Child Return under the Hague Convention:
international child abduction

Attorney Consultation Learn more

Hague Convention Child Return in Ukraine

When one parent takes a child to Ukraine without the other parent's consent, or keeps the child there after an agreed trip, the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction allows the left-behind parent to ask a Ukrainian court to order the child's return to the country where the child habitually lived. A return order restores the situation that existed before the removal: custody, residence and contact are then decided by the courts of the child's country of habitual residence (Articles 16 and 19 of the Convention; Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23). While the return case is pending, a Ukrainian court will not decide on the merits a dispute over where the child should live, even if the parent who took the child has filed such a claim (Article 16 of the Convention).

Return is not automatic. The Ukrainian court examines where the child actually lived before leaving, whether the applicant was exercising rights of custody and whether he or she agreed to the move. If more than a year has passed between the removal and the application, the court also considers whether the child has settled in Ukraine. The parent who is with the child in Ukraine may prove that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm, in which case the court may refuse to order it (Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention). Evacuation because of the war and temporary protection abroad, however long, do not in themselves make a foreign country the child's habitual residence (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2026, case No. 761/162/25).

We represent both sides in these disputes. For parents abroad, we go straight to court with a claim for the child's return, without losing months on a Ministry of Justice procedure. We gather evidence of the child's habitual residence and of the parent's custody rights, and together with the claim we ask the court to ban the child from leaving Ukraine, so that the child cannot be moved to a third country while the case is heard. For parents who are with the child in Ukraine, we build a defence on the grounds recognised by the Convention and by the case law of the Supreme Court. The whole case can be handled remotely from any country.

How this works in practice is explained in the full article below.

Services

01

Returning a child from Ukraine to the country of habitual residence
02

Defending the parent with whom the child lives in Ukraine
03

Travel ban and securing contact with the child

How a Ukrainian court decides a child return case and what the outcome depends on

This article explains when a child's removal to Ukraine is wrongful under the Hague Convention and who files the claim after the 2025 reform, under which the Ministry of Justice stopped going to court itself. It also explains why the claim is best filed directly with the court, without first applying to the Ministry, together with an application to ban the child from leaving Ukraine, and why the one-year period should be counted up to the day the claim is filed. Further sections cover how evacuation and temporary protection affect the determination of the child's habitual residence, what evidence persuades a court that the child faces a grave risk, and how the Supreme Court assesses martial law. The final part deals with interim measures banning the child from leaving Ukraine, enforcement of the judgment, and 18 Supreme Court rulings from 2022–2026.

This article is for those who want to understand how the mechanism works before making a decision. If you need a result rather than an explanation, contact a lawyer: we will review your documents and propose a course of action for your particular situation.

In brief. A Ukrainian court will order a child's return to the state where the child habitually lived if the child was removed to or is retained in Ukraine in breach of the other parent's rights of custody, that parent was actually exercising those rights, and the child is under 16 (Articles 3, 4 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction). If the claim is filed within one year of the removal, the court does not examine whether the child has settled in Ukraine and may refuse return only if the party retaining the child proves one of the grounds set out in the Convention: the applicant's consent, the applicant's failure to exercise custody, a grave risk of harm to the child, the objections of a mature child, or the incompatibility of return with the fundamental principles of Ukraine relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Articles 13 and 20 of the Convention). A return order does not decide who the child will live with: that question is for the court of the state of habitual residence (Article 19 of the Convention), and while the return case is pending, the Ukrainian court also does not decide on the merits any dispute over the child's place of residence (Article 16 of the Convention). The claim is filed directly with the court, without first applying to the Ministry of Justice (Article 29 of the Convention), and together with the claim the court is asked to ban the child from leaving Ukraine while the case is heard (ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 14 February 2022, case No. 754/7569/21). The lawyer acts under a legal services agreement and an attorney's order issued by the law firm, and hearings can be attended by videoconference (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

What counts as international child abduction

The term “international child abduction” comes from the title of the Convention and describes a civil-law situation in which one parent has unilaterally changed the child's state of residence. The Convention itself uses the concepts of “wrongful removal” and “wrongful retention” of a child and defines when each occurs (Article 3 of the Convention). The Convention has been in force for Ukraine since 1 September 2006 and forms part of national law, so its rules prevail over those of the CPC where the two differ (Article 3 of the CPC). Whether a return claim makes sense at all, or the dispute has to be resolved under different rules, depends on classifying the situation correctly from the outset.

The Convention makes the return of a child depend on three conditions

To order return, the court must establish three conditions. First, immediately before the removal the child was habitually resident in a Contracting State. Second, the removal or retention breached rights of custody under the law of that state, and the applicant was actually exercising those rights at the time or would have exercised them but for the removal (Supreme Court ruling of 30 November 2022, case No. 344/20234/19). Rights of custody include, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence, and they may arise by operation of law, from a judicial or administrative decision, or from an agreement (Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention). The third condition is age: the Convention applies only to a child under 16, and once the child reaches that age the court can no longer order return, even if the claim was filed earlier (Article 4 of the Convention). Once all three conditions are established, the child must be returned forthwith to the state of habitual residence (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23).

