1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of legal facts, in particular, the place of residence of the child with the father, the fact of the mother’s missing status, the fact of the child’s upbringing by the father independently, and the father’s status as a single father for receiving state social assistance.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating the following:
* The courts of previous instances did not establish the actual content and purpose of the applicant’s claims, who requested to establish the fact of the child’s mother’s missing status, referring to the article of the Civil Code of Ukraine that regulates the recognition of a person as missing. In case of unclear requirements, the court should have left the application without progress for clarification.
* The appellate court did not examine and evaluate the extract from the Unified Register of Persons Missing Under Special Circumstances, which was attached to the case file and confirmed the child’s mother’s acquisition of the status of a person missing under special circumstances.
* The courts of previous instances did not consider all the claims of the application, in particular, regarding the establishment of the child’s place of residence with the father and the father’s status as a single father.
* The court of cassation noted that the approach to determining the jurisdiction of disputes in court regarding the establishment of facts of legal significance, depending on the purpose of their application and the applicant’s possession of certain civil rights and obligations or the emergence of public law disputes with subjects of power, is ineffective, as this will not contribute to the proper way to protect the violated right of the applicant, because it will lead to the need to apply to courts of different jurisdictions with proving the same circumstances, events and facts when submitting each statement of claim.
* The court of cassation referred to the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which stated that cases on the establishment of facts of legal significance are considered in extrajudicial and judicial proceedings, and departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
