlighted the need to ensure a fair balance between the procedural guarantees of the serviceman and the best interests of the child.

Case Circumstances

In January 2024, the child's mother filed a lawsuit to recover alimony for the maintenance of their minor daughter. The plaintiff stated that after the divorce, the child lived with her and was under her care, while the father voluntarily did not provide financial assistance.

The city court satisfied the claim. The court ordered the father to pay alimony amounting to one-quarter of all types of income monthly, with legally established minimum and maximum limits.

Disagreeing with the decision, the defendant filed an appeal. During the appellate review, he filed a motion to suspend the proceedings, citing his military service due to mobilization and participation in defense activities of Ukraine.

The appellate court agreed with these arguments and suspended the proceedings until the defendant's service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine ended.

The child's mother challenged this ruling in cassation, arguing that prolonged suspension of the case effectively violates the child's right to timely receipt of support.

Supreme Court's Position

The Supreme Court stated that suspension of proceedings is a temporary cessation by the court of procedural actions during the trial due to objective grounds defined by law that prevent further consideration of the case and whose removal cannot be foreseen.

The court is obliged to suspend proceedings if a party or a third person claiming independent rights to the subject of the dispute is serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other military formations established by law, transferred to martial law or involved in anti-terrorist operations (paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code).

Importantly, the institution of suspending court proceedings is applied not merely because of the existence of grounds provided by procedural law but is conditioned by circumstances creating objective obstacles to the court's consideration.

The provision of paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code, which establishes the court's obligation to suspend proceedings, is a special protective guarantee for servicemen who, due to fulfilling their constitutional duty to defend the homeland, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine (article 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine), are objectively deprived of the opportunity to actively participate in the judicial process and protect their rights, freedoms, and interests.

However, when applying paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code, courts must ensure compliance with, among others, the fundamental principles of civil proceedings.

The Supreme Court also noted that a systemic analysis of article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code leads to the conclusion that the court's obligation to suspend proceedings must be caused by the objective impossibility of considering the case due to the presence of one of the circumstances provided by law that hinder the case's consideration.

Additionally, the Court stated that the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 754/947/22 regarding the mandatory suspension of proceedings due to a party's military service cannot be applied automatically in alimony disputes without assessing the child's interests, the objectives of civil proceedings, and the rule of law principle.

Regarding Ensuring the Best Interests of the Child

The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of the best interests of the child requires that when resolving any dispute or issue affecting the rights and interests of the child, the child's interests must first be determined and only then a decision made that will promote and protect those interests in the future.

Therefore, this principle applies also in cases of recovering alimony from one parent in favor of the other for the child's maintenance.

The court pointed out that the constitutional right of the child to maintenance, including the right to alimony recovery, cannot be restricted even under emergency or martial law conditions. The constitutional right of the child to maintenance is continuous and urgent; its enforcement cannot be effectively restored ex post.

By its nature, the constitutional right of the child to maintenance belongs to those rights for which delay in judicial protection equals a "loss" of the right. Therefore, the right to maintenance requires immediate judicial protection. Prioritizing procedural form over substantive right leads to illusory legal protection.

The Supreme Court noted that suspending proceedings under paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code in cases concerning the protection of the constitutional right of the child to maintenance contradicts the state's declared principle of child protection and violates the right to judicial protection.

Thus, disputes over alimony concern ensuring proper child support and have a priority, socially significant nature that requires timely judicial consideration and prevention of unjustified delays. In child support disputes, courts must ensure the child's right to timely and proper maintenance, even under martial law conditions.

Additionally, the Court reminded that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that cases concerning the protection of children's rights should be considered as quickly as possible.

Assessing the specific circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found that the defendant actively exercised his procedural rights: he filed an appeal, motions, and personally signed procedural documents.

The court noted that the father's actual behavior indicates the absence of objective obstacles to exercising his procedural rights and fulfilling procedural duties in resolving the issue of material support for his minor child.

The Supreme Court also indicated that if there are circumstances indicating the possibility and actual participation of the defendant, who is serving in the military, in conducting relevant procedural actions, there are no sufficient grounds to suspend proceedings in the alimony case.

At the same time, suspending such a dispute indefinitely effectively allows postponing the fulfillment of the obligation to support the child and may lead to violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Therefore, the appellate court did not adequately assess the balance of competing interests of the parties, did not consider the priority of the child's best interests, and prematurely concluded the need to suspend proceedings in a case concerning the child's right to maintenance until the defendant's service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other military formations established by law, transferred to martial law or involved in anti-terrorist operations, ends.

Thus, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling to suspend proceedings and sent the case back for continuation of consideration.

The court formulated an important legal position that military service alone is not an unconditional ground for suspending an alimony dispute. In such cases, the court must consider not only the rights of the serviceman but also the child's right to timely support.

Read also — how to recover alimony from a serviceman: what the law provides and how the withholding mechanism works.

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