How wrongful removal of a child differs from wrongful retention

Removal means taking the child out of the state of residence without the other parent's consent, so that the child crosses the border already against that parent's will. Retention covers the situation where the child left lawfully, with both parents' consent, but was not brought back after an agreed trip, a holiday or the period stated in a notarised consent. Where consent to travel was given, retention becomes wrongful only once the agreed return date has passed, or once the consenting parent has demanded the child's return and been refused (Supreme Court ruling of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21). The one-year period for going to court runs from that date, so return tickets, correspondence about the return date and a written demand to return the child each carry evidential weight of their own. Consent to a trip for a fixed period is not consent to keeping the child beyond it (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22), but it is for the applicant to prove that the consent was only temporary (Supreme Court ruling of 5 April 2023, case No. 308/1403/20).

In some situations the Convention does not apply to a dispute over a child

The Convention does not apply if the child has already turned 16, if the removal took place before the Convention entered into force between Ukraine and the state concerned, or in relations with a state that has not accepted Ukraine's accession to the Convention or whose accession Ukraine has not accepted (Articles 4, 35 and 38 of the Convention; para. 3 of the Procedure for Implementing the Hague Convention in Ukraine, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 952 of 10 July 2006 (Procedure No. 952)). If the child has already been taken from Ukraine to a third state, the Ukrainian court may stay the proceedings or dismiss the application (Article 12(3) of the Convention). The Convention also does not apply where Ukraine was the state of the child's habitual residence. Where the father had given notarised consent only to the children's temporary travel abroad, with an obligation to bring them back to Ukraine, neither the children's registration abroad nor the foreign citizenship they had acquired made the foreign state their habitual residence, and the mother's bringing the children back to Ukraine was held not to be abduction (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 523/14982/23). In such a case the dispute between the parents is resolved as a dispute over the child's place of residence under the Family Code of Ukraine.

How the procedure for returning a child from Ukraine works

The Convention allows the applicant either to apply to the Central Authority, which in Ukraine is the Ministry of Justice, or to file a claim directly with a Ukrainian court (Articles 8 and 29 of the Convention). Only a court can order return; the Central Authority locates the child and offers voluntary return and mediation (Articles 7, 10 and 12 of the Convention). Since 2025 the Ministry of Justice no longer goes to court itself: it forwards the application to a free legal aid centre, and a representative appointed by the centre files the claim (subpara. 14 of para. 9 of Procedure No. 952, as amended by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1045 of 26 August 2025). If the applicant has their own lawyer, the Ministry does not refer the case to court, its regional office takes no steps towards voluntary return, and three months after informing the applicant of the court competent to hear the case the Ministry stops processing the application (para. 10, the last paragraph of para. 12 and subpara. 12 of para. 28 of Procedure No. 952). An applicant who has a lawyer therefore gains nothing by applying to the Ministry, while the time spent on the administrative procedure eats into the one-year period for going to court. The Ministry route makes sense for those who are unable to engage a lawyer in Ukraine and rely on a free legal aid representative.

For this reason the claim is filed directly with the court, together with an application to ban the child from leaving Ukraine, which can also be made before the claim is filed. Under martial law, parents and children often move: the parent who brought the child may live in Ukraine for several months and then leave for a third state. If the child leaves Ukraine, the court may stay the proceedings or dismiss the return application (Article 12(3) of the Convention), and the Ministry stops processing the application as soon as the Administration of the State Border Guard Service confirms that the child has left (subpara. 9 of para. 28 of Procedure No. 952). Everything done in Ukraine then loses its value, and the procedure has to start again in the state to which the child has been taken.

What the Ministry of Justice does with a return application, and who this route suits

An application for assistance in securing the return of a child is submitted to the Central Authority of the state where the child was habitually resident, or directly to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, using the form approved by Procedure No. 952. It is accompanied by the child's birth certificate, the court decision or agreement on custody, documents showing the child's habitual residence abroad, the applicant's authorisation, an extract from the law of the state of residence and certified translations (Article 8 of the Convention; para. 3 of Procedure No. 952). The Ministry acknowledges receipt within 15 days and, if the child's address is unknown, contacts the National Police, the State Migration Service and the State Border Guard Service (para. 9 of Procedure No. 952). The regional office of the Ministry of Justice invites the person with whom the child is staying to return the child voluntarily or to take part in mediation, and children's services inspect the child's living conditions within 15 days (paras. 12 and 13 of Procedure No. 952). The Central Authority may refuse to accept an application it considers manifestly ill-founded (Article 27 of the Convention). A refusal by the Ministry does not prevent the applicant from going to court; however, the respondent can obtain the Ministry's letter assessing the circumstances through an attorney's request and submit it to the court as evidence. If the applicant has their own lawyer, the regional office takes no steps towards voluntary return (the last paragraph of para. 12 of Procedure No. 952), so this procedure is worthwhile only for applicants without a lawyer in Ukraine.

Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 2350/5 of 17 September 2026 introduced a pilot project of free mediation in cross-border family disputes. The project takes effect three months after the order is published, and the Ministry will announce its start date separately. Under the project, a free legal aid centre appoints a mediator, 15 calendar days from the mediator's receipt of the assignment are allowed for resolving the question of return, and an agreement reached through mediation may be approved by the court as a settlement agreement (paras. 8, 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the Procedure for Implementing the Pilot Project). Mediation requires the consent of both parties and is possible at any stage: before going to court, while the case is being heard and during enforcement of the judgment.

Who files the return claim, in which court, and what it should ask for

The claim is filed by the applicant, represented by their own lawyer, without first applying to the Ministry of Justice (Article 29 of the Convention). If the applicant did apply to the Ministry and has no lawyer of their own, the claim is filed by a representative appointed by the free legal aid centre within seven working days of receiving the application (para. 4 of Section II of the Instruction approved by Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 2641/5 of 26 September 2025). The claim is filed with the court for the respondent's registered place of residence (Article 27 of the CPC), and a mistake about jurisdiction costs months: in one case the ruling transferring the case to the proper court took effect only six months after it was issued (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24). The claim usually asks the court to:

  • declare the removal and retention of the child in Ukraine wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention;
  • order the respondent to return the child to the state of habitual residence within a set time;
  • if the judgment is not complied with voluntarily, remove the child from the respondent and hand the child over to the applicant to secure the return;
  • order one of the parties to bear the costs of returning the child (Article 26 of the Convention);
  • join children's services to the proceedings as a third party.

Courts take different approaches to the claim for the child to be handed over to the applicant in case of non-compliance: in some cases it was granted together with return (Supreme Court ruling of 9 September 2026, case No. 203/3031/24), while in others it was rejected as concerning the future and matters of enforcement, and the Supreme Court upheld that refusal (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22). Under the Convention, documents issued abroad require no legalisation (Article 23 of the Convention); nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that copies of foreign court decisions without an apostille were not properly certified (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 523/14982/23), so foreign court decisions and certificates issued by public authorities need an apostille and their translations need to be certified.

The Convention gives the court six weeks to decide the case

The Convention requires courts to act expeditiously, and if no decision has been reached within six weeks of the start of proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority may request a statement of the reasons for the delay (Article 11 of the Convention). The expiry of six weeks does not end the court's powers and has no other procedural consequences, so the applicant records any failure to meet this benchmark by a written request to the court or the Central Authority. The Supreme Court has stressed that prompt decisions under the Hague Convention serve the best interests of children and that appeals must also be heard without delay (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22). The actual duration of cases that reached the Supreme Court is set out below, in the section on timeframes.

What role children's services play in the case

Children's services (the guardianship authority) at the place where the child actually lives inspect the child's living conditions or assess the level of safety and draw up a report, explain the provisions of the Convention and the possibility of voluntary return to the person the child lives with, and, at the applicant's request, set arrangements for the applicant's contact with the child until the court rules (para. 13 of Procedure No. 952). In court, children's services take part as a third party, and the court assesses their home assessment report and opinion together with the other evidence; neither has any predetermined weight for the court (Article 89(2) of the CPC). In one case, despite an order of the district administration finding return inadvisable, the courts ordered the child's return to Switzerland, and the Supreme Court upheld that judgment (Supreme Court ruling of 9 September 2026, case No. 203/3031/24).

What the applicant must prove for the court to order the child's return

The burden of proof in these cases is clearly divided. The applicant proves the child's habitual residence in the state to which return is sought and that the applicant exercised custody and care before the removal (Supreme Court ruling of 30 November 2022, case No. 344/20234/19). The party who removed or is retaining the child proves the exceptions on which the court may refuse return (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24). The applicant's claim is therefore built as an evidence map of the three conditions of Article 3 of the Convention, with each condition supported by its own documents.

How the applicant proves that the child habitually lived abroad

Habitual residence is the place that reflects a degree of integration of the child in a social and family environment: the court considers the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay of the child and the family in the state, attendance at nursery or school, knowledge of the language, and the child's social and family ties (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24). The strongest evidence consists of documents showing a settled way of life: a residence permit, address registration, letters from the nursery or school, medical records and insurance, payments for after-school activities, enrolment in the first year of school, and the family's tenancy agreement. For children who left Ukraine after 24 February 2022, the court looks first at the reason for the stay abroad: a temporary stay with the mother in another state under temporary protection because of Russia's aggression did not make that state the habitual residence of a child who was born and lived in Ukraine, even after almost three years there and attendance at a local nursery (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2026, case No. 761/162/25). An applicant whose family left Ukraine because of the war therefore has to prove that the move was a decision to change the state of residence rather than an evacuation.

Rights of custody are determined by the law of the state where the child lived before the removal

Whether the applicant had rights of custody is determined under the law of the state where the child was habitually resident before the removal, not under Ukrainian law (Article 3 of the Convention). The court may take notice directly of foreign law and of foreign judicial decisions without the procedure for their recognition in Ukraine (Article 14 of the Convention), so the claim sets out the text of the relevant foreign provision on joint parental custody with a translation, or the foreign court's custody decision. Rights of custody cover deciding on the child's temporary or permanent travel outside the state as well as determining the child's place of residence (Supreme Court ruling of 24 September 2025, case No. 718/1867/23). A foreign court decision made after the removal does not affect the lawfulness of the removal itself (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 523/14982/23).

