Are accusations of the mother's alcohol addiction sufficient for the child to be left with the father — the position of the Supreme Court
When resolving disputes about determining the place of residence of a minor child, courts must assess all the circumstances of the specific case, primarily based on the best interests of the child. Statements by one parent alone about the improper fulfillment of parental duties by the other parent cannot be decisive without proper evidential confirmation.
This conclusion was reached by the Civil Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court in case No. 752/14828/23, leaving unchanged the decisions of the lower courts, which determined the place of residence of the minor son with the mother.
Circumstances of the case
After the termination of the actual family relationship, the parents could not agree on with whom their son would live.
The father filed a lawsuit requesting that the child’s place of residence be determined with him. He claimed that the mother abused alcohol, improperly fulfilled maternal duties, and also referred to a conflict during which the woman allegedly sprayed a gas canister, resulting in the child being injured. The plaintiff noted that after this, the son lived with him for some time, and he has adequate living conditions and a stable income to raise him.
The mother filed a counterclaim. She stated that after the termination of cohabitation, she left the residence due to, in her words, the father’s abusive behavior, which manifested in physical, psychological, and economic violence. At the same time, she asserted that she did not hinder the father’s communication with the son, has adequate living conditions, and sufficient income to meet the child’s needs.
What the courts established
The courts established that the child lived with the mother from birth, from June 25, 2023 — with the father, and from March 2025 again permanently with the mother. It was also established that proper conditions for raising the child were created at the mother’s place of residence, and the family needs assessment report concluded that she has parental potential to ensure the harmonious development and upbringing of the son.
The courts separately examined the father’s arguments regarding the alleged alcohol addiction of the mother.
To support his claims, he provided a certificate from a private medical center about her undergoing treatment. However, the medical institution itself reported that such a certificate was improperly issued and cannot be considered an official document. Later, the medical center informed the court that due to the loss of archival documentation, it cannot reliably confirm the circumstances of the woman’s seeking medical assistance. At the same time, the case materials contained official certificates stating that she is not under narcological dispensary supervision and has undergone a psychiatric examination, including for the use of psychoactive substances.
The courts also took into account that proceedings regarding holding the mother administratively liable under Articles 173 and 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses were closed due to the absence of administrative offenses. At the same time, by a court ruling, upheld on appeal, the father was held administratively liable under Part One of Article 173-2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (domestic violence). In addition, urgent restraining orders were repeatedly issued against him.
Position of the Supreme Court
The Civil Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
The Supreme Court emphasized that international and national legislation does not grant the mother or father a priority right to live with the child. When resolving such disputes, the court must primarily proceed from the best interests of the child, assessing all the circumstances of the specific case, and only then the rights of each parent. At the same time, the attitude of each parent to fulfilling their duties, the child’s personal attachment, age, psychological state, stable social ties, safety of the living environment, and other significant circumstances must be taken into account.
The panel of judges noted that in this case both parents wish to raise the child, have income, and can provide adequate living conditions. At the same time, the courts established that the mother has regularly cared for the child’s health, development, and well-being since birth, created a safe and favorable environment for upbringing and care, and provides the child with living conditions familiar to him. Meanwhile, the father did not prove that determining the son’s place of residence with him would better correspond to the child’s best interests or that living with the mother would negatively affect his development.
The Supreme Court also agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the evidence provided by the father regarding the mother’s seeking medical assistance related to alcohol use is improper and inadmissible, and its content is refuted by other evidence examined in the case.
In view of this, the Civil Cassation Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts, which determined the place of residence of the minor child with the mother.
Regarding court costs
The Supreme Court also left unchanged the additional ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which ordered the father to pay the mother 24,000 UAH for professional legal assistance costs.
The Cassation Court noted that these costs are supported by proper evidence, and their amount corresponds to the criteria of proportionality, considering the complexity of the case, the volume of work performed by the lawyer, and the results of the appellate review.
Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and left unchanged the decision of the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv, the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and its additional ruling.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
