Joint Physical Custody (50/50) in Ukraine: Supreme Court Case Law

Joint physical custody of a child is not provided for by law but was introduced by the case law of the Supreme Court

The mother and the father have equal rights and duties toward the child regardless of whether they are married or live together (Article 141 of the Family Code of Ukraine). The place of residence of a child under ten is determined by agreement between the parents. Once the child turns ten, the place of residence is determined by joint agreement of the parents and the child. A child who has reached fourteen chooses their place of residence independently (Article 160 of the Family Code of Ukraine).

If the parents live apart and cannot agree on whom the child will live with, the dispute is resolved by the guardianship authority or by a court. Based on the provisions of the Family Code and long-standing case law, courts determine the child's place of residence with one parent, while the other parent has the right to take part in the child's upbringing.

The circumstances that the guardianship authority or the court takes into account when resolving a dispute between parents are listed in Article 161(1) of the Family Code of Ukraine:

"If the mother and the father who live separately have not agreed on which of them the minor child will live with, the dispute between them may be resolved by the guardianship authority or by a court. In resolving a dispute over the place of residence of a minor child, account is taken of the parents' attitude to the performance of their parental duties, the child's personal attachment to each of them, the child's age, state of health and other circumstances of material importance."

Article 161(1) of the Family Code of Ukraine does not expressly allow a court to order a child to reside alternately with each parent. The Supreme Court introduced this possibility in its rulings. It held that where both parents are equally capable of raising the child, work in the same city and live in neighboring towns, ordering the child to reside alternately with each of them serves the child's best interests (Supreme Court ruling of February 16, 2024 in case No. 465/6496/19, paragraphs 109 and 115). A child needs to be raised by both a mother and a father, so joint physical custody brings back into the child's life the parent with whom contact had been lost (the same ruling, paragraph 121). The Supreme Court reached this conclusion with reference to paragraph 67 of General Comment No. 14 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on shared parental responsibility and to PACE Resolution 2079 (2015), which calls on states to allow for shared custody after divorce.

Consider the joint physical custody ordered by the Supreme Court ruling of February 16, 2024 in case No. 465/6496/19. In that case, the father of three sons asked the court to determine the children's place of residence with him, and the mother, in a counterclaim, asked for their place of residence to be determined with her. After the divorce, the two older brothers stayed with their father in Vynnyky, while the youngest lived with their mother in Lviv. The Frankivskyi District Court of Lviv determined the residence of the two older sons with the father and of the youngest with the mother. The youngest son later also moved in with his father and lived with him and his older brothers for about two years. The Lviv Court of Appeal set aside the judgment regarding the youngest son and, given his attachment to his father and brothers, determined the residence of all three sons with the father. Both parents work as doctors in the same city, have adequate housing and had expressed a wish to care for the children equally. During the appeal, the children confirmed in the presence of two psychologists that they wanted to live with their father and objected to living with their mother, fearing that she would provoke conflicts and call the police and the Children's Service. During the cassation review, each parent submitted a draft settlement agreement with a schedule under which the children would live two weeks with the father and two weeks with the mother, and the Children's Service stressed that joint physical custody would encourage cooperation between the parents and ensure the children's proper upbringing.

The children wanted to live with their father, but the Supreme Court did not determine their residence with him alone. The Court considered that the children had expressed the wish not to change their residence under the influence of having lived with their father for several years without proper contact with their mother (paragraph 118 of the ruling). The children are attached to their father and have social ties where he lives, but they also need their mother's care, and the case file contains no evidence that restoring contact with the mother is impossible or harmful to them (paragraphs 119 and 120). The Supreme Court ordered the two younger brothers to reside alternately: two weeks with the father and two weeks with the mother, starting with the father on February 18, 2024. The eldest son had already turned fourteen when the court of first instance gave its judgment, so he had the right to choose which parent to live with (Article 160(3) of the Family Code of Ukraine), and the Supreme Court did not determine his place of residence (paragraphs 124 and 125). During the appeal, the eldest son had said he wished to live with his father. Given the emotional bond between the brothers, the Supreme Court noted that the eldest son may also live with his younger brothers during the two weeks they spend with their mother, and that the parents should facilitate this (paragraph 126).

