Judgment of the Supreme Court on the determination of a child’s residence in the context of parental disputes and safety considerations during martial law (case № 750/9620/20)

The Supreme Court reviewed a case regarding the determination of the residence of a minor child and upheld the appellate court’s decision to designate the child’s place of residence with the mother. The Court emphasized that the best interests of the child are paramount. It found that the father’s prolonged obstruction of the mother’s communication with the child, as well as the child’s discontinuation of preschool attendance without valid reasons, were contrary to the child’s welfare.

Following the parents’ divorce, a dispute arose over the child’s residence. Initially, the child lived with the mother, who provided a stable environment, adequate care, and conditions conducive to the child’s development. However, in December 2020, the father unilaterally took the child to live with him, citing the child’s preference to stay with him. From that point, he restricted the child’s contact with the mother. Subsequently, the child stopped attending preschool, lost opportunities for socialization, and missed scheduled vaccinations.

The mother filed a claim arguing that living with her aligned with the child’s best interests, as she had created favorable conditions for the child’s harmonious physical and psychological development. She highlighted her strong emotional bond with the child and her consistent fulfillment of parental duties. The father, in a counterclaim, asserted that his living conditions were superior and expressed concerns about the mother’s partner, whom he alleged had been aggressive toward the child.

Key aspects of the case include:

• Child’s safety: The Court noted that a child cannot remain in circumstances that pose risks to their physical or mental well-being. It highlighted the negative impact of prolonged isolation from the mother on the child’s psychological state and overall development.
• Martial law considerations: The mere imposition of martial law or the presence of active hostilities in a specific region does not automatically justify determining the child’s residence with one parent. The actual safety conditions for the child must be thoroughly assessed.
• Mother’s argument: The mother argued that she had offered to evacuate the child from Chernihiv during the hostilities, but the father refused to hand over the child. This point was not deemed decisive or conclusive in her favor by the Court.
• Harmonious development: The Court underlined the importance of ensuring the child’s balanced development, opportunities for socialization, and maintaining relationships with both parents as critical factors in decision-making.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to determine the child’s residence with the mother, finding that her efforts were directed toward creating a suitable environment for the child’s growth. The Court also noted that the father’s actions in obstructing the child’s relationship with the mother were inconsistent with the principle of prioritizing the child’s best interests.