Failed to Name Birth Dates: Court Denied Military Serviceman's Adoption of Wife's Children
The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which denied a military serviceman the adoption of three children of his wife from a previous marriage.
The court emphasized that when deciding on adoption, it is necessary to evaluate not only the formal compliance of the candidate with the law's requirements but also all circumstances that may indicate whether the adoption will ensure the best interests of the child. In this case, the courts took into account, in particular, the applicant's repeated administrative offenses for being on military service while intoxicated, his explanations during the trial, the family's living conditions, and concluded that the guardianship authority's investigation was incomplete.
Case Circumstances
In July 2025, the man applied to the court for the adoption of three children of his wife, with whom he had been in a registered marriage since October 2024.
The applicant stated that he lives with the family, supports the children, meets their needs, has a steady income and housing, and wishes to officially become their father. The children's mother provided notarized consent for the adoption. The guardianship authority also prepared a conclusion recognizing the adoption as appropriate and in the best interests of the children.
Despite this, the Yarmolyntsi District Court denied the application.
Disagreeing with this decision, the applicant filed an appeal. He emphasized that he has been raising the children for a long time, cares for them, and the couple is expecting a child together. Additionally, he pointed out that neither the wife nor the children objected to the adoption.
What the Appellate Court Found
After reviewing the case materials, the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
The court noted that the applicant does not belong to the categories of persons whom Article 212 of the Family Code of Ukraine explicitly prohibits from being adoptive parents. However, this alone does not mean that the adoption should be allowed.
The panel of judges pointed out that the court must assess all circumstances that are significant for ensuring the best interests of the children, as required by the Family Code of Ukraine, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the European Convention on the Adoption of Children.
One such circumstance the court recognized was that the applicant was three times held administratively liable under Part 3 of Article 172-20 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses for being on the territory of a military unit and performing military duties while intoxicated or refusing to undergo an examination during a special period. For two offenses, he was fined 17,000 UAH each, and for another, he was subjected to administrative arrest with detention in the guardhouse for 10 days.
Additionally, the court considered the applicant's behavior during the trial. In particular, he could not name the birth year of one child, and for the other two, he could not provide the date, month, or year of birth. At the same time, one of the children, during questioning, could not name the person who sought to adopt them and did not express an opinion regarding the adoption.
The appellate court also paid attention to the family's living conditions. The court noted that the only housing owned by the applicant was a 17 sq. m. room in a dormitory, which cannot be considered sufficient for a large family. The applicant did not provide other evidence of housing ownership and explained during the appeal that the family actually lives in a rented apartment.
Why the Court Disagreed with the Guardianship Authority's Conclusion
The appellate court also critically assessed the guardianship authority's conclusion on the appropriateness of the adoption.
The panel of judges noted that the guardianship authority did not collect a complete characterization of the applicant, did not consider his repeated administrative offenses related to military service, did not properly verify the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the children, and did not clarify the true motives for the adoption.
Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the positive conclusion of the guardianship authority alone does not confirm that the adoption corresponds to the best interests of the children.
Court Conclusion
The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Yarmolyntsi District Court unchanged.
The court emphasized that when deciding on adoption, the determining factor is not only compliance with formal legal requirements or the presence of the mother's consent and a positive conclusion from the guardianship authority but a comprehensive assessment of all circumstances of the case from the perspective of ensuring the best interests of the child.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