The applicant must prove that he or she actually exercised custody

Holding rights on paper is not enough: the applicant must show genuine involvement in the child's life before the removal. Where the father did not live with the child and his paternity was legally established only after the child had left, the court held the removal lawful, and later custody orders of a foreign court did not change that (Supreme Court ruling of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21). Actual care is shown by records of payments for nursery, activities, medical treatment and housing, correspondence with teachers and doctors, photos and videos of family life together, and witness statements. Money transfers for the child made after the child was not returned do not mean that the applicant accepted the move; on the contrary, they confirm that the applicant was fulfilling parental duties (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22).

The applicant must prove that he or she did not consent to the move

Consent to removal may be written or oral, provided its existence is proved, and tacit consent is shown by the absence of any objection throughout the period up to the filing of the return application (Supreme Court ruling of 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24). Where the father was present when the border was crossed and orally agreed to the move, and his assertion that the consent covered only the New Year holidays was unsupported, the court held the removal lawful (Supreme Court ruling of 5 April 2023, case No. 308/1403/20). A notarised consent to the child's travel with one parent for several years, including outside the EU, together with an authorisation to take all decisions concerning the child, rules out wrongful removal for as long as the consent remains valid (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 303/5427/23). The applicant should therefore keep the text of any consent, tickets showing the return date and the correspondence, and object to the non-return in writing straight away.

When the court refuses to return the child

The list of grounds for refusal is exhaustive: the expiry of one year combined with the child having settled, the applicant's consent or failure actually to exercise custody, a grave risk of harm, the child's objections, and the incompatibility of return with the fundamental principles of Ukraine relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 12(2), Articles 13 and 20 of the Convention; Supreme Court ruling of 4 September 2024, case No. 334/5244/23). The exceptions are interpreted narrowly, and the court's reasons for applying or rejecting an exception must be detailed, without automatic or stereotyped conclusions (Supreme Court ruling of 23 March 2023, case No. 344/6604/21). At the same time, return cannot be ordered automatically or mechanically: the court weighs the interests of the child, the interests of each parent and the family circumstances as a whole (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21).

After one year the court may refuse return if the child has settled in Ukraine

If less than a year has passed between the removal and the commencement of court proceedings, the court orders the child's return forthwith and does not examine whether the child has settled in Ukraine, even if the child has lived in Ukraine for more than two years while the case was pending (Article 12 of the Convention; Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24). After a year has passed the court also orders return, but the respondent gains an additional ground for refusal, the child's settlement, which the respondent must prove with evidence of integration: attendance at nursery or school and at activities, medical care, friends, stable family ties, a change in the language the child speaks (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22). Medical certificates and a place on a nursery waiting list do not count as such evidence (Supreme Court ruling of 23 March 2023, case No. 344/6604/21). The Supreme Court has no uniform approach to the date from which the “commencement of proceedings” is counted. In one case the time limit was held to have been met because the application reached the Ministry of Justice seven months after the removal, although the claim was filed after the year had expired (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 714/1022/23); in another, Article 12(2) was applied because the claim was filed one year and 27 days after the removal, even though the father had applied to the Ministry within six weeks (Supreme Court ruling of 24 September 2025, case No. 718/1867/23). The claim must therefore be filed with the court within 12 months of the removal or non-return, without relying on the date of the application to the Ministry.

The applicant's consent to the move, including later acquiescence, can be a ground for refusal

The court is not bound to order return if the party opposing it proves that the applicant was not actually exercising rights of custody, consented to the removal or subsequently acquiesced in it (Article 13(1)(a) of the Convention). Acquiescence is most often inferred from inaction: if the father knew for more than a year where the child was and took no steps to secure the child's return, the court may doubt that he did not consent to the retention (Supreme Court ruling of 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24). Where the father himself brought the child to Ukraine, and the volume of belongings moved, the tickets and the witness statements point to an agreement that the child would live in Ukraine, the court refuses return even on a claim brought by the Ministry of Justice (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 201/3647/22). Every week of inaction after the child is not returned therefore works in the respondent's favour.

A grave risk of harm to the child is a ground for refusing return

Ground (b) covers only situations that go beyond what a child can reasonably be expected to bear and does not include the ordinary inconvenience that comes with relocation (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 714/1022/23). Separation from the mother is not in itself such a ground, since a return order does not prevent the mother from accompanying the child and applying to the court of the state of residence regarding the child's place of residence (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23). The position is different where the mother objectively cannot return with the child because she has no visa or right of entry, no housing and no means; in such cases the courts have treated the separation of a young child from the mother as an intolerable situation (Supreme Court rulings of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21, and 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24). Proving domestic violence does not require a criminal conviction: the evidence may include, among other things, records of reports to the police of the country of residence (Supreme Court ruling of 18 April 2024, case No. 718/1867/23). In one case a grave risk was found proven on the basis of a complaint to the gendarmerie, the record of the victim's interview and a medical certificate (Supreme Court ruling of 4 September 2024, case No. 334/5244/23). The child's state of health, with a diagnosis confirmed by specialists, has also been accepted as a ground for refusal (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 303/5427/23).

