Court denied man a deferral for caring for a mother with a disability because there is a sister, although she lives with the father

A military reservist filed a lawsuit with the Zhytomyr District Administrative Court against Department No. 1 of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. The plaintiff requested to recognize as unlawful and cancel notification No. 2149 dated October 18, 2025, about the refusal to grant a deferral from military service during mobilization, to recognize the inaction regarding the failure to provide a deferral as unlawful, and to oblige to grant a deferral based on paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" as a person who cares for a mother — a person with a group II disability, in the absence of other able-bodied persons obligated and capable of providing such care.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff justified his claims by stating that his mother is a person with a group II disability, and he is the only person who actually cares for her. On October 2, 2025, he submitted an application for a deferral. On October 18, 2025, the commission of the territorial recruitment center refused to grant the deferral, citing the presence of the mother’s adult daughter (the plaintiff’s sister), who is not a military reservist.

The plaintiff disagreed with the commission's decision, noting that the sister does not live with the mother, lives with the father, and studies full-time, so she cannot provide care.

Court decision

The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court in case No. 240/25239/25 denied the claim in full.

The court analyzed the provisions of paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" (in the version effective at the time of the disputed legal relations). According to this provision, military reservists who have one parent with a group I or II disability are not subject to conscription during mobilization, provided there are no other persons who are not military reservists and are legally obligated to support them. In the absence of such non-military reservist persons, care can only be provided by one of the military reservists chosen by the person with a disability.

The court noted that the obligation of adult children to support incapacitated parents who need material assistance is established by article 202 of the Family Code of Ukraine. The case materials established that the plaintiff’s mother has an adult daughter who is not a military reservist and is legally obligated to support the mother. This fact excludes grounds for granting a deferral to the plaintiff.

The court stated that the provisions of paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and article 202 of the Family Code of Ukraine do not make the obligation to support dependent on cohabitation or the child’s education. Therefore, the plaintiff’s arguments about the sister’s inability to provide care due to separate residence and full-time study were rejected as they do not refute the existence of another person legally obligated.

The court concluded that the commission of the territorial recruitment center acted within its authority and in accordance with the law, including taking into account the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resolution No. 560 dated May 16, 2024. Accordingly, there are no grounds to recognize the commission’s decision as unlawful or to oblige the granting of a deferral.

The claim was fully denied. The court’s decision takes legal effect after the expiration of the appeal period. An appeal may be filed directly to the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date the full text of the decision is drawn up.

Previously, "Judicial-Legal Newspaper" described a case of the Kirovohrad District Administrative Court, where a man cared for a brother with a disability because the sister refused — the court recognized the refusal of the Territorial Recruitment Center to grant a deferral as unlawful.

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