1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging the refusal of the courts of lower instances to appoint a son as a custodian over his father, whose civil capacity had been limited due to a mental disorder.
2. **Core arguments of the court:**
* The courts of the first and appellate instances erroneously held that the fact of the applicant’s military service serves as an automatic ground for refusal to appoint him as a custodian.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that civil legislation contains an exhaustive list of circumstances under which a person cannot be a custodian (Article 64 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and military service is not among them.
* The Court noted that an individual’s professional status or line of work is not decisive; the primary consideration is the best interests of the ward and the custodian’s actual ability to perform their duties.
* The guardianship and custodianship authority submitted a formal recommendation regarding the appropriateness of appointing this particular applicant, which the courts failed to examine properly.
* The court does not have the right to substitute its discretion for that of the guardianship and custodianship authority in assessing a candidate, provided that the recommendation is lawful and no obstacles to the person’s appointment have been established.
* The Court noted that it is departing from the previous position held in other Supreme Court rulings, as the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 305/1557/24 has definitively clarified that military service is not an absolute obstacle to performing the functions of a guardian or custodian.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the refusal to appoint a custodian, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial.
