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

The cassation review focused on a decision to terminate parental rights, originally made in 2016, which the father only began to challenge many years later.

This ruling reiterates the criteria under which prolonged avoidance of upbringing may indicate culpable parental behaviour, and clarifies the significance of a person's conduct subsequent to a decision on the termination of parental rights.

Case Circumstances

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

The courts established that since 2014, the child had been living with his father but repeatedly left home without permission. After the father collected his son from a shelter, the boy ran away again, explaining that he did not wish to live with him. Subsequently, the child was repeatedly placed in a shelter and a social-psychological rehabilitation centre for children. During these periods, the father did not visit him, failed to maintain contact with the institution's staff, and did not engage in his upbringing.

In August 2016, the Child Rights Protection Commission warned the father about the potential termination of his parental rights. By September 2016, when the boy was again placed in the rehabilitation centre, the father stated that he refused to take him back into the family. Following this, the court terminated his parental rights.

It was not until 2024 that the father applied for a review of the default judgment. After the court's refusal, he filed appeals and cassation complaints, asserting that he had not evaded parental duties and that termination of parental rights was an extreme measure. The courts found that, after the termination of parental rights, the defendant showed no interest in his son's life and fate for eight years.

The appellate court noted that the father only began to challenge the 2016 decision after applying to the relevant authorities to receive a monetary payment related to his son's death. This circumstance was stated by the defendant himself in his 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 demonstrated parental interest in his life.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that the evasion of child-rearing duties can only serve as grounds for terminating parental rights if there is culpable behaviour and conscious neglect of those duties by the parents.

The Court noted that parental evasion of duties occurs when parents fail to ensure the child's physical and spiritual development, education, and preparation for an independent life. This includes, but is not limited to: failing to provide essential nutrition, medical care, and treatment crucial for the child's physical development; insufficient communication for the child's normal self-awareness; denying access to cultural and other spiritual values; not promoting the adoption of generally accepted moral norms; showing no interest in the child's inner world; and failing to create conditions conducive to education.

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

The Supreme Court repeatedly emphasised that, based on the interpretation of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine, evasion of upbringing duties can only be grounds for terminating parental rights if there is culpable behaviour and conscious neglect, which must be systematic and constant.

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

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

The Supreme Court concurred with the lower court's conclusion that there were grounds for terminating parental rights, as the defendant had failed to raise his son, did not demonstrate parental care, and thus evaded his upbringing duties.

The court correctly concluded that the father's behaviour was culpable and demonstrated a conscious neglect of his duties.

The Supreme Court paid particular attention to arguments suggesting that merely disagreeing with the claim allegedly confirmed the father's interest in the child.

The court stated that mere opposition to a 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 can vary. For instance, it might not be related to a desire to care for the child but rather 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 behaviour after the 2016 decision, the Supreme Court supported the appellate court's conclusions, noting that the father's alleged ignorance of the termination of his parental rights in 2016 characterised him as a person completely uninterested in his son, his life, and his fate.

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

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

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint and upheld the appellate court's ruling.

The court reaffirmed that the termination of parental rights is an exceptional measure applied only when there is proven culpable parental behaviour 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, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.