When the court takes the child's own objections to return into account

The court may refuse return if the child objects to it and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of the child's views (Article 13(2) of the Convention). The Convention sets no specific age: in the case of a five-year-old, the Supreme Court saw no grounds for taking the child's views into account (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21). The child's views may be expressed in the courtroom or through a report by a psychologist or the guardianship authority, video or audio recordings, the findings of a court-ordered psychological assessment, or by videoconference, and the court must explain how it took them into account (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24). A party relying on the child's views should therefore make sure that a specialist records them in proper form, and should not rely solely on what the adults say.

How the Supreme Court assesses arguments based on martial law in Ukraine

Martial law is not in itself a sufficient ground for returning the child to the parent who lives abroad: the court weighs it together with the other circumstances in light of the child's best interests (Supreme Court ruling of 24 September 2025, case No. 718/1867/23). In another case, having referred to martial law, the Supreme Court agreed that the child's best interests were served by staying with the mother in Ukraine (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21). In cases where the child's habitual residence abroad had been proven, the Supreme Court took the security situation in Ukraine into account as an additional argument for return (Supreme Court rulings of 23 March 2023, case No. 344/6604/21, and 20 November 2024, case No. 714/1022/23). However, the reference to the war was rejected where the child lived in a city in Lviv Region where there had been no fighting and no evacuation had been announced (Supreme Court ruling of 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24). A security argument must therefore be specific, concerning the city where the child lives, shelling and air-raid alerts, rather than a general reference to martial law.

How to stop the child being taken out of Ukraine and stay in contact while the case is heard

Return proceedings become pointless if the child is taken to a third country while they are pending: a Ukrainian court may then stay the proceedings or dismiss the application, and the applicant would have to start the procedure again in another state (Article 12(3) of the Convention). For this reason, an application for interim measures (securing the claim) is filed together with the claim, or even before the claim is lodged, and the court considers it within two days without notifying the respondent (Articles 149(2) and 153(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine). If the application is filed before the claim, the claim itself must be lodged within ten days of the ruling granting the interim measures (Article 152(4) of the CPC).

The court can ban the child from leaving Ukraine until the case is decided

In Hague Convention cases the court may secure the claim by banning the child from crossing the state border of Ukraine in anyone's company until the case is decided, whereas in ordinary disputes between parents over residence or contact this measure is not available (ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 14 February 2022, case No. 754/7569/21). The application for interim measures may be filed before the claim. Under martial law, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to word the measure as a restriction on the child leaving the country without the applicant's consent, since this wording still allows the child to be taken somewhere safe if the child's life is threatened (Supreme Court ruling of 31 January 2024, case No. 711/4569/23). For the ban to be effective, the application lists every document on which the child could cross the border, including foreign passports where the child has dual citizenship, and a copy of the ruling is sent at once to the Administration of the State Border Guard Service. An appeal against the ruling on interim measures does not suspend its enforcement (Article 153(11) of the CPC).

How to keep in contact with the child while the case is pending

Proceedings through three levels of court can take more than a year, and throughout that time whoever is keeping the child controls the child's contact with the other parent. An interim measure must be connected with the subject matter of the claim, so in one return case the court rejected a request to set a contact schedule on the ground that it would not secure enforcement of a return order (ruling of the Prydniprovskyi District Court of Cherkasy of 12 July 2023, case No. 711/4569/23). A more reliable route is an application to children's services, which under Procedure No. 952 determine how the applicant is to have contact with the child until the court decides the case (subpara. 6 of para. 13 of Procedure No. 952). In the application for interim measures, it is more effective to ask the court to order the respondent not to obstruct the child's video contact with the applicant (Article 150(1)(3) of the CPC). This measure does not decide the dispute on the merits and is not financial in nature, so no counter-security is required for it.

What evidence is needed in a child return case

Evidence decides the outcome of a return case: the Supreme Court has stated expressly that the case law in this category is settled and that differences in outcome come down to proof (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 201/3647/22). Most of the applicant's evidence is abroad, so it is gathered before the claim is filed, apostilled and translated; anything still missing is submitted later together with an application to restore the time limit and an explanation of the reasons for the delay.

What evidence the applicant gathers before filing the claim

The applicant builds the evidence around the three conditions of Article 3 of the Convention and, separately, around the date of removal, because the one-year period depends on it:

  • the child's birth certificate, the marriage certificate or the divorce judgment;
  • the child's residence permit, address registration, the family's tenancy agreement;
  • certificates from the nursery or school, documents on after-school activities, enrolment for first grade;
  • medical records, insurance, doctors' certificates confirming that the child was under their care;
  • the provision of foreign law on parental custody or a foreign court's custody decision;
  • evidence of involvement in the child's upbringing: payments, correspondence with nursery teachers, photos, witness statements;
  • tickets, correspondence, consent to a temporary trip with a return date;
  • the State Border Guard Service's reply to an attorney's inquiry about the date the child entered Ukraine and whether the child has left the country since;
  • a written demand to return the child, a report to the police about the failure to return the child, an application to the Central Authority if one was made.