Five conditions under which a court orders a child to reside alternately with each parent

The general circumstances that a court takes into account when resolving a dispute over a child's place of residence are listed in Article 161(1) of the Family Code of Ukraine: the parents' attitude to the performance of their parental duties, the child's personal attachment to each of them, and the child's age and state of health. These circumstances are not enough to order joint physical custody. Courts must also consider the circumstances identified by the Supreme Court in its ruling of February 16, 2024 in case No. 465/6496/19 (paragraph 108):

"In deciding whether joint physical custody can be established, courts must, in addition to the general circumstances, also take into account: the wish of each parent for the child to live with them and their consent to take part in the child's upbringing and care; the existence of stable relationships between both parents and the child and the child's wish to communicate with both parents; the absence of the circumstances set out in Article 161(2) of the Family Code of Ukraine and of other circumstances that may threaten the child's interests; each parent having the time and ability to care for the child properly; each parent's place of residence being not far from the child's habitual place of residence (the child's established center of life), and so on."

The cassation court repeats this list in later cases (Supreme Court rulings of March 5, 2025 in case No. 199/7566/22 and of July 22, 2026 in case No. 173/919/25).

The court establishes these circumstances on the basis of evidence and assesses them as a whole. Opinions of the relevant specialists confirm that regularly moving between homes will not adversely affect the child. The court must assess these opinions together with the other evidence and verify that effect. If the parties did not submit such evidence and the courts did not verify the effect, the Supreme Court sets aside joint physical custody decisions as premature (Supreme Court rulings of May 21, 2025 in case No. 953/9454/23 and of July 22, 2026 in case No. 173/919/25).

Evidence in cases on joint physical custody of a child with each parent

In any dispute over a child's residence with one parent, the parties submit housing inspection reports, income statements and character references. This evidence confirms that each parent has proper conditions for the child to live with them and performs their parental duties. For a court to order joint physical custody, four more groups of evidence are needed.

The first group is the opinion of a forensic psychological examination that addresses joint physical custody specifically: whether it is possible for the child in view of the child's individual psychological characteristics, emotional state, level of development and interests. The Dnipro Court of Appeal put this question to the expert in a case on the father's claim and the mother's counterclaim to determine their daughter's place of residence. The daughter had lived with her father for more than two years and refused not only to live with her mother but even to communicate with her. In its opinion, the guardianship authority found joint physical custody inappropriate. The forensic expert concluded that joint physical custody was possible. The expert separately established the negative influence of the father, who was drawing the child into the adults' conflict, and of the grandmother and aunt, who were pushing the mother out of the girl's life. Taking the expert's opinion into account, the Court of Appeal ordered the child to reside alternately: three weeks with the father and three weeks with the mother, and noted that this decision aims to bring the mother back into the child's life and upbringing. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate ruling (Supreme Court ruling of August 6, 2025 in case No. 172/491/22).

The forensic expert also establishes whether the child, given their age, emotional state and level of development, can independently and consciously assess how each parent treats them. This determines how far the court can rely on the child's stated wish to live with one parent. In a case on the father's claim and the mother's counterclaim to determine the residence of their preschool-age son, the forensic expert concluded that the child could not make such an assessment and that, at an early preschool age, the father and the mother are equally important for the child's balanced development. The Dnipro Court of Appeal ordered the son to reside alternately: two weeks with the father and two weeks with the mother. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and upheld its ruling, having regard to the expert's opinion, the parents' positive references and the absence of any conduct posing a risk to the child (Supreme Court ruling of March 5, 2025 in case No. 199/7566/22, paragraphs 118 and 120).

If a party refused a forensic psychological examination and then objects to the psychologists' opinions already in the case file, the court finds these objections unfounded and decides the dispute on the evidence in the file. In a case on the mother's claim and the father's counterclaim to determine the residence of their preschool-age daughter, the mother asked for the child's residence to be determined with her, and the father asked for joint physical custody. The father moved for a forensic psychological examination, but the mother refused it. The Ternopil City and District Court of Ternopil Region assessed the opinions of two psychologists, who confirmed them at the hearing as specialists, and ordered the child to reside alternately: a week with the father and a week with the mother. In her appeal, the mother disagreed with one psychologist's opinion and pointed to its inconsistency with the other. The Ternopil Court of Appeal explained the inconsistency by the different research methods the psychologists had used and noted that the father had moved for an examination to determine the child's residence more objectively, while the mother had refused it. The Court of Appeal therefore found the mother's arguments unfounded and upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court agreed with the courts of both instances and upheld their decisions (Supreme Court ruling of October 9, 2026 in case No. 607/21670/24).

The second group is an opinion of the guardianship authority recommending joint physical custody. If the guardianship authority considered only which parent the child should live with, the Supreme Court regards the possibility of joint physical custody as not examined (Supreme Court rulings of January 10, 2024 in case No. 183/3958/20, paragraph 93, of February 26, 2025 in case No. 714/1281/23, and of April 8, 2026 in case No. 210/1936/22). The father or the mother therefore expressly asks the guardianship authority, in their application, to recommend joint physical custody.

