Foster parents have no right to 15 million UAH after the death of their military son solely due to their status — Supreme Court

09:11, 1 August 2026
telegram sharing button
facebook sharing button
viber sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
After the foster child reaches adulthood, the status of foster parents alone does not grant the right to payment.
Foster parents have no right to 15 million UAH after the death of their military son solely due to their status — Supreme Court
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks

After the death of a serviceman, the right to a one-time financial assistance is granted only to persons explicitly defined by law. The mere fact that a person was previously a foster parent of the deceased or lived with him as one family is not, by itself, a basis for receiving this payment. This conclusion was reached by the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff, together with her husband, raised a child deprived of parental care in a foster family. After reaching adulthood, the young man joined the military service and later died while performing a combat mission to defend Ukraine.

After his death, the woman applied to the Ministry of Defense for a one-time financial assistance payment provided by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168. She believed that as a person who was the foster mother of the serviceman and lived with him as one family, she was entitled to part of this payment.

The Ministry of Defense commission returned the documents for revision, suggesting that she provide documents confirming that the applicant was dependent on the deceased serviceman. She did not provide such documents and subsequently appealed the commission’s decision to the court.

What the courts decided

The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim. They reasoned that after the foster child reaches adulthood, the rights and obligations of foster parents cease, and the plaintiff does not belong to the persons entitled to one-time financial assistance under the Law "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families." Moreover, it was not established that she was dependent on the deceased serviceman.

Supreme Court’s position

The Administrative Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts.

The court noted that Article 16-1 of Law No. 2011-XII establishes an exhaustive list of persons entitled to one-time financial assistance in case of a serviceman’s death. This list includes only parents, one spouse who has not remarried, minor children, and dependents of the deceased. This list is not subject to broad interpretation.

The Supreme Court also recalled its legal position set out in the ruling dated June 16, 2026, in case No. 620/10029/24, according to which, when resolving disputes regarding one-time financial assistance, decisive importance is given to the wording of the legislation in force on the date of the serviceman’s death, as the right to the payment arises on that day.

In case No. 620/59/25, the court established that at the time of death, the serviceman had already reached adulthood. According to the Family Code provisions, after the foster child turns 18, the rights and obligations of foster parents cease. Therefore, the plaintiff does not belong to the category of parents referred to in Article 16-1 of Law No. 2011-XII.

Furthermore, the plaintiff herself did not claim to be dependent on the deceased serviceman. Thus, she does not belong to the category of dependents who also have the right to receive assistance.

Living together is not a basis for payment

The Supreme Court separately rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that she lived with the deceased as one family and was connected to him by a common household.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff mistakenly equated the concept of "family member" with the list of persons defined in Article 16-1 of Law No. 2011-XII. The norm in effect at the time of the disputed legal relations does not provide a separate category of "family members" among recipients of one-time financial assistance. It establishes an exclusive list of persons entitled to the payment, so the mere fact of cohabitation or shared household does not create the right to receive it.

In view of this, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.

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

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