The High Council of Justice found violations in a series of decisions on determining the place of residence of children with the father: the judge was punished

The Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice issued a decision to hold Judge Oleg Ivanytsky of the Zboriv District Court of Ternopil region disciplinarily liable.

He was given a severe disciplinary sanction in the form of a strict reprimand with deprivation of the right to receive bonuses to the judge’s official salary for three months.

Circumstances of the case

The basis for the disciplinary proceedings was a complaint by Khrystyna Burtnyk. The complainant found a series of decisions by Judge Oleg Ivanytsky in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, which, in her opinion, indicate systematic fictitious determination of the child’s place of residence with the father. The cases in question are No. 599/1464/23, No. 599/163/23, No. 599/166/23, No. 599/167/23, and No. 599/1510/23.

According to the complaint, the decisions were artificial in nature, evidenced by the following key violations:

• The judge granted claims solely based on the defendant’s recognition of the claim, without verifying the factual circumstances of the case;
• Most cases were considered without the participation of the plaintiff, defendant, and guardianship authorities;
• In none of the cases was the child’s opinion ascertained, although this is a mandatory element when resolving issues concerning the interests of minors.

Conclusions of the Disciplinary Chamber

The analysis of materials conducted by the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ revealed a clear trend. Out of 35 cases examined, in 31 instances the claim was initiated by the man, and the decision was made in favor of the father by determining the child’s (children’s) place of residence with him. Women in these cases systematically recognized the claims.

Particular attention was drawn to the dynamics after the start of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation. While in 2020 Judge Ivanytsky had no cases regarding determination of the child’s place of residence, and only two in 2021, in 2022 there were already 19 such cases. In 17 of these cases, claims were filed by men, granted by the court, and ended with the determination of the child’s place of residence with the father.

The disciplinary body noted that the texts of claims and other procedural documents in the cases are extremely similar, and in some cases identical word-for-word. The case files often lacked copies of documents referred to by the plaintiff, including evidence of the father’s financial ability to independently support the child. The court did not conduct proper verification of these circumstances.

In all cases mentioned in the complaint, the opinion of the children was not ascertained by either the judge or the guardianship authorities. Judge Oleg Ivanytsky took no measures to ascertain it and did not justify the absence of such necessity in his decisions.

Decision of the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ

After evaluating the evidence provided and obtained within the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary body found grounds to hold the judge disciplinarily liable. At the same time, the Disciplinary Chamber did not support the disciplinary inspector Natalia Drobchak’s proposal to dismiss the judge and decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on Judge Oleg Ivanytsky of the Zboriv District Court of Ternopil region in the form of a strict reprimand with deprivation of the right to receive bonuses to the judge’s official salary for three months.

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