Supreme Court: Imprisonment and Alimony Debt Are Not Automatic Grounds for Parental Rights Termination

The Supreme Court, composed of judges from the First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, reviewed a case concerning the termination of a father’s parental rights at the request of the child’s mother, who cited the defendant’s prolonged evasion of parental duties, non-payment of alimony, lack of participation in raising the son, and serving a prison sentence.

The subject of the cassation review was the question of the existence of legal grounds for applying such an exceptional measure of family-law responsibility as the termination of parental rights.

Case Circumstances

In September 2024, the mother of a minor child filed a lawsuit against the father seeking termination of his parental rights. The guardianship and custody authority was involved as a third party in the case.

The claim was based on the fact that the parties were in a registered marriage since June 26, 2011, during which a son was born. After the divorce by court decision on October 3, 2014, the child remained living with the mother.

By another court decision dated October 3, 2014, alimony was collected from the father for the maintenance of the son in the amount of one-fourth of all types of earnings (income), but not less than the minimum amount established by law, starting from August 13, 2014, until the child reaches adulthood.

The plaintiff noted that the defendant had long failed to comply with the court decision on alimony payments, resulting in significant debt, which was repaid only by a one-time payment at the end of February 2024.

She also indicated that by court verdict in a criminal proceeding, the defendant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for committing a serious crime under part two of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

According to the plaintiff, after the divorce, the father completely withdrew from fulfilling parental duties, did not maintain any contact with the son, did not participate in his upbringing, showed no interest in the child’s health, education, or development, did not visit or provide moral support.

It was separately emphasized that the child is a person with a disability from childhood, requiring constant treatment, rehabilitation, and increased attention, but the defendant did not participate in meeting these needs. The plaintiff stated that she independently provides proper conditions for the son’s living, treatment, upbringing, and development, while not creating any obstacles for the father’s communication with the child.

The plaintiff also pointed out that due to the lack of any contact with the defendant, she cannot obtain from him the legally required consents on matters related to the realization of the child’s rights and interests, which significantly complicates her fulfillment of parental duties.

Based on the above circumstances, she asked the court to terminate the defendant’s parental rights regarding the son.

Decisions of Previous Courts

By the decision of the Oleksandrivskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia dated December 22, 2025, the claim was satisfied. The court terminated the defendant’s parental rights regarding the minor son and resolved the issue of court costs allocation.

The court of first instance concluded that the evidence in the case confirmed the defendant’s conscious evasion of parental duties and his prolonged withdrawal from participation in the child’s upbringing. The court critically assessed the arguments that military service and subsequent detention were objective obstacles to communication with the child.

When making the decision, the court considered the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority on the advisability of terminating the defendant’s parental rights, witness testimonies, written evidence of the mother’s actual fulfillment of parental duties, as well as the opinion of the minor child, who expressed unwillingness to maintain relations and communicate with the father.

The court of first instance concluded that terminating the defendant’s parental rights corresponds to the best interests of the child and ensures proper upbringing and development. In resolving the dispute, the court applied Articles 164 and 166 of the Family Code of Ukraine, taking into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

By the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal dated March 11, 2026, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned and a new decision was made to deny the claim.

The appellate court reasoned that termination of parental rights is an exceptional measure of family-law responsibility, applicable only if there is proof of conscious and final evasion from parental duties. According to the court, the case materials do not confirm that the defendant has finally lost interest in the child or does not intend to participate in his upbringing.

The appellate court noted that the defendant shows an intention to restore relations with the son, while the plaintiff and the guardianship and custody authority did not provide sufficient justification for the necessity of applying such an extreme measure.

The appellate court also concluded that the guardianship and custody authority’s conclusion is advisory in nature, lacks proper analysis of the factual circumstances of the case, and cannot be sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights. Furthermore, the court stated that detention is an objective circumstance that prevents the performance of certain parental duties. In resolving the dispute, the appellate court applied the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court formulated in similar legal relations.

Legal Conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the subject of cassation review is the correctness of the courts' application of substantive and procedural law norms in resolving the dispute about terminating the father’s parental rights under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine due to evasion of parental duties.

The court emphasized that in resolving any dispute concerning a child, the determining principle is ensuring the child’s best interests. Therefore, the key question in this case was to clarify what best corresponds to the interests of the minor child — preserving or terminating the legal relationship with the biological father.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child is enshrined in Article 51 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Law of Ukraine "On Child Protection," and is consistently applied in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

The court stressed that when determining the best interests of the child, two interrelated criteria must be considered. First, as a general rule, the child’s interests correspond to preserving family ties if the family is not clearly dysfunctional or unfit for raising the child. Second, the child must be raised in a stable, safe, and favorable environment that ensures harmonious development.

The Supreme Court noted that termination of parental rights is an exceptional measure of family-law responsibility, allowed only when there are sufficient, convincing, and properly proven grounds. The mere fact of non-fulfillment of certain parental duties or the existence of conflict between parents does not automatically indicate the necessity of applying such an extreme measure.

The court reminded that evasion of parental duties occurs only when the behavior of the mother or father is guilty, conscious, and indicates systematic neglect of their duties regarding the physical, spiritual, moral, cultural, and educational development of the child. At the same time, each case requires an individual assessment of all established circumstances, and termination of parental rights cannot be applied automatically solely due to the formal presence of certain violations.

The Supreme Court specifically noted that serving a sentence in places of imprisonment by itself is not an unconditional ground for termination of parental rights. This circumstance must be assessed together with other evidence and does not exempt the court from the necessity to establish the presence of guilty behavior aimed at conscious evasion of parental duties.

The panel of judges agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that in this case there is no sufficient evidence of a final break in the legal and family relationship between the defendant and the child, nor are there proper grounds to conclude that the defendant has completely lost the intention to participate in the son’s life.

The Supreme Court stated that the mere fact of alimony debt existence, its subsequent repayment, and serving a sentence cannot automatically indicate the presence of legal grounds for termination of parental rights without a comprehensive assessment of all factual circumstances of the case.

Evaluating the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority, the Supreme Court emphasized that such a conclusion is advisory and not binding on the court. The court may disagree with it if it is insufficiently motivated, lacks proper analysis of factual circumstances, or does not prove that termination of parental rights truly corresponds to the child’s best interests.

The panel of judges agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the opinion provided by the guardianship and custody authority did not contain sufficient justification for the necessity of applying such an extreme measure and did not confirm that termination of parental rights is the only way to protect the child’s rights and interests.

The Supreme Court also noted that the appellate court properly examined all available evidence in the case, gave them a legal assessment in their entirety, and reached a well-founded conclusion about the absence of grounds for terminating the defendant’s parental rights.

The court specifically noted that the legal conclusions set out in the Supreme Court rulings cited by the applicant are not applicable in this case, as they were based on different factual circumstances. In each category of such disputes, the court must evaluate the specific evidentiary base rather than formally apply previous decisions.

The Supreme Court also formulated an important legal conclusion regarding repeated claims for termination of parental rights. If the court has previously denied such a claim based on the fact that termination of parental rights is an extreme measure, then upon repeated consideration of the case, the burden of proof shifts. In such a case, the parent against whom the repeated claim is made must prove a change in their attitude towards fulfilling parental duties, refute arguments about improper fulfillment, and confirm this with proper and admissible evidence.

In summary, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions about the absence of sufficient legal grounds in case No. 331/5638/24 for applying such an exceptional measure of family-law responsibility as termination of parental rights.

As a result of the cassation review, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal unchanged, recognizing that it was made with the correct application of substantive and procedural law norms.

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