Is There Parental Guilt in Conflicts Between Classmates: The Court of Appeal Gave a Clear Answer

Conflicts between schoolchildren often end with the police being called and administrative materials being drawn up against the parents. At the same time, courts increasingly emphasize that the mere fact of such a situation does not mean that adults are neglecting their duties.

This is the conclusion reached by the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal in a case where, after a school incident, the mother of one of the students was attempted to be held administratively liable for alleged neglect of child upbringing.

Circumstances of Case No. 686/4388/26

According to the case materials, in January 2026, a conflict arose between sixth-grade students at one of the gymnasiums in Khmelnytskyi, during which one boy pushed another and used obscene language. After the incident, police officers drew up an administrative protocol against the boy's mother under Part 1 of Article 184 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAO).

After examining the written evidence, the Khmelnytskyi City District Court found the woman guilty of neglecting her parental duties regarding the upbringing of her minor son. At the same time, recognizing the offense as minor, the court exempted her from administrative liability, limiting itself to a verbal warning, and closed the case.

The woman's lawyer filed an appeal, requesting the local court's ruling to be canceled and the case to be closed due to the absence of an administrative offense.

The appellant noted that the mother properly fulfills her parental duties, pays attention to her son's upbringing, maintains constant contact with the educational institution and the class teacher, and regularly attends parent meetings. To confirm this, the defense provided a school reference.

The defender also drew attention to the boy's explanation regarding the circumstances of the conflict. According to him, his behavior was a reaction to offensive and obscene remarks made by a classmate about his mother.

What the Appeal Decided

The Court of Appeal agreed with the defense's arguments that the woman properly takes care of her son's upbringing. The court noted that to hold someone liable under Part 1 of Article 184 of the CUAO, it is necessary to establish systematic failure to fulfill parental duties. However, the case materials do not contain evidence indicating improper upbringing by the mother or the systematic nature of such actions.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the administrative offense protocol did not specify in what exactly the mother's neglect of parental duties consisted, and the circumstances stated in it contradicted other evidence.

Evaluating the case circumstances, the Court of Appeal noted that the teenager's behavior was a reaction to obscene insults directed at his mother and occurred against the background of a prolonged conflict between the students. The court also took into account that previously the classmate had inflicted bodily injuries on the boy, which could have affected his emotional state.

"The Court of Appeal considers that the mere fact of conflict behavior by a minor cannot automatically indicate the mother's neglect of parental duties," the ruling states.

As a result of the appeal review, the court concluded that the woman's actions did not constitute an administrative offense, canceled the local court's ruling, and closed the case under paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 247 of the CUAO.

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