A man raised his son alone for 10 years: why the court did not recognize him as a single father

The Krolevets District Court of the Sumy region considered a civil case filed by the father against the child's mother regarding the determination of the minor son's place of residence and the establishment of the fact of his sole upbringing and maintenance by the father. The court partially satisfied the claim: it determined the child's place of residence with the father but refused to establish the fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of the child by the father alone.

Case circumstances

After the divorce in 2016, the parties' son remained living with the father. For almost ten years, the child actually lived with him, while the mother created a new family and lived separately.

The plaintiff noted that the absence of a court decision on the child's place of residence creates difficulties in resolving social, domestic, and other issues related to the realization of the child's rights. In addition, he requested to establish the fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of the son, referring to the need for proper protection of the child's rights and interests, as well as to avoid contradictions in relations with state authorities, local self-government bodies, and other institutions.

The mother opposed the claim. She emphasized that there is no dispute about the son's residence with the father between the parties, as she does not object to such residence. The defendant also indicated that she maintains contact with the son, takes him to her on weekends, communicates with him, buys necessary items, and provides funds according to her financial capabilities. In her opinion, the mere fact of the child's residence with the father does not indicate sole upbringing and maintenance of the child without the mother's participation.

At the same time, the defendant claimed that the father's appeal to the court might be related to an intention to obtain a deferment from mobilization by establishing the fact of sole upbringing of the child. However, during the case consideration, the court established that the plaintiff already has a deferment from military conscription during mobilization on another legally provided ground—as a person who has a father or mother with a disability. The court did not link the dispute resolution with mobilization issues and did not assess the possibility of obtaining a deferment in connection with the stated claims.

During the case review, it was established that the child has long lived with the father, who provides daily care, education, development, and proper living conditions. At the same time, the guardianship and care authority noted in its conclusion that the mother maintains an emotional connection with the son, communicates with him, and participates in his life, although she does not provide daily care due to living separately. The guardianship authority recognized it appropriate to determine the child's place of residence with the father.

During the court hearing, the child stated that he is satisfied with living conditions with the father, has proper living conditions there, friends, and a usual social environment, and expressed a desire to continue living with him. At the same time, the boy confirmed that he maintains contact with the mother and periodically visits her family.

Court's position and conclusions regarding the child's place of residence

The court noted that when resolving disputes about determining the child's place of residence, the child's best interests have primary importance. The attitude of each parent to the fulfillment of parental duties, the child's personal attachment, living conditions, as well as the child's own opinion according to age and maturity level, are taken into account.

The court found no evidence that the father improperly fulfills his parental duties or fails to provide proper conditions for raising the son. On the contrary, the examined evidence confirmed that he properly cares for the child's health, development, and education.

The court also noted that although the mother was previously held administratively liable for offenses related to domestic violence and improper fulfillment of parental duties, these circumstances alone do not indicate the impossibility of her communication with the child or participation in his upbringing.

The court emphasized that the child's residence with the father does not deprive the mother of parental rights and does not release her from fulfilling parental duties. The mother has the right to participate in raising the son regardless of which parent he lives with, and the father has no right to create obstacles for her in exercising these rights.

Assessing the totality of evidence, the conclusion of the guardianship and care authority, the child's opinion, and the factual circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the son's residence with the father corresponds to his interests and wishes, and therefore the claim in this part is subject to satisfaction.

Court's position and conclusions regarding the claim of sole upbringing of the child by the father

Considering the claim to establish the fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of the child by the father, the court proceeded from the principle of equality of rights and duties of parents regarding the child, enshrined in the Family Code of Ukraine. Divorce and separate residence of the parents do not terminate their parental rights and duties.

The court in case No. 579/2795/25 emphasized that to confirm sole upbringing of the child by one parent, there must be circumstances limiting or terminating the parental rights of the other parent. Such circumstances may include death, deprivation of parental rights, recognition of a person as missing, deceased, or incapacitated.

Referring to the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court set out in the ruling dated September 11, 2024, in case No. 201/5972/22, the court noted that the fact of sole upbringing of the child may be established as a circumstance in a dispute between parents regarding the fulfillment of their duties, but the mere fact of the child's residence with one parent does not indicate the cessation of the other parent's participation in upbringing.

The court established that the mother maintains contact with the son, communicates with him, takes him to herself, makes money transfers, and is not deprived of the opportunity to exercise her parental rights. No evidence was provided to the court of her intentional evasion of parental duties or complete withdrawal from participation in the upbringing and maintenance of the child.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that there are no grounds to establish the fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of the child by the father, and therefore the claim in this part should be denied.

The court partially satisfied the claim. The place of residence of the minor son is determined with the father. The claim to establish the fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of the child by the father is denied.

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