The Court of Appeal Denied the Mother of the Deceased Defender's Request to Cancel the Decision on Termination of Her Parental Rights

In 2016, the Sumy District Court, at the request of the grandmother of a 17-year-old boy, deprived his mother of parental rights, obliged her to pay child support, and determined the child's place of residence with the plaintiff. During the consideration of the case in the first instance court, the woman fully acknowledged the claims for termination of her parental rights regarding her son and asked for the case to be considered without her participation. The court then interpreted the defendant's behavior as a conscious neglect of her parental duties. This was reported by the Sumy Court of Appeal.

Ten years later, the woman filed an appeal against the local court's decision and asked the Sumy Court of Appeal to cancel it. She justified her position by stating that the first instance court did not fully clarify the circumstances relevant to the case, incorrectly applied substantive law, violated procedural law, and that the conclusions about her evasion of parental duties were not supported by proper evidence.

The appellant insisted that after the father's death, her son lived with her, she participated in his upbringing and financial support, worked, and maintained him at her own expense. According to her, the child was not removed from the family, she was not held administratively or criminally liable, and no claims regarding her fulfillment of parental duties had been previously made.

The woman also noted that the court did not ascertain the opinion of her 17-year-old son, although at the time of the decision he was already studying at a vocational education institution and was sufficiently independent. She believed that applying such an extreme measure as termination of parental rights under these circumstances was unfounded.

The plaintiff opposed the satisfaction of the appeal. In particular, in her response, she asked to leave the local court's decision unchanged. She noted that after the court's decision, the defendant did not maintain relations with her son, did not show interest in his life, health, or education, and did not even congratulate him on his birthdays. Moreover, during the 2016 case consideration, the woman fully acknowledged the claim for termination of her parental rights and asked for the case to be considered without her participation; therefore, according to the plaintiff, the current arguments of the appeal contradict her previous procedural position. According to the plaintiff, her grandson died this January while performing a combat mission defending Ukraine, and she believes that the real reason for appealing the decision after ten years is the mother's desire to receive state-provided payments.

After reviewing the case materials, the panel of judges of the Sumy Court of Appeal left the first instance court's decision unchanged and dismissed the defendant's appeal.

In its ruling, the appellate court noted that in 2016 the defendant had acknowledged the claim for termination of her parental rights in writing and asked for the case to be considered without her participation. Therefore, appealing this decision ten years later indicates inconsistent procedural behavior. The court also rejected the appellant's arguments that she did not understand the consequences of acknowledging the claim due to lack of legal education, as there was no evidence that her will was not free or that she was limited in civil capacity.

The panel of judges also emphasized that the issue of terminating the mother's parental rights was raised in 2015 by the minor son himself. Following an investigation, guardianship and care authorities and the children's service confirmed that the woman did not participate in his upbringing and maintenance, while all duties regarding the boy's care were performed by his grandmother.

Separately, the appellate court noted that the defendant did not explain how canceling the decision on termination of her parental rights ten years after it was made could protect the rights and interests of the son, who was already an adult at that time and died defending Ukraine.

Under these circumstances, the panel of judges concluded that there are no grounds to cancel the first instance court's decision, and the arguments of the appeal are unfounded.

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