A court that rejects the guardianship authority's recommendation of joint physical custody must give sufficient reasons. The Children and Family Service of the Sviatoshynskyi District State Administration in Kyiv recommended that two children reside alternately: a month with the father and a month with the mother. The courts of first and appellate instance disagreed with this opinion, considering that constant changes of residence were contrary to the children's interests. The Supreme Court found that the courts had not given sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinion and itself ordered the children to reside on that schedule (Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024 in case No. 754/3063/22, paragraphs 176 and 184).

The guardianship authority's opinion is evidence that the court assesses together with the other evidence, and the court may disagree with it if the opinion is insufficiently reasoned or contrary to the child's interests. In case No. 607/21670/24, the guardianship authority recommended that the girl live with her mother. The Ternopil City and District Court of Ternopil Region assessed this opinion together with the psychologists' opinions and the other evidence and ordered the child to reside alternately: a week with the father and a week with the mother. The Ternopil Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld this judgment (Supreme Court ruling of October 9, 2026 in case No. 607/21670/24, paragraphs 103–105, with reference to Article 19(6) of the Family Code of Ukraine).

The third group is evidence of how the child will get to school or kindergarten from each home and whether the child will have to change schools. In determining a child's place of residence, the court considers whether the place of study will change and whether this will lead to significant changes, in particular in commuting, adaptation and environment (Supreme Court ruling of July 15, 2026 in case No. 461/4457/23, paragraph 215). In that case, the Halytskyi District Court of Lviv ordered the daughter to reside alternately: a month with the father and a month with the mother. During the appeal, the father, who lived in Lviv, rented an apartment in Vinnytsia in the building next to the one where his daughter lives with her mother and attends a lyceum. The lease confirmed that the child would be able to attend the same lyceum from both homes. The Lviv Court of Appeal therefore amended the judgment in this part and provided that the child spends her month with the father in the city where she studies. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and upheld its ruling.

The fourth group is evidence of the child's views and the circumstances in which they were formed. If the child lived with one parent for several years without proper contact with the other, the court assesses the child's wish not to change their residence in light of these circumstances (Supreme Court rulings of February 16, 2024 in case No. 465/6496/19, paragraph 118, and of May 22, 2024 in case No. 754/3063/22, paragraph 181). In case No. 754/3063/22, the Supreme Court concluded that the children had lost contact with their mother because the father, in breach of the parents' agreement, had unilaterally changed their place of residence. The children explained their objections to living with their mother by the fear that she might take them away from their father. The Supreme Court called these fears artificial apprehensions that do not show that the children are unwilling to communicate with their mother.

The court must also assess the child's objections to living with one of the parents. If the courts failed to do so, the Supreme Court sets aside the joint physical custody decision (Supreme Court ruling of July 22, 2026 in case No. 173/919/25, discussed in detail in the next section).

Circumstances in which courts refuse to order joint physical custody

The Supreme Court has upheld decisions refusing joint physical custody, or set aside joint physical custody decisions, where the parents live in distant towns or in different countries, the child's health requires a stable environment, joint physical custody would separate the child from their brothers and sisters, or the parents' conflict has already affected the children's attitude toward one parent, and the case file contains no specialist opinions.

"…although the parents have positive references, express a wish to care for the child equally, and have the time and ability to care for the child properly, the Supreme Court cannot disregard the fact that the parents live in different regions of Ukraine (the mother in Sumy Region, the father in Kharkiv Region); therefore, taking these circumstances into account, as well as the age of the child, who was seven years old at the time of the cassation review, the Supreme Court finds that, in the circumstances of this case, joint physical custody is inappropriate…"

Source: Supreme Court ruling of May 8, 2024 in case No. 635/8680/20.

"At the same time, the parties did not submit proper evidence, in particular opinions of the relevant specialists, confirming that alternating changes of residence would not adversely affect the condition of a child with special needs (a child with a subgroup A disability)."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of January 10, 2024 in case No. 183/3958/20 (paragraph 92).

"Neither the father nor the mother raised the issue of establishing joint physical custody of the child in this case; the guardianship authority did not examine whether the child could live alternately with the father and the mother; and no relevant opinions were provided, in particular on how such a custody arrangement and the constant change of the child's habitual stable family environment would affect the child's psychological state. Nor did the courts examine how the child would attend school under shared custody, given that [the child] attends the Hodyliv general secondary school at the mother's place of residence, while the parents live in different villages."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of February 26, 2025 in case No. 714/1281/23.

