The Supreme Court recognized the right of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to appeal decisions in family disputes due to possible impact on mobilization

Living with one parent alone does not indicate the cessation of the other parent's participation in the child's upbringing and is not sufficient grounds to establish the fact of sole custody. This conclusion was reached by the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 725/8242/25.

Case circumstances

In September 2025, a man applied to the court after the dissolution of family relations. He requested an official divorce, determination of the place of residence of their minor son with him, and also to establish that he alone raises and supports the child.

The plaintiff claimed that after the breakup, the son remained living with him, while the mother, according to the plaintiff, did not participate in the child's life. Establishing this fact, according to the plaintiff, was necessary for processing documents regarding social assistance for a child raised by only one parent, as well as for the purpose of relocating with the child without the mother's documented consent.

The court of first instance sided with the plaintiff and granted all requests. The marriage was dissolved, and the child remained living with the father. The court also recognized that the father independently raises and supports the child. The decision of the first instance court regarding the child's residence with the father and the establishment of sole custody was appealed by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. The appellate court overturned this decision and denied these requests.

The court emphasized that the case materials do not contain convincing evidence that the mother completely withdrew from raising or supporting the son. The mere fact that she lives separately does not mean she does not fulfill her parental duties.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court.

The court stressed that family law is based on the principle of equality of rights and duties of parents regarding the child, and that divorce or separate residence does not terminate the obligations regarding the child's upbringing and support.

The Supreme Court established that the claim to establish the fact of sole custody and support of the child was filed during martial law and mobilization, and its satisfaction could create grounds for deferment or exemption from military service, which falls within the competence of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. These bodies are not participants in family relations but ensure the fulfillment of military duty and may affect the state's interests in mobilization and defense.

The court agreed that the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, as a military management body, has the right to appeal such decisions, which aligns with the Supreme Court's previous practice.

Regarding the claims about the child's residence with the father and establishing the fact of sole custody, the court noted that parents have equal rights and duties regarding the child, and their duty is to jointly ensure the child's interests, development, and upbringing (Articles 11, 12, 14 of the Law "On Child Protection", Articles 141, 150 of the Family Code of Ukraine).

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the claims for leaving the child with the father and establishing sole custody and support were filed during martial law and mobilization and could be related to the possibility of obtaining deferment or exemption from military service.

At the same time, the courts established that the evidence does not confirm the mother's complete evasion of parental duties, and therefore there are no grounds to establish the fact of sole custody of the child.

The Supreme Court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal boil down to disagreement with the evaluation of evidence, which is not grounds for overturning decisions, and confirmed the correctness of the appellate court's conclusions.

The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court's decision remains unchanged.

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