The Supreme Court explained when Ukraine recognizes decisions of foreign courts regarding children

Key case on the child’s place of residence after moving abroad

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the issue of recognizing in Ukraine the decision of the Family Court of Wolverhampton (Great Britain), which determined the place of residence of the child with the mother and established the procedure for communication with the father.

The case became indicative for the application of the provisions of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Protection of Children’s Rights in International Family Disputes.

The child lived in the UK and was socially integrated

The courts established that after the outbreak of the full-scale war, the child, together with his mother, left abroad and since April 2022 has been permanently residing in the UK, attending school and integrated into the local social environment.

It was these circumstances that became key to determining the “habitual place of residence of the child”, which, according to the Convention, determines jurisdiction in disputes over parental responsibility.

Supreme Court: Jurisdiction is determined by the child’s place of residence

The Supreme Court emphasized that measures to protect the child should be taken by the courts of the state of his or her habitual residence.

The Court emphasized that the assessment of this criterion includes the duration of stay, living conditions, education, social ties and the degree of integration of the child into the new environment.

In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of previous instances that the British court had the appropriate international jurisdiction to make the decision.

Recognition of a foreign decision in Ukraine: limits of review

Courts of all instances concluded that there were no grounds for refusing to recognize a foreign court decision.

The Supreme Court separately emphasized that the procedure for recognizing a foreign court decision that is not subject to enforcement does not provide for a review of the case on the merits. In such cases, the Ukrainian court checks only the presence of procedural grounds for refusing to recognize.

Parental Rights and the Best Interests of the Child

The court also rejected the arguments about the alleged deprivation of parental rights, noting that the decision of a foreign court does not change or terminate parental rights.

In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the established procedure for communication with the father does not prohibit contact, but establishes it in a form that meets the best interests of the child.

Conclusion for practice

The Supreme Court confirmed that the child’s long-term residence abroad may determine the jurisdiction of a foreign court in family disputes.

Also, Ukrainian courts cannot review decisions of foreign courts on the merits, but only assess the presence of legal grounds for their recognition or refusal to recognize.