Insults and threats on Viber or Telegram: The Supreme Court explained when this constitutes domestic violence

Offensive messages, threats, and psychological pressure via phone or messengers can be grounds for a court to issue a restraining order even when the offender is abroad. This conclusion was reached by the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court after considering a dispute between former spouses regarding protection from domestic violence.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court also emphasized that a conflict between former spouses or a dispute over child custody does not exclude the possibility of domestic violence. The decisive factor is the nature of the person’s behavior, its impact on the victim, and the presence of risks of continued violence.

Circumstances of the case

After the divorce, the woman applied to the court for a restraining order for six months.

She stated that her former husband, who is outside Ukraine, systematically called her, sent messages via messengers, insulted, threatened, intimidated, and exerted psychological pressure. According to the applicant, such behavior negatively affected her psycho-emotional state and impacted the children.

To support her claims, she provided documents about her police reports regarding psychological domestic violence, a psychologist’s consultative opinion on the negative impact of such behavior on her psycho-emotional state, and information that in 2022 the police had issued an urgent restraining order against her former husband.

The court of first instance refused to issue the restraining order, considering the fact of domestic violence unproven. It also noted that since the father was abroad, telephone communication was practically the only way for him to communicate with the minor children.

However, the appellate court partially satisfied the application and issued a restraining order for six months. The order prohibited the man from calling or contacting his former wife by any means of communication, either personally or through third parties, as well as from searching for or stalking her.

At the same time, the court did not prohibit communication between the parties altogether. The appellate court stated that communication could only occur regarding the father’s participation in the upbringing and life of their children and must be conducted in a tolerant manner.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Civil Cassation Court dismissed the cassation appeal and agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court.

The Supreme Court noted that the totality of evidence provided by the applicant confirmed the commission of psychological domestic violence against her. The court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the applicant systematically received messages of an offensive and humiliating nature, containing accusations, threats of negative consequences, and other statements aimed at humiliating her honor and dignity. In particular, the former husband accused her of kidnapping the children, called her a "deficient person," and used other offensive expressions that went beyond acceptable conflict communication.

The panel of judges emphasized that the mere existence of a dispute over children or the exercise of parental rights cannot justify the use of humiliating language, psychological pressure, or intimidation of the other parent.

The court specifically stressed that the presence of a family conflict itself does not exclude domestic violence. If a person’s behavior is aimed at psychological influence, causing the victim fear, anxiety, emotional tension, or other negative effects on their psycho-emotional state, it can be qualified as psychological domestic violence.

What evidence the court considered

The Supreme Court noted that the conclusion on the necessity of issuing a restraining order was based on a combination of evidence.

Among them were the applicant’s appeals to law enforcement agencies, the fact of issuing an urgent restraining order against the man in 2022, and a psychologist’s consultative opinion on the negative consequences for her psycho-emotional state.

At the same time, the Civil Cassation Court separately noted that the psychologist’s opinion alone does not confirm the fact of domestic violence but is proper evidence of the consequences of the corresponding behavior on the victim’s psycho-emotional state and should be assessed together with other evidence.

The court also took into account the systematic nature of the offensive messages and the fact that after the urgent restraining order was issued, the man did not cease psychological pressure, indicating a risk of recurrence in the future.

Being abroad does not exclude domestic violence

The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s argument that his being outside Ukraine makes it impossible to commit domestic violence.

The panel of judges emphasized that psychological violence can be carried out remotely — through telephone communication, electronic communications, and messengers. The decisive factor is not the method of communication but the nature of the psychological impact on the victim and its consequences.

Under such circumstances, the appellate court reasonably concluded the presence of risks of continued psychological violence and the necessity of applying a restraining order as a preventive protective measure.

The restraining order does not deprive parental rights

The Supreme Court separately rejected arguments that applying the restraining order violates the father’s right to communicate with the children.

The court emphasized that the restraining order is a temporary preventive measure to protect the victim, not a form of legal liability or punishment.

Issuing such an order does not deprive a person of the status of a father, does not terminate parental rights, and does not exempt the parties from complying with court decisions or other agreements regarding the father’s participation in raising the children.

In case 161/18872/25, as noted by the Supreme Court, the appellate court ensured a balance between the need to protect the woman from further psychological violence and the father’s right to maintain family ties with the children. That is why restrictions were applied only to contacts with the former wife and were recognized as proportional, corresponding to the purpose of their application, and ensuring effective protection of the victim.

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.