"…neither [the mother], who categorically objects to shared custody of the children, nor [the father], who insists on the children residing alternately with each parent, submitted proper evidence confirming or refuting the possibility and appropriateness of the children residing alternately with both parents, in particular opinions of the relevant specialists confirming that alternating changes of residence would not adversely affect the children."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of July 22, 2026 in case No. 173/919/25.

A conflict between the parents does not in itself prevent joint physical custody. The Supreme Court has ordered joint physical custody, or upheld such decisions, even where the courts found a personal conflict and hostile relations between the parents that kept them from agreeing on custody without going to court. In case No. 465/6496/19, the children feared that their mother would provoke conflicts and call the police and the Children's Service (Supreme Court ruling of February 16, 2024, paragraphs 106 and 110). In case No. 754/3063/22, the father agreed only to the children meeting their mother on his terms and in his presence, and the mediator ended family mediation because of the high level of escalation (Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024, paragraphs 155 and 171). In case No. 461/4457/23, the mother submitted video recordings as evidence of domestic violence by the father, but the Lviv Court of Appeal concluded that the recordings showed a conflict provoked by both parents and witnessed by the child. The courts treated psychologists' opinions on the child's depressed state only as confirmation of her distress over the parents' conflict, which did not show which parent the child should live with (Supreme Court ruling of July 15, 2026, paragraphs 159 and 249). The court assesses differently a conflict that has already affected the children's attitude toward one parent. In case No. 173/919/25, the children refused to go to their father, the state enforcement officer closed the enforcement proceedings for that reason, and the daughter objected to living with her father. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court requires specialist opinions that alternating changes of residence will not adversely affect the children and, without them, sets aside joint physical custody decisions.

Joint physical custody as a way to restore the involvement of a parent who has lost contact with the child

Where one parent unilaterally changed the child's place of residence and obstructed the child's contact with the other parent, courts have ordered joint physical custody to bring the other parent back into the child's life and upbringing.

In a case on the father's claim and the mother's counterclaim to determine the residence of their two children, the parents had concluded a notarized agreement in April 2021 under which the children were to live with their mother. In breach of that agreement, however, the father unilaterally changed the children's place of residence: in September 2021 he rented an apartment and moved there with them. The mother repeatedly turned to the police to locate the children and find out their address. When interviewed, the children said they wanted to live with their father because it was more convenient for them, that they loved their mom and wanted to communicate with her, but did not want to change school or home. The Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv determined the children's residence with the father, and the Kyiv Court of Appeal agreed. The Supreme Court set aside these decisions, stating:

"The partial loss of emotional contact between [the mother] and [the children] is caused not by the mother's indifference or unwillingness to perform her parental duties, but by the impossibility of communicating with the children, caused, among other things, by the conduct of [the father], who, in breach of the agreement concluded between the parties, unilaterally changed their place of residence. At the same time, the children's stated objections to living with their mother are based on artificial apprehensions that the mother may take them away from their father, rather than on unwillingness to communicate with her."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024 in case No. 754/3063/22 (paragraph 181).

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance and itself ordered the children to reside alternately: a month with the father and a month with the mother, starting with the father on June 1, 2024.

The Dnipro Court of Appeal resolved the dispute in the same way in case No. 172/491/22, described in the section on evidence. A psychologist involved in the enforcement actions noted that the daughter's view of her mother had probably been shaped by her father. The Court of Appeal ordered the child to reside alternately: three weeks with the father and three weeks with the mother. The child spends the first period with her father, with whom she had lived for more than two years, so that the parents and the child can rebuild their communication. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate ruling (Supreme Court ruling of August 6, 2025 in case No. 172/491/22).

The courts took the same approach in case No. 461/4457/23, where the mother changed their daughter's place of residence without the father's knowledge or consent and obstructed their contact. The Halytskyi District Court of Lviv ordered the daughter to reside alternately: a month with the father and a month with the mother. The Lviv Court of Appeal agreed with this decision and noted that it aims to bring the father back into the child's life and upbringing (Supreme Court ruling of July 15, 2026 in case No. 461/4457/23, paragraphs 35–37).

Another remedy is a claim to determine how the parent living apart takes part in the child's upbringing. A parent who lives apart from the child must take part in the child's upbringing and has the right to personal contact with the child, and the parent with whom the child lives has no right to obstruct this (Article 157(2) and (3) of the Family Code of Ukraine). Under such a judgment, the child lives permanently with one parent, and the other communicates with the child at times set by the court. Joint physical custody, as the Supreme Court noted, aims precisely to bring the parent who has lost contact back into the children's life and upbringing (Supreme Court ruling of February 16, 2024 in case No. 465/6496/19, paragraph 121).

