The Supreme Court agreed that the British court determines the place of residence of a child who has lived in the United Kingdom for two years

The issue of recognizing foreign court decisions regarding children in Ukraine has become particularly relevant amid the mass displacement of Ukrainian families abroad following the start of the full-scale war.

In case No. 753/17854/24 dated June 10, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, considered the issue of recognizing in Ukraine the decision of the British court regarding the determination of the child's place of residence and examined the grounds for refusal of such recognition.

The case is illustrative for understanding how the provisions of the 1996 Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children are applied, as well as which criteria determine international jurisdiction in family disputes related to children.

Circumstances of the case

The child's mother applied to a Ukrainian court with a petition to recognize the decision of the Wolverhampton Family Court dated May 10, 2024, which is not subject to enforcement.

The parties were married since 2011 and have a daughter together. After the start of the full-scale war, the family moved to Poland, and later the mother moved with the child to the United Kingdom. The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a Ukrainian court decision in December 2022.

In January 2023, the father filed an application with the courts of England and Wales regarding the child. As a result of the case review, the Wolverhampton Family Court ruled that the child should live with the mother, established the procedure for indirect communication of the father with the child through video messages, and set several restrictions on the father's independent removal of the child.

The court of first instance granted the petition to recognize the British court's decision in Ukraine. The appellate court agreed with this conclusion.

In the cassation appeal, the father argued that the British court did not have jurisdiction to consider the child's case, that the decision violated his rights as a father, and also referred to related disputes in Ukrainian courts.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention contain a general rule regarding jurisdiction, which is that child protection measures should be taken by the judicial or administrative authorities of the state of the child's habitual residence.

The court emphasized that jurisdiction over parental responsibility disputes should be determined based on the child's habitual residence.

The Supreme Court clarified that habitual residence corresponds to the place reflecting a certain degree of the child's integration into the social and family environment.

For this purpose, in particular, the duration, regularity, conditions, and reasons for the child's stay in the member state and the family's move to this state, the child's citizenship, the place and conditions of school attendance, language skills, as well as the child's family and social relationships in this state should be taken into account.

Having assessed the established circumstances, the Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts found that the child, a Ukrainian citizen, has been permanently residing in the United Kingdom since April 2022, attends school there, and is socially integrated.

Therefore, the court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, correctly concluded that it was the British court that had jurisdiction to decide on the child's residence and communication with the parents.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the Wolverhampton Family Court acted within internationally recognized competence when making its decision.

When considering the petition, the courts correctly concluded that the legal grounds for refusal to recognize the decision of the court of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, made by the Wolverhampton Family Court, are absent in Ukraine.

The court separately rejected arguments about the actual deprivation of parental rights and stressed that the foreign court's decision does not indicate and cannot be interpreted as a decision to deprive the father of parental rights regarding the child.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that contact with the father is not prohibited but regulated in a manner that the court deemed safest and in the child's best interests.

At the same time, when considering a petition to recognize a foreign court decision that is not subject to enforcement, the court only resolves a procedural issue regarding the enforcement of the foreign court's decision, not the dispute between the parents over the child's place of residence.

In this regard, the court noted that by opposing the satisfaction of the petition to recognize the foreign court's decision, the father is effectively asking the court to review the foreign court's decision, which is obviously unlawful.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and confirmed the legality of recognizing in Ukraine the decision of the Wolverhampton Family Court regarding the child's residence with the mother.

For parents, this means that the child's prolonged residence abroad may affect which country's court will be authorized to resolve the dispute. At the same time, when recognizing a foreign court decision, the Ukrainian court does not review its merits but only checks for lawful grounds for refusal of recognition.

Additionally, read the Supreme Court's position, where the Court stated that emotionally tense relations between former spouses alone cannot deprive a child of the right to communicate with each parent.

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.