Child sued her biological mother for domestic violence: The Supreme Court decided to deprive her of parental rights

The issue of deprivation of parental rights traditionally belongs to the most sensitive categories of family disputes, as it requires finding a balance between the rights of parents and the best interests of the child.

In the ruling dated May 27, 2026, in case No. 466/5784/23, the Supreme Court, sitting as the Cassation Civil Court, considered a dispute regarding the deprivation of a mother’s parental rights due to improper fulfillment of parental duties, domestic violence, and obstruction of the child's right to education and obtaining a Ukrainian citizen's passport.

Circumstances of the case

The minor daughter filed a lawsuit seeking to deprive her mother of parental rights and to recover alimony from her.

The plaintiff stated that for a long time the mother exerted psychological pressure on her, imposed her own religious beliefs, obstructed obtaining a Ukrainian citizen's passport, did not provide proper living and nutrition conditions, and also restricted her right to education and communication with other people.

The case materials confirmed that the child herself and other persons repeatedly appealed to child services and the police regarding the mother's improper fulfillment of parental duties. Guardianship authorities tried several times to inspect the child's living conditions, but the defendant did not allow them into the residence.

The mother had previously been held administratively liable under Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for improper fulfillment of parental duties. It was also established that the child was forced to independently contact the police, guardianship authorities, and the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Human Rights to assist in obtaining a Ukrainian citizen's passport and protecting her rights.

The courts established facts of domestic violence by the mother. In 2021, the court issued a restraining order prohibiting the mother from approaching and contacting the child for a specified period.

The guardianship authority concluded that it was appropriate to deprive the defendant of parental rights, noting her malicious evasion of parental duties and failure to ensure the child’s completion of full secondary education.

The court of first instance granted the claim, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The mother appealed the ruling in cassation, claiming she tried to exercise her parental rights and did not lose interest in the child.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that parental rights regarding a child derive from the child's rights and interests in harmonious development and proper upbringing, and primarily the interests of the child must be defined and considered, taking into account the objective circumstances of the dispute, and only then the rights of the parents.

The Supreme Court noted that Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine establishes an exhaustive list of grounds for deprivation of parental rights, including evasion of child upbringing, cruel treatment, and other cases provided by law.

Evasion of fulfilling parental duties regarding child upbringing can be grounds for deprivation of parental rights only if there is culpable behavior by the parents, conscious neglect of their duties.

Thus, the Supreme Court stated that the mentioned factors, both individually and collectively, can be regarded as evasion of child upbringing only under conditions of culpable behavior and conscious neglect of parental duties.

It is important to remember that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that must be considered as an exceptional and extraordinary way to influence negligent parents.

The court also emphasized that deprivation of parental rights is allowed only when it is impossible to change the parents' behavior for the better and only if there is fault in the parents' actions.

Assessing the circumstances of the specific case, the Supreme Court noted that the mother committed domestic violence against her daughter, was held administratively liable under Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, negatively influenced the daughter, improperly fulfilled parental duties, consciously neglected her parental duties as understood by law, and in the absence of evidence of the possibility to change such behavior towards the child, reached a reasoned conclusion to deprive her of parental rights.

The court also pointed out that the upbringing of the child was contrary to the child's own interests, particularly regarding the child's completion of full secondary education and formation of her worldview, as well as without considering the child's opinion on the necessity of fulfilling established societal duties to realize guaranteed state rights and obstruction in obtaining a Ukrainian citizen's passport.

Thus, the Supreme Court decided that this indicates the defendant's non-compliance with the law, particularly Article 155 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which provides that the exercise of parental rights and fulfillment of duties must be based on respect for the child's rights and human dignity and that parental rights cannot be exercised contrary to the child's interests.

The court separately emphasized that the legally provided measures of influence, namely the issuance of a restraining order and administrative liability, did not lead to a change in the mother's behavior towards the daughter.

Guided by the above, the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts to deprive the mother of parental rights regarding the minor daughter.

The court confirmed that deprivation of parental rights is an exceptional measure to protect the child's rights, which can be applied only when there is sufficient and convincing evidence of conscious neglect of parental duties.

In this case, the combination of established facts of domestic violence, obstruction of education, creating obstacles to obtaining a Ukrainian citizen's passport, administrative liability, and lack of change in the mother's behavior confirmed the grounds for applying such an extreme measure in the child's interests.

For other aspects of protecting the rights and interests of the child, read the article in the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about the Supreme Court's position, according to which father's mobilization cannot be a reason to postpone the child's right to receive alimony.

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