Can a court order joint physical custody if neither party asked for it

The case law of the Civil Cassation Court takes two approaches to this question.

Panels of judges following the first approach treat the division of parenting time as a way of resolving the dispute over the child's place of residence, not as a separate claim:

"…the court's application of a particular model of parental custody and its division of parenting time in a proportion set by the court does not go beyond the claims to determine the child's place of residence but is an application of the principle of the best interests of the child."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of March 5, 2025 in case No. 199/7566/22 (paragraph 112); the same conclusion appears in the ruling of August 6, 2025 in case No. 172/491/22.

Panels of judges following the second approach consider the parents' consent a necessary condition for joint physical custody:

"…the Supreme Court has drawn attention to the possibility of courts applying the model of joint physical custody of a child by the parents and has set out the necessary conditions for this, which in essence amount to the consent of the child's parents. In the case under review, the parties did not bring claims for the application of the joint physical custody model (joint physical custody according to a schedule)."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of January 14, 2026 in case No. 759/3051/23; the same conclusion appears in the ruling of April 8, 2026 in case No. 210/1936/22.

The outcomes of specific cases show how courts apply these approaches. The cases fall into three groups. In the first, neither party asked for joint physical custody, but the court ordered it and the Supreme Court agreed. In the second, the court of appeal or the Supreme Court set aside joint physical custody decisions because the parties had not asked for it. In the third, one parent asked for joint physical custody: in a claim, in a counterclaim, or for the first time in an appeal or a cassation appeal.

Cases in which a court ordered joint physical custody without a request from the parties and the Supreme Court agreed

• A preschool-age son. Each parent asked for the child's residence to be determined with them. The Dnipro Court of Appeal ordered the son to reside alternately: two weeks with the father and two weeks with the mother. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and upheld its ruling (ruling of March 5, 2025 in case No. 199/7566/22).
• A nine-year-old daughter. The father and the mother each asked for the child's residence to be determined with them. The Dnipro Court of Appeal ordered the daughter to reside alternately: three weeks with the father and three weeks with the mother. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and upheld its ruling (ruling of August 6, 2025 in case No. 172/491/22).
• The daughter lived with her father in the Valky community of Bohodukhiv District, and the mother rented housing in Kharkiv. The mother asked for the daughter's residence to be determined with her, and the father, in a counterclaim, with him. The Oktiabrskyi District Court of Poltava determined the child's residence with the father. The Poltava Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and determined the child's residence with the mother. The Supreme Court noted that the courts had not considered joint physical custody, even though the case file contained a draft agreement between the parents on taking part in the child's upbringing in which the parents themselves proposed a schedule: from Monday to Friday the daughter lives with her father, and from Friday to Monday with her mother. Taking this draft into account, the Supreme Court set aside the appellate ruling and itself ordered the daughter to reside alternately: with the father from 9:00 a.m. Monday to 2:00 p.m. Friday and with the mother from 2:00 p.m. Friday to 9:00 a.m. Monday (ruling of May 22, 2024 in case No. 643/7509/21).
• The daughter goes to school in Vinnytsia, and the mother objected to joint physical custody. The Halytskyi District Court of Lviv ordered the daughter to reside alternately: a month with the father and a month with the mother. The Lviv Court of Appeal agreed with this schedule and amended the judgment only as to where the daughter lives with her father. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate ruling and the unamended part of the first-instance judgment (ruling of July 15, 2026 in case No. 461/4457/23).

Cases in which the court of appeal or the Supreme Court set aside joint physical custody decisions that the parties had not asked for

• A first-grade girl. The Sviatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv determined the child's residence with the father. The Kyiv Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and ordered the child to reside alternately: two weeks with the father and two weeks with the mother. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate ruling and upheld the first-instance judgment (ruling of January 14, 2026 in case No. 759/3051/23).
• The younger of two sons in one case, and a first-grader who lived with his mother, sisters and brother in another. The courts of first and appellate instance ordered both children to reside alternately: two weeks with the father and two weeks with the mother. The Supreme Court set aside these decisions and remitted the cases for a new hearing: in the first case, the courts had not established whether each parent wanted joint physical custody, and in the second, neither the father nor the mother had proposed this arrangement (rulings of May 21, 2025 in case No. 953/9454/23 and of February 26, 2025 in case No. 714/1281/23).
• The parents lived in different cities. In case No. 202/2883/22, the Supreme Court agreed with the Poltava Court of Appeal, which had set aside the joint physical custody judgment (from January 1 to July 1 with the father and from July 1 to January 1 with the mother) and determined the son's residence with the mother. In case No. 210/1936/22, the Supreme Court set aside the Dnipro Court of Appeal's joint physical custody ruling and determined the child's residence with the father. In both cases, the Supreme Court noted that the parties had not made such a claim (rulings of November 12, 2025 in case No. 202/2883/22 and of April 8, 2026 in case No. 210/1936/22).

