Father cannot control every meeting of child with grandmother without evidence of danger — Supreme Court

The parents’ duty to care for the health and safety of the child does not give them the unconditional right to control every meeting of the child with the grandmother or other close relatives. For such a restriction, there must be evidence that communication may pose a danger to the child. This conclusion was reached by the Civil Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court.

The father allowed meetings only in his presence

The dispute arose after the death of the child’s mother. The grandmother took care of her granddaughter for a long time, including when her daughter was undergoing treatment abroad. After the mother’s death, the girl lived with her grandmother for several more months.

Over time, regular communication between them effectively ceased. The father agreed to the meetings, but insisted that they take place exclusively in his presence. The grandmother appealed to the court with a request not to hinder her participation in raising her granddaughter and to establish a communication schedule.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim and determined two meetings per month – every first and third Saturday from 14:00 to 17:00, without the presence of the father. In this case, the meetings should take place at the request of the child himself and taking into account his health and daily routine.

The Court of Appeal left the schedule, but established an adaptation period: during the first three months, a representative of the children’s service must be present during the meetings.

Supreme Court: Grandparents have the right to communicate with grandchildren

The Supreme Court recalled that in accordance with Article 257 of the Family Code of Ukraine, grandmother, grandfather, great-grandmother and great-grandfather have the right to communicate with their grandchildren and great-grandchildren and participate in their upbringing. Persons with whom the child lives must not impede the exercise of this right.

In this case, the father himself admitted that he allowed the grandmother to see her granddaughter only in his presence. The court considered such a restriction as an obstacle to the grandmother’s right to communicate with the child.

The child does not have to be questioned directly in court

The father also insisted that the courts did not personally find out the daughter’s opinion regarding meetings with the grandmother without his presence.

However, the Supreme Court noted: the child’s right to be heard does not mean that she must necessarily be summoned and questioned directly in court. The child’s position can be established through a representative, psychologist, or the relevant authority.

In this case, the psychologist recorded that the child does not have a hostile attitude towards the grandmother and does not object to meetings with her. The courts also took into account the conclusion of the guardianship and trusteeship body and the grandmother’s previous long-term relationship with her granddaughter.

References to possible danger are not enough

The father stated about possible physical punishment by the grandmother, her failure to comply with the child’s diet, her political views, possible incitement of the daughter against other relatives and risks during air raids.

However, the courts did not receive adequate evidence of specific behavior by the grandmother that could pose a danger to the child.

The Supreme Court emphasized: the father’s duty to protect the health and safety of his daughter does not mean an automatic right to control every meeting with close relatives, unless the danger of such communication is confirmed by evidence.

What the court finally decided

The Supreme Court left the father’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

The grandmother has the right to meet with her granddaughter every first and third Saturday of the month from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. For the first three months, the meetings will take place in the presence of a representative of the children’s service.

At the same time, the child’s own wishes, as well as taking into account their daily routine and state of health, remain a mandatory condition. The Supreme Court’s decision is final.