1. **Subject of the dispute:** A mother’s claim for the removal of a minor child from the father, who unilaterally changed the child’s place of residence and obstructed communication with the mother, despite the existence of court decisions determining the child’s place of residence with her.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant acted unlawfully by unilaterally taking the child from school and ignoring the court decision by which the son’s place of residence was officially determined with the mother.
* An important aspect was the assessment of the psychologist’s advisory reports: the court treated them critically, as the child had been brought to the specialist solely by the father without the mother’s knowledge, which indicates probable psychological pressure on the child.
* The court emphasized that the father’s failure to comply with court decisions and the obstruction of the child’s communication with the mother over a long period constitutes a gross violation of the rights of the child and the other parent.
* Regarding non-pecuniary (moral) damage, the court deemed its recovery justified, as the father’s unlawful conduct led to a prolonged separation of the mother from her son, which caused her mental suffering.
* The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the “danger” of the mother’s residential area, calling them unsubstantiated assumptions not supported by official data.
* The defendant’s procedural rights were not violated, as he was duly notified of the hearings, and the court deemed his motions to postpone the proceedings due to illness to be unfounded.
* **Legal position:** In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the application of the analogy of the law (Article 162 of the Family Code of Ukraine), relying on the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated March 25, 2024 (case No. 183/1464/22), which allows for the protection of parental rights in cases where the child’s place of residence was changed before a court decision was rendered, and was not returned thereafter.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the removal of the child and the recovery of non-pecuniary damage.