Cases in which one parent asked for joint physical custody

If a claim for joint physical custody is made in a claim or a counterclaim, the court decides it within the scope of the claims. In case No. 607/21670/24, the mother asked for their preschool-age daughter's residence to be determined with her, and the father asked for joint physical custody in a counterclaim. The Ternopil City and District Court of Ternopil Region ordered the child to reside alternately: a week with the father and a week with the mother, and the Ternopil Court of Appeal agreed. The Supreme Court rejected the mother's arguments that weekly changes of home were harmful, because the child had already been spending weekends with her father, had her everyday life and stable social ties there, and the parents live in nearby towns (Supreme Court ruling of October 9, 2026 in case No. 607/21670/24, paragraphs 96, 97 and 99).

The situation is different when a party first asks for joint physical custody only in an appeal. In case No. 344/12972/22, the father asked for his two sons' residence to be determined with him, and the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court refused. In his appeal, the father asked for the first time, as an alternative, for the children to reside alternately, and the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal ordered: a week with the father and three weeks with the mother. The Supreme Court found this conclusion premature and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for a new hearing. The father then withdrew his appeal, and the judgment of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court remained in force (Supreme Court ruling of October 23, 2024 and ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal of March 25, 2025 in case No. 344/12972/22).

In case No. 569/17026/23, the father first raised joint physical custody only in his cassation appeal. The mother, who lived with their son in the Czech Republic, asked for the son's residence to be determined with her. The father, in a counterclaim, asked for the son's residence to be determined with him. The Rivne City Court of Rivne Region granted the mother's claim and dismissed the father's, and the Rivne Court of Appeal agreed. In his cassation appeal, the father argued that the courts had disregarded the parties' attempts to agree on joint physical custody, in particular on the son living with his father during school holidays. The Supreme Court did not take these arguments into account because neither the mother nor the father had made such a claim, and upheld the decisions (Supreme Court ruling of August 4, 2026 in case No. 569/17026/23).

The father or the mother therefore asks the court to order joint physical custody in a claim or a counterclaim before the court of first instance.

Joint physical custody schedules and the wording of the operative part of judgments

Courts set the length of the period with each parent based on the circumstances of the specific case. In the cases shown in the table, it ranged from part of a week to a month, and in one case six months.

In case No. 465/6496/19, the Supreme Court itself ordered the children to reside alternately, so the operative part of its ruling of February 16, 2024 is a ready-made model for wording such a decision. It contains four elements: the length of the period and the addresses of both parents; the day of the week and the time when each period begins and ends; which parent the child spends the first period with and from what date; and the duty of the parent with whom the child has lived, at the end of the period, to bring the child to the other parent's place of residence and hand the child over to that parent's physical custody. The operative parts of the Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024 in case No. 754/3063/22 and of the Dnipro Court of Appeal ruling of December 13, 2024 in case No. 172/491/22 have the same structure.

Other decisions lack the fourth element. The Ternopil City and District Court of Ternopil Region in its judgment of October 29, 2025 in case No. 607/21670/24 and the Dnipro Court of Appeal in its ruling of October 22, 2024 in case No. 199/7566/22 did not impose a duty to bring and hand over the child. If one parent refuses to hand over the child, the enforcement officer will not be able to compel that parent to do so, because the decision contains no such duty.

The parents may agree on arrangements different from those set by the court. In case No. 643/7509/21, the Supreme Court set the schedule only "in the absence of another agreement between the parents" and noted that it remains in effect if the parents move to other housing within the same towns (Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024 in case No. 643/7509/21, paragraph 98). In case No. 754/3063/22, the Supreme Court also noted that joint physical custody obliges both parents "to create the most comfortable living conditions for the children and not to take actions aimed at a significant change in the children's settled way of life" (Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024 in case No. 754/3063/22, paragraph 185).

A court decision cannot make a child's place of residence depend on future events. The Zmiivskyi District Court of Kharkiv Region determined the son's residence with the mother while she stayed in Ukraine and with the father while she was in Turkey, where she held a residence permit and had registered a marriage. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment in this part because a court decision must be as complete, clear and precise as possible (Supreme Court ruling of February 12, 2020 in case No. 621/532/17).

