The Supreme Court confirmed the termination of parental rights: the father applied to the court only after the death of the serviceman to receive payments

On July 8, 2026, the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court considered case No. 569/14213/16-ц regarding the application of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine on the termination of parental rights due to the father's evasion of child-rearing duties.

The subject of the cassation review was the decision on the termination of parental rights made back in 2016, which the father began to challenge only many years later.

This ruling once again outlines the criteria under which prolonged avoidance of upbringing may indicate culpable parental behavior and explains the significance of the person's subsequent conduct after the decision on termination of parental rights.

Case circumstances

In November 2016, the Child Services, acting in the interests of a minor boy, filed a lawsuit to terminate his father's parental rights.

The courts established that since 2014 the child lived with his father but repeatedly left the place of residence without permission. After the father took the son from a shelter, the boy ran away and explained that he did not want to live with him. Subsequently, the child was repeatedly placed in a shelter and a social-psychological rehabilitation center for children, while the father did not visit him, did not maintain contact with the institution's staff, and did not engage in upbringing.

In August 2016, the Child Rights Protection Commission warned the father about the possibility of terminating his parental rights. Already in September 2016, when the boy was again placed in the rehabilitation center, the father stated that he refused to take him back to the family. After that, the court terminated his parental rights.

Only in 2024 did the father apply for a review of the default judgment, and after the court's refusal, he filed appeals and cassation complaints, claiming that he did not evade parental duties and that termination of parental rights is an extreme measure. The courts found that after the termination of parental rights, the defendant showed no interest in the life and fate of his son for eight years.

The appellate court noted that he began to challenge the 2016 decision only after applying to the relevant authorities to receive a monetary payment related to the son's death. This circumstance was stated by the defendant himself in the application for review of the default judgment and confirmed during the court hearing. At the same time, as the court recorded, the defendant could not specify the date of his son's death.

The courts also established that the defendant provided no evidence that after the decision on termination of parental rights he maintained communication with his son, supported him financially, or in any way showed parental interest in his life.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that evasion of child-rearing duties can be grounds for termination of parental rights only if there is culpable behavior by the parents, conscious neglect of their duties.

The court noted that parental evasion of duties occurs when they do not care for the child's physical and spiritual development, education, preparation for independent life, including: failing to provide necessary nutrition, medical care, treatment affecting the child's physical development as part of upbringing; not communicating with the child sufficiently for normal self-awareness; not providing access to cultural and other spiritual values; not promoting the adoption of generally recognized moral norms; showing no interest in the child's inner world; not creating conditions for education.

These factors, individually or collectively, can be considered evasion of upbringing only if there is culpable parental behavior and conscious neglect of duties.

The Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized that interpretation of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine allows concluding that evasion of upbringing duties can be grounds for termination of parental rights only with culpable behavior and conscious neglect, which must be systematic and constant.

Assessing the case circumstances, the Supreme Court noted that courts established: since 2014 the son lived with the father, repeatedly left the residence without permission, and spent most of the time under state care.

Despite warnings about possible termination of parental rights, the father did not visit the son in the social-psychological rehabilitation center, did not contact psychologists, and ultimately refused to take him back to the family, effectively withdrawing from parental duties.

The Supreme Court agreed with the court's conclusion that there were grounds for termination of parental rights since the defendant did not raise the son, did not show parental care, i.e., evaded upbringing.

The court reached the correct conclusion about the father's culpable behavior and conscious neglect of his duties.

The Supreme Court paid special attention to arguments that mere disagreement with the claim allegedly confirms the father's interest in the child.

The court stated that mere opposition to the claim for termination of parental rights is insufficient to confirm a genuine and proper interest of the defendant in his minor child.

The motives for such opposition may vary. For example, it may be related not to a desire to care for the child but to a wish to receive care from the child in the future. Therefore, all circumstances of the specific case must be considered.

Regarding the defendant's behavior after the 2016 decision, the Supreme Court supported the appellate court's conclusions and noted that the fact that the father allegedly did not know about the termination of his parental rights in 2016 characterizes him as a person who was completely uninterested in his son, his life, and fate.

The court also emphasized that there is no evidence that the defendant continued to support and raise the son, that there was communication between them, or that he showed parental interest in the son's fate after November 2016.

In summary, the Supreme Court stated that in resolving the dispute in this case, the appellate court correctly concluded that the defendant consciously neglected his parental duties in raising the child, and therefore there are exceptional circumstances for applying such an extreme measure as termination of parental rights.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint and left the appellate court's ruling unchanged.

The court confirmed that termination of parental rights is an exceptional measure applied only when there is proven culpable parental behavior and systematic conscious evasion of duties.

Also read: payment related to the death of a serviceman: why some families receive 15 million and others 2 million.

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.