Court distinguished between "formal" and "real" absence of relatives when dismissing a serviceman to care for a mother with a disability

17:03, 29 July 2026
telegram sharing button
facebook sharing button
viber sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
The military unit refused dismissal due to the presence of a sister, but the court recognized that she could not provide constant care.
Court distinguished between "formal" and "real" absence of relatives when dismissing a serviceman to care for a mother with a disability
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks

The military unit cannot refuse to dismiss a serviceman solely due to the formal presence of other family members of the first or second degree of kinship. The decisive factor is whether they can actually provide constant care. This conclusion was reached by the Lviv District Administrative Court, which obliged the military unit to dismiss a mobilized serviceman who proved the absence of other persons capable of providing constant care for his mother with a Group II disability.

Circumstances of the case

A mobilized serviceman applied to the command with a report requesting dismissal from service based on subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part four of article 26 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service." The reason was the need to provide constant care for his mother, who is a person with a Group II disability and requires indefinite constant external care.

He attached documents to the report confirming his mother’s disability and her need for constant external care, the death of his father, the sister’s disability, as well as her notarized statement that she has lived separately from the mother for over 15 years, does not maintain family relations with her, and is unable to provide constant care. Additionally, a family status inspection report was submitted, stating that the plaintiff is the only person who can actually provide such care.

The military unit refused to satisfy the report, arguing that the serviceman did not confirm the absence of other family members of the first and second degree of kinship who could care for the mother. Disagreeing with this refusal, he appealed to the court.

Court’s position

The court noted that during martial law, a serviceman may be dismissed from service due to family circumstances if he must provide constant care for one of the parents who is a person with a Group I or II disability, provided there are no other family members of the first or second degree of kinship or if such persons themselves require constant care.

At the same time, the court applied the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court set out in rulings dated February 27, 2025, in case No. 380/16966/24, May 7, 2025, in case No. 420/30227/24, and April 29, 2026, in case No. 520/14746/25. The Supreme Court clarified that the concept of "absence of other family members" includes not only the physical absence of such persons but also cases where, for objective reasons, they cannot actually provide constant care. The list of such reasons is not exhaustive.

Examining the materials of case 380/7429/26, the court established that the mother’s need for constant external care is confirmed by medical documents, the plaintiff’s father is deceased, and the sister has a Group III disability, has lived separately for over 15 years, does not maintain family relations with the mother, and, according to the submitted evidence, cannot actually provide constant care. Moreover, the family status inspection report confirms that the plaintiff is the only person who can provide such care.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the serviceman submitted proper and admissible evidence confirming the absence of other family members capable of actually providing constant care for his mother. Therefore, the military unit’s conclusions about the insufficiency of the submitted documents are unfounded and do not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case and the legal position of the Supreme Court.

What the court decided

The Lviv District Administrative Court fully satisfied the claim.

The court recognized the military unit’s refusal to dismiss the serviceman as unlawful and obliged to dismiss him from military service based on subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part four of article 26 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" due to the need to provide constant care for a mother who is a person with a Group II disability and the absence of other family members of the first and second degree of kinship who can provide such care.

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.

XX Congress of Judges of Ukraine – online broadcast – day one