Judgment of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court on the determination of a child’s residence in the context of parental disputes and relocation abroad during martial law (case № 344/7865/2)

The judgment of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court addressed a dispute between parents regarding the residence of their minor son. Following the review, the court ruled that the child would reside with the father in Ukraine, deeming this judgment to align with the best interests of the child.

The parents divorced in 2011, with the children initially residing with their mother. In 2020, the mother remarried and moved to Germany, escalating the conflict between the parties. The mother filed a claim seeking a judgment to establish the child’s residence with her abroad, arguing that Germany would provide better conditions for the child’s life, education, and safety, particularly given the ongoing state of martial law in Ukraine.

The father countered with a claim, requesting a judgment that the child should remain with him in Ukraine. He argued that he provides appropriate care, stable living conditions, and opportunities for the child’s development while maintaining an emotional bond. Additionally, he asserted that the mother’s actions in taking the child abroad without his consent disrupted the child’s stability and familiar environment.

The court’s judgment highlighted that the father actively cared for his son, provided stable living and educational conditions, ensured the child’s financial needs were met, and supported his emotional well-being. Witnesses on the father’s side confirmed that the child spent most of his time with the father and demonstrated a strong attachment to him. They also emphasized that the father fully assumed responsibility for the child’s upbringing, care, and material support.

Conversely, the mother, who had relocated to Germany, failed to provide sufficient evidence to the court that living abroad offered better conditions for the child. The court also considered her prior actions, such as taking the child abroad without the father’s consent, which disrupted the child’s stability and daily life. Reports from child welfare authorities supported the judgment against establishing the child’s residence with the mother due to a lack of evidence of adequate living and developmental conditions in Germany.

The judgment denied the mother’s claim, as she could not substantiate that living with her was in the child’s best interests. Instead, the judgment upheld the father’s counterclaim, ruling that the child should reside with him in Ukraine. The judgment emphasized the close emotional bond between the father and the child, the stable living conditions provided by the father, and the preservation of connections with the child’s sister, friends, and familiar environment as being in the child’s best interests.

The court underscored that the state of martial law in Ukraine does not automatically justify a judgment deciding in favor of the child’s residence abroad. At the same time, the judgment noted that the mother retains the right to maintain contact with the child and participate in his upbringing, which is crucial for ensuring the child’s harmonious development.

This judgment is based on a thorough assessment of the evidence, prioritizing the child’s best interests and ensuring his harmonious development. The judgment determined that the child should reside with the father in Ukraine, emphasizing stability, development opportunities, and the preservation of family ties. The judgment also noted that the mother’s relocation to Germany following the onset of large-scale hostilities in Ukraine did not justify a preference for her claim, as the child’s best interests were found to align with residing in Ukraine under the father’s care.