Joint physical custody as an interim measure

In disputes arising from family relations, a claim may be secured by imposing a duty to perform certain actions (Article 150(1)(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine). However, interim measures must be proportionate to the claims and cannot be equivalent to granting the claim before the dispute is decided on the merits (Article 150(3) and (10) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine). The Supreme Court regards a temporary joint physical custody schedule for the duration of the proceedings as exactly such an impermissible measure.

The father of two sons asked that, for the duration of the proceedings, the children stay with him every week from 12:00 noon Sunday to 12:00 noon Thursday. The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the children to stay with their father every week from 12:00 noon Sunday to 12:00 noon Wednesday, and the court of appeal agreed. The Supreme Court set aside these orders in that part:

"Applying interim measures by establishing a schedule of meetings (residence) of the children in substance resolves a dispute that must be initiated separately and replaces the court's decision on the merits. By establishing such a schedule of the children's residence with the father and the mother, the courts in effect established joint physical custody of the children by both parents, even though the parties had made no such claims."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of May 29, 2024 in case No. 761/18991/23. The Supreme Court did not accept the possibility of lengthy proceedings as grounds for interim measures, because this sets the court and the parties up to drag out the proceedings.

For a very young child, courts also take into account the stress of a weekly change of home. The father took their daughter, aged 2 years and 10 months, and the Apostolove District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region set a "week with the mother, week with the father" schedule for the duration of the proceedings. The Dnipro Court of Appeal set aside that order, noting that the measure in effect temporarily changed the child's place of residence and prevented her from attending the kindergarten in which she was enrolled. The Supreme Court agreed:

"…applying interim measures by establishing a schedule under which a minor child stays alternately with the mother and the father at certain (short) intervals is not in the interests of a minor child, who will be forced to change her place of residence every week, adapt to the circumstances arising from this, and suffer unjustified stress."

Source: Supreme Court ruling of September 10, 2025 in case No. 177/2492/24; the same conclusion is repeated in the ruling of September 25, 2025 in case No. 756/11925/23.

For the duration of the proceedings, a permissible measure is to remove obstacles to contact with the child for the parent with whom the child does not actually live. The father of a first-grader had not returned the son to his mother since December 21, 2024, and a police officer drew up a report against him under Article 184(1) of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses because the child was not attending school. The Kyiv Court of Appeal set meetings between the mother and the son every second and fourth Saturday of the month with an overnight stay. The Supreme Court upheld this measure and rejected the mother's argument that the time set was not enough to rebuild contact with the child (Supreme Court ruling of September 25, 2025 in case No. 756/11925/23).

Some first-instance courts order joint physical custody for the duration of the proceedings despite this Supreme Court case law. By an order of February 10, 2026 in case No. 752/29228/25, the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered a schoolboy to reside alternately: a week with the father and a week with the mother, after the father had taken the son from school to a dormitory room and kept the mother away from him. The state enforcement officer returned the order without accepting it for enforcement. By an order of May 14, 2026, the court clarified that the order was subject to compulsory enforcement and corrected a clerical error by naming the creditor and the debtor in it. The Kyiv Court of Appeal opened appellate proceedings on the appeal against the interim measures order.

Therefore, for the duration of the proceedings, the parent with whom the child does not actually live asks the court to remove obstacles to contact with the child, while joint physical custody is ordered by the court in its decision on the merits or agreed by the parents in a settlement agreement. Both cases in which the courts set aside temporary joint physical custody ended in settlement agreements. In case No. 761/18991/23, the parents agreed that the mother spends seven days out of every fourteen with the children, with handovers every Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. (order of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv of January 20, 2025). In case No. 177/2492/24, the parents agreed that the child's main place of residence is the father's place of residence (order of the Apostolove District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region of November 5, 2025).

Enforcement of a joint physical custody judgment

A joint physical custody judgment requires each parent, at the end of their period, to bring the child to the other parent's home and hand the child over. As of November 2026, the Supreme Court has not decided whether this duty is subject to compulsory enforcement, and state enforcement officers and lower courts take different views.

An enforcement document must contain the operative part of a decision that provides for measures of compulsory enforcement. If enforcement of the decision does not involve such measures, the enforcement officer returns the document without accepting it (Article 4(1)(5) and Article 4(4)(7) of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings"). If the operative part requires several actions, the enforcement document names one debtor and one creditor (Article 4(2) of the same Law).

A decision determining a child's residence with one parent does not provide for measures of compulsory enforcement, as the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court pointed out:

"A court decision determining a child's place of residence is in essence a declaratory decision and in content a non-pecuniary decision. Since a court decision determining a child's place of residence imposes no duty on the debtor (the parent with whom the child actually lives) to perform any actions, such a decision is not subject to compulsory enforcement."