What evidence the parent with whom the child is staying in Ukraine gathers

The respondent has to prove the exceptions, so the respondent's evidence goes to the reasons for leaving, the applicant's consent and the risk to the child:

  • notarised consent, correspondence or witnesses confirming consent to the move;
  • one-way tickets, the amount of belongings taken, proof of deregistration abroad;
  • complaints to the police, police records, medical certificates relating to violence;
  • a psychologist's report or the findings of a court-ordered psychological assessment of the child's condition;
  • evidence that the respondent cannot return with the child: no visa or residence status, a foreign court decision restricting the respondent's rights;
  • evidence that the child has settled in Ukraine, if the claim was filed after the one-year period expired.

How the parent who is with the child in Ukraine can defend the case

The respondent is in the harder position, because the Convention places on the respondent the burden of proving the exceptions, and those exceptions are interpreted narrowly (Supreme Court ruling of 9 September 2026, case No. 203/3031/24). At the same time, refusals of return in this category most often occur where the respondent has gathered evidence of consent, of the reasons for leaving and of the risk to the child in advance. The first question is whether the applicant's state really was the child's habitual residence: if the family left Ukraine temporarily because of the war, the court may conclude that the state of temporary stay never became the child's habitual residence, in which case the child's removal to Ukraine is not wrongful (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2026, case No. 761/162/25).

How the statement of defence is structured

The statement of defence works through the three conditions of Article 3 of the Convention and then the exceptions in Articles 12, 13 and 20 of the Convention. It first establishes whether Ukraine was in fact the child's habitual residence, whether the applicant was actually exercising rights of custody and whether the applicant consented to the departure, because each of these circumstances rules out wrongful removal (Supreme Court rulings of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21, and 29 April 2026, case No. 303/5427/23). The date is checked next: if the claim was filed after the one-year period expired, the respondent proves that the child has settled; if it was filed earlier, the court will disregard any argument about settlement, and the defence concentrates on the risk under Article 13(1)(b) (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24). Whether the respondent can return together with the child is assessed separately, since courts take into account the lack of a visa, housing and a right of residence (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21). Relying solely on the child's attachment to the mother, without evidence of grave risk, is not enough for return to be refused, because a return order does not mean separating the child from the mother (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23).

When a psychologist's report or an expert assessment persuades the court that the child is at risk

A psychologist's report is the main evidence of a risk of psychological harm, and courts accept a report obtained in Ukraine, because a respondent who is here with the child cannot provide any other (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21). A report based only on the mother's account, without examining the child's contact with the father, is, however, rejected as insufficient (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22). More persuasive are reports by psychologists following long-term work with the child, together with medical records from a specialised facility (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24), and the findings of a court-ordered psychological assessment, to which both parties may put questions. The court must review such findings effectively and give specific reasons for accepting or rejecting them (Supreme Court ruling of 18 April 2024, case No. 718/1867/23).

How return orders are enforced and appealed

A decision on the return of a child is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue and does not decide who the child will live with (Article 19 of the Convention). Its purpose is to restore the situation that existed before the removal and to leave the custody dispute to the courts of the state of the child's habitual residence (Supreme Court ruling of 30 November 2022, case No. 344/20234/19).

What the court states in a return order

In the judgment the court declares the child's removal and retention wrongful, orders the respondent to return the child to the state of habitual residence, within a set period where needed, and decides who bears the costs of the return; the court may also order the person who removed the child to pay the applicant's costs of locating the child, travel and legal representation (Article 26 of the Convention). In one case the court ordered the child to be returned within a month and, failing that, to be removed from the respondent and handed over to the father (Supreme Court ruling of 9 September 2026, case No. 203/3031/24). In some cases appellate courts have allowed immediate enforcement of a return order, and the Supreme Court upheld those decisions (Supreme Court ruling of 23 March 2023, case No. 344/6604/21).

Who enforces a return order, and how

If the respondent does not return the child voluntarily, the judgment is enforced by the State Enforcement Service under the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” (para. 11 of Procedure No. 952). The manner and procedure of enforcement can be set only by the court that heard the case at first instance, even where the return order itself was made by the court of appeal, and an application to “clarify” the judgment is not a suitable tool for this (Supreme Court ruling of 26 February 2025, case No. 552/1759/19). Until the return order has been enforced and the competent authority of the state of habitual residence has agreed to Ukrainian jurisdiction, Ukrainian courts will hear neither a claim for removal of the child nor a dispute over the child's place of residence, because the authorities of the state of the child's habitual residence retain jurisdiction over these matters (Supreme Court ruling of 16 April 2025, case No. 545/3933/21; Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Convention)). For this reason, the enforcement mechanism is best built into the claim from the outset: a deadline for voluntary return and the handing over of the child to the applicant if the deadline is not met.

