Judgment of the Supreme Court on the contact of one parent with the child when residing in different countries

In case № 757/9574/20-ts, the father filed a claim seeking to establish a visitation schedule with his child and to compel the mother to bring the child to Turkey annually in July for contact with the father. The claimant based his demands on a Turkish court decision, which provided for summer contact between the father and the child. He alleged that the mother was obstructing his parental rights.

The first-instance court dismissed the claim, stating that the chosen method of protecting the father’s rights was inconsistent with Ukrainian law. It was established that the child had been residing with the mother in Ukraine since 2011, with adequate living conditions ensuring harmonious development and a stable environment. The child was also fully integrated into the Ukrainian community. The appellate court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the father had not provided evidence of obstacles to his communication with the child and had failed to fulfill his financial obligations for the child’s maintenance.

The father’s representative appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court, arguing violations of international law, particularly the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The appellant also claimed that the lower courts had misinterpreted the circumstances related to the enforcement of the Turkish court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the lower courts’ conclusions, noting that Ukrainian courts acted within their jurisdiction. It was highlighted that the Turkish court’s decision did not impose an obligation on the mother to bring the child to Turkey annually. The Supreme Court further emphasized that the child’s residence with the mother in Ukraine aligns with the child’s best interests, providing stability and emotional well-being.

The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the first-instance and appellate courts were upheld. The Supreme Court’s ruling is final and not subject to further appeal.