Source: ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of March 25, 2024 in case No. 183/1464/22.

A parent to whom the other parent does not return the child files a claim for the removal of the child under Article 162 of the Family Code of Ukraine. The Joint Chamber applied this article by analogy also to a situation where one parent took the child before the decision on residence was made and did not return the child after it.

Unlike such a decision, a joint physical custody judgment contains a duty to perform actions. However, in case No. 754/3063/22, two panels of the Kyiv Court of Appeal assessed the writ of execution issued under such a judgment in opposite ways. After the Supreme Court ruling of May 22, 2024, the father did not hand the children over to the mother. On August 6, 2024, the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv issued a writ of execution, and on September 5, 2024, the state enforcement officer returned it without accepting it, considering that the decision did not provide for measures of compulsory enforcement.

By an order of November 13, 2024, the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv found the return unlawful and ordered the officer to open enforcement proceedings. The court reasoned that the decision obliges both parents to follow the schedule and clearly specifies what actions they must take and by when, and that the children's unwillingness does not release the parents from compliance. The Kyiv Court of Appeal agreed in a ruling of April 10, 2025, and enforcement proceedings were opened on May 2, 2025.

Five months later, another panel of the same Kyiv Court of Appeal, in a ruling of September 29, 2025, declared the same writ of execution unenforceable and explained:

"The obligation to accompany the children provided for in the decision does not affect the essence of the main decision determining the children's place of residence. It is an auxiliary measure aimed at safeguarding the children's interests and does not change the legal nature of the main decision. Accordingly, the existence of such an obligation is not a ground for issuing a writ of execution or for reclassifying the decision."

Source: Kyiv Court of Appeal ruling of September 29, 2025 in case No. 754/3063/22. The court also noted that the writ named only the mother as creditor, although, depending on the month, each parent is both creditor and debtor.

The Supreme Court did not review this ruling, because orders declaring an enforcement document unenforceable cannot be appealed in cassation after appellate review (Supreme Court order of November 3, 2025 in case No. 754/3063/22). On the father's cassation appeal against the order of November 13, 2024 and the ruling of April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court opened cassation proceedings by an order of May 27, 2025. As of November 2026, the Supreme Court has not issued a ruling following that review, so a Supreme Court position on compulsory enforcement of the schedule may still emerge.

In case No. 465/6496/19, the state enforcement officer opened enforcement proceedings, but the Frankivskyi District Court of Lviv, on the father's complaint, ordered the officer by an order of May 15, 2024 to cancel the decision to open them, because it did not fully reproduce the operative part of the judgment and did not cite the provision of law on which the officer relied.

A parent who does not receive the child under the schedule has two options: present the writ of execution and challenge its return or the closing of the proceedings, or file a claim for the return and removal of the child under Article 162 of the Family Code of Ukraine. A removal claim resolves the dispute for a specific period, so if the schedule is breached systematically, the claim will have to be filed again.

How to draft the prayer for relief in a claim for joint physical custody

The prayer for relief must set out how the child lives with each parent and the specific duties of each parent that can be enforced. The parent who goes to court therefore builds it from the following elements.

1. 01
   An express claim for joint physical custody

   The claimant asks for the child to reside alternately with each parent in the claim, and the respondent does so in a counterclaim. Both do this before the court of first instance.

2. 02
   Length of the period and addresses

   The claimant states the length of the period the child spends with each parent and the full addresses of both homes, so that the court and the enforcement officer can verify where the child is in each period.

3. 03
   Start, end and the first period

   The claimant asks the court to set the day of the week and the time when each period begins and ends, which parent the child spends the first period with, and from what date or event, for example from the first Sunday after the judgment becomes final.

4. 04
   The duty to hand over the child, separately for the father and for the mother

   The claimant frames the duty to bring the child to the other parent's address and hand the child over as two separate items, so that each has one debtor and one creditor, as required by Article 4(2) of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings."

5. 05
   Special dates

   If needed, the claimant asks the court to set separately the days that are not governed by the schedule. In case No. 607/21670/24, the Ternopil City and District Court of Ternopil Region assigned June 18 of each year to the mother and August 11 to the father.

Together with the claim, the claimant files a motion asking the court to oblige the guardianship authority to prepare an opinion for the court on joint physical custody and a motion for a forensic psychological examination addressing whether joint physical custody is possible for the child. The examination is ordered by the court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cited the absence of such evidence as grounds for setting aside joint physical custody decisions (Supreme Court rulings of May 21, 2025 in case No. 953/9454/23 and of July 22, 2026 in case No. 173/919/25).