How long the parties have to file an appeal and a cassation appeal

An appeal against the judgment is filed within thirty days of the date it is pronounced or, where only the introductory and operative parts were pronounced, of the date the full judgment is drawn up (Article 354(1) of the CPC). A cassation appeal to the Supreme Court is filed within thirty days of the date the appellate court's ruling is pronounced (Article 390(1) of the CPC). When opening cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court often suspends enforcement of the return order, and when it upholds the order it resumes enforcement (Supreme Court ruling of 30 November 2022, case No. 344/20234/19).

While return proceedings are pending, the dispute over the child's residence is not decided

While a Ukrainian court is hearing a return case, the dispute over determining the child's place of residence is not decided on the merits. The Convention expressly prohibits the courts of the state to which the child has been removed, once they have received notice of the wrongful removal, from deciding on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned, or until it becomes clear that no application for return has been lodged within a reasonable time (Article 16 of the Convention). The return case is therefore decided first, and a claim to determine the child's residence in Ukraine filed by the respondent after the removal does not stay the return proceedings.

The regional office of the Ministry of Justice informs the court hearing the residence dispute of this prohibition (subpara. 4 of para. 12 of Procedure No. 952). However, if the applicant has their own lawyer rather than a state-appointed representative, the Ministry of Justice does not do so (the last paragraph of para. 12 of Procedure No. 952). In that case the applicant's lawyer notifies the court hearing the residence dispute of the return case and of the prohibition in Article 16 of the Convention, attaching a copy of the ruling opening the return proceedings. If the return order has become final but has not been enforced, and the state of the child's habitual residence has not agreed to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian courts, the court closes the proceedings in the residence case (ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 18 September 2023, case No. 545/2247/18). Jurisdiction passes to Ukraine only once the child has acquired habitual residence in Ukraine and, in addition, either everyone with rights of custody has agreed to the removal, or the child has lived here for at least one year after the applicant knew or should have known of the child's whereabouts, no application for return lodged within that year is still pending, and the child is settled in its new environment (Article 7 of the 1996 Convention). A custody decision made in Ukraine is not in itself a ground for refusing return (Article 17 of the Convention).

How long the case takes and what the timeline depends on

The Convention aims for a decision within six weeks (Article 11 of the Convention), yet in cases that reached the Supreme Court the proceedings at three levels took anywhere from one year to more than three years: from the claim to the Supreme Court ruling it took about 12 months in case No. 344/24144/23, about 13 months in case No. 127/17880/22, about three years in case No. 344/20234/19, which was once sent back for retrial, and more than three years in case No. 308/1403/20. The timeline depends above all on filing in the court with proper jurisdiction, on how complete the evidence is when the claim is filed, and on whether an expert assessment is needed. Translating foreign documents, summoning participants who are abroad and rehearing the case after a judgment is set aside also slow it down. Delay in the proceedings does not entitle the respondent to rely on the child's settlement if the claim was filed before the one-year period expired (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24), although the actual period of separation from the child is no shorter for that. The claim is therefore filed with a complete set of evidence, and the application to take part in hearings by videoconference is filed in advance, no later than five days before the hearing (Article 212(2) of the CPC).

Supreme Court rulings in child return cases from 2022 to 2026

Below are the Supreme Court rulings from November 2022 to October 2026 in which the Supreme Court addressed the return of a child from Ukraine, each with its main position. The list covers all rulings found for this period that upheld the return of the child, eleven rulings refusing return on various grounds, and one ruling sending the case back for retrial.

Rulings granting the return of the child

  • Where less than a year has passed before the application to the court, the child's settlement is not examined, and the child's need for the mother is irrelevant because the child's residence is not being decided in such a case (Supreme Court ruling of 30 November 2022, case No. 344/20234/19, Israel).
  • The passing of more than a year does not in itself prove that the child is settled: the respondent must prove the child's social integration, and health certificates and a place on a nursery waiting list do not establish it (Supreme Court ruling of 23 March 2023, case No. 344/6604/21, Spain).
  • A psychologist's report based only on the mother's account does not prove grave risk, and money transfers made by the father after the non-return do not amount to acquiescence (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22, Poland).
  • Separation of the child from the mother is not a ground for refusal under Article 13(1)(b), because the mother can accompany the child; the time limit was checked against the date of the application to the Central Authority (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 714/1022/23, Italy).
  • Ordering the mother to return the child to the state of habitual residence does not mean separating the child from the mother (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23, Hungary).
  • After the death of the mother who had taken the child away, the child's retention by the grandmother is also wrongful, and the grandmother must return the child (Supreme Court ruling of 9 September 2026, case No. 203/3031/24, Switzerland).

