A Father Cannot Retain Parental Rights Solely by Paying Alimony: Supreme Court

On 22 July 2026, the Supreme Court, comprising judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, in case No. [638/4326/24], concluded that a father’s many years of self-exclusion from raising a child, lack of any participation in the child’s life, and disregard for the child’s own opinion are sufficient grounds for deprivation of parental rights.

The ruling is significant for the application of Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court once again outlined the criteria for deliberate evasion of parental duties, differentiated between paying maintenance and the actual fulfilment of parental functions, and emphasised the mandatory consideration of the child’s best interests and their own opinion.

Case Circumstances

The mother filed a lawsuit to deprive the father of parental rights regarding their son. She stated that after the termination of their family relations in 2009, the defendant virtually ceased all contact with the child, did not participate in his upbringing, showed no interest in his health, education, or development, did not communicate with him, and maintained no relationship with him. The child was raised by the mother and her husband, whom the boy perceived as his biological father.

The court of first instance found deliberate evasion of parental duties, taking into account the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority, which supported the claim, as well as the personal opinion of the sixteen-year-old son. The son stated that he had never seen his biological father, did not communicate with him, and supported depriving him of parental rights. The claim was granted.

The appellate court overturned this decision and denied the claim, noting that the defendant paid maintenance, opposed the deprivation of his parental rights, and expressed an intention to establish a relationship with his son. The court also warned the father about the need to change his attitude towards raising the child and assigned control over his fulfilment of parental duties to the guardianship and custody authority.

The mother appealed the ruling in cassation.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that evasion of parental duties regarding child-rearing can be grounds for deprivation of parental rights only if there is culpable behaviour by the parents and a deliberate neglect of their duties.

The court noted that evasion of parental duties occurs when parents do not care for the physical and spiritual development of the child, their education, or preparation for independent life. This includes not communicating with the child to the extent necessary for their normal self-awareness, showing no interest in their inner world, and not creating conditions for obtaining an education. Such factors may indicate evasion of upbringing only if there is deliberate neglect of duties.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the case materials confirm the defendant’s lack of participation in raising his son, limiting himself to paying court-ordered maintenance in a forced manner. Additionally, he lives outside Ukraine. The guardianship and custody authority reached a similar conclusion, considering it appropriate to deprive him of parental rights.

The court noted that although deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure, in resolving such disputes, the child’s best interests are of primary importance, followed by the rights of the parents. At the same time, equality of parental rights is derived from the child’s own rights and interests for harmonious development and proper upbringing.

The Supreme Court separately emphasised the importance of the child’s opinion. The court stated that a child capable of expressing an opinion must be heard during the resolution of a dispute about the deprivation of parental rights. The court must systematically consider their position along with all other evidence in the case to ensure the child’s best interests.

The Supreme Court established that the court of first instance heard the sixteen-year-old son, who explained that he had never met or communicated with his father, had not received any attention or gifts from him, and considers his mother’s husband as his father. The defendant did not refute these explanations.

In contrast, the appellate court effectively ignored both the child’s expressed opinion and their presence in the courtroom, not providing an opportunity to reiterate their position regarding the dispute. In the absence of evidence that the child’s will was not free or did not correspond to the circumstances of the case, the appellate court had no grounds to make a decision contrary to the child’s opinion.

The Supreme Court also emphasised that, in opposing the claim, the defendant provided no evidence of his participation in his son’s life, fulfilment of parental duties, measures taken to establish contact with the child, or the existence of obstacles to such communication from the mother. Therefore, the first instance court’s conclusion about deliberate evasion of parental duties is justified.

Evaluating the advisability of deprivation of parental rights, the court took into account that after the divorce, the father did not communicate with his son for fourteen years, did not apply to the court or guardianship authority to determine the order of participation in his upbringing, and did not prove a change in his behaviour. Meanwhile, the child has lived since 2011 in the family of the mother and her husband, whom he considers his father, and the change of surname and patronymic indicates a conscious desire to identify with this family.

The Supreme Court concluded that under such circumstances, depriving the defendant of parental rights aligns with the principle of ensuring the child’s best interests, as the child has been practically deprived of parental care from the biological father for almost seventeen years.

The Supreme Court granted the mother’s cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the first instance court’s decision to deprive the father of parental rights.

The court confirmed that forced payment of maintenance alone does not indicate proper fulfilment of parental duties. Many years of deliberate self-exclusion from raising the child, absence of any real actions to maintain family ties, and other circumstances established in the case indicate grounds for deprivation of parental rights, considering the child’s best interests.

Additionally, read about how the Supreme Court prohibited leaving the property of a maintenance payer under arrest solely due to the risk of new debt.

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.