Children left due to domestic violence, and the father sold the apartment without the guardianship authority's permission: how the Supreme Court assessed the situation

The boundary between the owner's right to dispose of housing and the duty to protect children's rights regularly becomes the subject of judicial disputes. In the ruling dated June 10, 2026, in case No. 519/138/24, the Supreme Court explained when the sale of an apartment where minor children are registered, without the permission of the guardianship authority, may be grounds for declaring the contract invalid.

Case circumstances

A mother of two minor children filed a lawsuit in their interests to declare the apartment sale contract invalid.

The plaintiff was married to the apartment owner, but the marriage was dissolved in 2021. The parties have two children from the marriage. The family lived and was registered in the apartment owned by the children's father.

Later, the woman learned that in May 2023, her ex-husband sold the apartment to another person. At the time of the contract conclusion, the children remained registered in the disputed housing.

When notarizing the contract, the father submitted a statement to the notary indicating that the minor children were not registered, did not live in, and had no right to use the apartment.

The plaintiff claimed that the children had no other housing and that permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authority for alienation of the apartment was not obtained.

The courts of first and appellate instances established that the guardianship authority did not provide the relevant consent.

It was also taken into account that the children temporarily did not live in the apartment due to the father's behavior, who had previously been held administratively liable for domestic violence and other offenses.

As a result, the courts declared the sale contract invalid.

The apartment buyer appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court, arguing that the absence of permission from the guardianship authority is not an automatic ground for invalidating the contract, and that the children's mother is not a party to the contract.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court first drew attention to the right of an interested person to challenge a transaction if it violates their rights or legitimate interests.

A claim to declare the disputed transaction invalid may be filed by either party to the transaction or another interested person whose rights and legitimate interests are violated by the transaction.

The Court noted that according to Article 12 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Basics of Social Protection of Homeless Citizens and Homeless Children," Articles 17 and 18 of the Law of Ukraine "On Child Protection," and Article 177 of the Family Code of Ukraine, it is the parents' duty to care for the preservation and use of the child's property in their interest.

To guarantee the priority of the child's interests, the law provides additional state control measures, establishing a prohibition for parents of a minor child and persons substituting them to perform certain transactions regarding the child's property rights without prior permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authority.

The Supreme Court stated that according to part two of Article 177 of the Family Code of Ukraine, parents of a minor child do not have the right to conclude contracts without the permission of the guardianship and trusteeship authority that require notarization and/or state registration concerning property owned (co-owned) or used by the child.

At the same time, the Supreme Court confirmed that a transaction involving real estate, the ownership or use rights of which belong to a child, concluded without permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authority, may be declared invalid if it violates the child's rights and interests, restricts their property rights, or guarantees of preserving the right to housing.

However, the mere absence of the mandatory prior permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authority for concluding the disputed transaction is not an unconditional ground for declaring it invalid.

Assessing the specific circumstances of the dispute, the Court concluded that the children's rights were violated.

The Supreme Court noted that as a result of concluding the sale contract, the apartment, which the minor children had the right to use, was alienated, and therefore this transaction contradicts the rights and interests of these children, narrows the scope of their property rights, limits their rights and interests regarding the residential premises, violates guarantees of preserving the right to housing.

The Court also noted that at the time of the contract conclusion, the children were registered in the apartment, had no other housing, and only temporarily did not live there for objective reasons related to the father's behavior.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and confirmed the invalidity of the apartment sale contract.

The Court confirmed the important conclusion that the absence of permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authority does not automatically lead to the invalidity of the transaction, but if the alienation of housing without such permission actually violates the children's housing rights, narrows their property rights, and deprives guarantees of preserving the right to housing, the contract may be declared invalid by court.

Additionally, read another Supreme Court position, where a child personally sued their biological mother due to domestic violence.

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 updated on the most important events.