Custody Dispute in Bilotserkivsky Court and Recognition of Suweileh Sharia Court Judgment in Jordan: A Case That Ended in Family Reunification

A Jordanian national found himself facing two parallel proceedings — in Ukraine and Jordan — over the custody of his own children. Both cases were closed. The family reunited.

Introduction

In the autumn of 2024, a Jordanian citizen approached Disputes Law Firm with a situation that is rarely seen even in complex international family law practice: two simultaneous proceedings over the same subject matter — the place of residence of two young children — being litigated in different countries under different legal systems, with outcomes that could have directly contradicted each other.

In March 2024, the client's wife, a Ukrainian national, filed a claim with Bilotserkivsky City and District Court seeking to establish the children's residence with her in Ukraine. In May 2024, the Suweileh Sharia Court of First Instance in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan issued a default judgment ordering that the children be transferred to the father and requiring the mother to return them to Jordan. That judgment still needed to be recognized in Ukraine. The client required legal defense on both fronts simultaneously. By early 2025, both proceedings were closed — after the couple decided to reconcile and relocate together to Jordan.

Background

The couple met and married in Jordan. Two children were born of the marriage: the elder child in January 2019 and the younger in July 2020. Both children are Jordanian nationals. At some point the relationship deteriorated, and the wife remained in Ukraine with the children — without the consent of the father as the children's legal guardian.

In late 2023, the father filed a claim with the Suweileh Sharia Court. In May 2024, the Jordanian court of first instance issued a default judgment granting the claim: it ordered both children to be transferred to the father for guardianship in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and required the mother to hand the children over. In the descriptive part of the judgment, the court specifically noted that the children were in the mother's care in Ukraine, where a war was being waged, and that she had relocated with them without the father's consent as the children's legal guardian.

In March 2024, the wife filed a custody claim with Bilotserkivsky City and District Court. The Ukrainian proceedings were already under substantive review when the client turned to Disputes Law Firm in the autumn of 2024.

Legal Position and Steps Taken

The team faced three tasks: develop a legal defense strategy in the custody case, prepare a petition to recognize the Jordanian judgment in Ukraine, and assess the viability of a claim under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980).

The custody case

The defense rested on three interconnected arguments set out in written submissions to the court.

The first was a procedural argument concerning the existence of a foreign judgment with an identical subject matter. The submissions stated that both proceedings were legally identical in nature. Granting the Ukrainian claim before resolving the question of recognizing the Jordanian judgment would create legal uncertainty and would not resolve the actual dispute between the parties. Under Article 81 of the Law of Ukraine "On Private International Law" and Article 462 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, judgments of Jordanian courts that have entered into legal force are subject to enforcement in Ukraine where an international treaty so provides. Proceeding with the Ukrainian case without accounting for the existing foreign judgment risked procedural duplication and conflicting outcomes across two jurisdictions.

The second was an argument grounded in the best interests of the children in the context of the security situation. Part 2 of Article 155 of the Family Code of Ukraine provides that parental rights may not be exercised contrary to the interests of the child. Objective evidence was submitted to the court record: a statement by the UNICEF Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia dated May 13, 2024, recording that nearly 2,000 children had been killed or injured since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine, along with an air raid alert map for Kyiv Oblast over the preceding 12 months showing 567 alerts, the longest lasting 12 hours and 40 minutes on August 26, 2024. The position was that keeping Jordanian-national children in Ukraine meant routine shelter stays, interrupted schooling, and disrupted sleep — while Jordan is a country not engaged in active hostilities. The safety differential between the two environments was documented with data, not assertions alone.

The third was a motion for a court-ordered forensic psychological assessment, filed on October 4, 2024. Under Article 161(1)(2) of the Family Code of Ukraine, when resolving a dispute over a young child's place of residence, the court must consider each parent's attitude toward their parental duties, the child's personal attachment to each parent, the child's age and health, and other material circumstances. Experts at the Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Science were to be asked about the impact of air raid alerts, missile strikes, and sleep disruption on the psychological state, social adaptation, and normal development of the children — and about the long-term consequences for children residing in an area under martial law.

The recognition of the Suweileh Sharia Court judgment

The legal basis for recognition was the Treaty between Ukraine and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil Matters, signed on November 27, 2019 and ratified by the Law of Ukraine of September 2, 2020. Article 14 of the Treaty provides for mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments that have entered into legal force. Article 16 sets out the required documentation: a certified copy of the judgment, a certificate that it has entered into force, in the case of a default judgment — a document confirming proper notice to the respondent, and certified translations. All required documents were prepared and submitted with the petition.

Bilotserkivsky Court nonetheless issued a ruling returning the petition without consideration. The court found that, contrary to the requirements of Article 16(2)(b) of the Treaty, no certified copy of a summons or any other document confirming that the respondent had been duly notified of the proceedings had been provided. The petition included a copy of a registered mail delivery notification addressed to the mother — but without a description of the contents of the parcel. The absence of a single line in a postal document — the list of what the envelope contained — was sufficient grounds for a procedural refusal.

In December 2024, an appeal was filed with the Kyiv Court of Appeal challenging the ruling as premature and unsubstantiated. The appellate court opened proceedings.

Outcome

On January 13, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion with Bilotserkivsky Court to leave the custody claim without consideration. On January 16, 2025, the court issued the corresponding ruling under Part 1 of Article 257 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine.

On February 5, 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal issued a ruling closing the appellate proceedings on the basis of the client's withdrawal of the appeal under Article 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine.

Both proceedings were closed. The reason was the couple's decision to reconcile and relocate to Jordan together, rendering both legal proceedings moot.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the particular complexity of family disputes with an international element, where two legal systems simultaneously claim jurisdiction over the same question. The coexistence of active Ukrainian proceedings and a valid foreign judgment is not uncommon in cases where children hold the citizenship of one country while living in another. Legal argumentation grounded in the security situation and the best interests of children under martial law, supported by data from international organizations, constitutes a legitimate and self-standing position for judicial review.

At the same time, the case demonstrates how the technical requirements of international mutual legal assistance treaties can become decisive procedural barriers. The absence of a description of parcel contents — one formal document — made it impossible to establish that the respondent had been properly notified and served as grounds for returning the petition unreviewed. Meticulous preparation of supporting documentation in foreign judgment recognition proceedings is not a procedural formality; it is a threshold condition that determines whether the case will be heard on the merits at all.