Rulings refusing the return of the child

  • The closure of a police case does not disprove allegations of violence, and the mother's inability to accompany the child creates a risk of an intolerable situation (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21, United Kingdom).
  • The father, who was present when the border was crossed, consented to the removal, and it was not proved that his consent was limited to the holidays (Supreme Court ruling of 5 April 2023, case No. 308/1403/20, Hungary).
  • The removal is lawful if the father was not actually exercising custody before the departure, and later decisions of a foreign court do not change this (Supreme Court ruling of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21, Canada).
  • Domestic violence confirmed by a report to the police, a police record and a medical certificate amounts to grave risk, and refusal is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Supreme Court ruling of 4 September 2024, case No. 334/5244/23, France).
  • The father himself brought the child to Ukraine under an agreement that the child would live there permanently, and return would separate a young child from the mother (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 201/3647/22, France).
  • The claim was filed after the one-year period had expired, the child was settled, and martial law in Ukraine is not in itself a sufficient ground for return (Supreme Court ruling of 24 September 2025, case No. 718/1867/23, Italy).
  • The father's inaction for more than a year gave the courts grounds to doubt that he had not consented, and the argument about the war was rejected because there was no fighting in the city concerned (Supreme Court ruling of 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24, USA).
  • Notarised consent only to a temporary departure, with an obligation to bring the children back to Ukraine, means that Ukraine remained their habitual residence (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 523/14982/23, Germany).
  • Notarised consent to the child travelling with the mother outside the EU for several years, with authority to take all decisions concerning the child, rules out wrongful removal for as long as that consent remains valid (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 303/5427/23, Poland).
  • Where the claim is filed before the one-year period expires, settlement is not assessed, but the refusal was justified by a risk of psychological harm proved by psychologists' reports and medical records (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24, Czech Republic).
  • The child's temporary stay in Poland with temporary protection status did not make Poland the child's habitual residence (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2026, case No. 761/162/25, Poland).

The ruling that sent the case back for retrial

Article 12(2) applies only where proceedings were commenced after the one-year period expired, and the court of appeal must state which evidence establishes the grave risk; the case was sent back for retrial (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24, Poland).

How DISPUTES lawyers can help

The outcome of a return case is shaped in the first weeks after the child is removed: the date of filing determines whether the court will examine the child's settlement, the completeness of the evidence determines whether it will accept the applicant's state as the child's habitual residence, and a timely travel ban determines whether the child stays within the court's jurisdiction. The respondent, for their part, records the circumstances of the departure, the applicant's consent and the child's condition from the very first days, because it is the respondent who has to prove the exceptions. Related disputes over the child's residence, paternity or divorce are handled by the firm as part of its family law services.

We first check whether there are grounds for return under the Convention

The work starts with checking the three conditions of Article 3 of the Convention: where the child lived immediately before leaving, who had rights of custody under the law of that state and whether the applicant consented. It is also checked whether the applicant's state has accepted Ukraine's accession to the Convention, how much time has passed since the removal and whether the child has been taken on to another country.

  • choosing the remedy: a claim under the Convention or a dispute over the child's place of residence;
  • calculating the one-year period from the date of removal or non-return;
  • assessing the evidence already available and the evidence that has to be obtained abroad;
  • an opinion on the prospects, given before the agreement to handle the case is signed.

We prepare the claim and the application for a travel ban on the child without delay

The claim is filed straight away with the court for the respondent's place of residence, without first applying to the Ministry of Justice, and seeks a declaration that the removal was wrongful, the child's return within a set period and an enforcement mechanism in case of non-compliance. Together with the claim, or even before it is filed, an application is made for interim measures banning the child from leaving Ukraine, so that the child is not taken to a third country while the case is heard. The claim is accompanied by an application to involve children's services in the proceedings.

We gather evidence abroad, have it apostilled and translated

Documents on the child's residence, nursery, doctor, insurance and rights of custody are collected in the state of residence and apostilled, and are then translated into Ukrainian with the translation certified. The State Border Guard Service's reply to an attorney's inquiry confirms the date the child entered Ukraine and the fact that the child is here. The provision of foreign law on parental custody is cited in the claim together with a translation (Article 14 of the Convention).

We secure the claim and keep the client in contact with the child while the case is heard

The application for a ban on the child leaving Ukraine is filed together with the claim or earlier, listing all of the child's passports, and a copy of the ruling is sent immediately to the State Border Guard Service. To preserve contact with the child, a request that the respondent be ordered not to obstruct video contact is prepared, together with an application to children's services to set contact arrangements until the court gives its decision.

We represent the client in court, and the client takes part remotely

The lawyer represents the client at first instance, in the court of appeal and in the Supreme Court, and a client who is abroad takes part in hearings by videoconference using their own equipment, without travelling to Ukraine (Article 212 of the CPC). The client signs documents remotely, and where needed, arrangements are made for witnesses and the psychologist to give evidence at the court premises.

We see the judgment through to enforcement or defend against return

Once a return order is made, the writ of enforcement is submitted to the State Enforcement Service and, where needed, an application to set the procedure for enforcement is filed with the court of first instance (Supreme Court ruling of 26 February 2025, case No. 552/1759/19). For the respondent, the work runs from checking the child's habitual residence and the date of the claim to proving consent, the respondent's inability to accompany the child and the risk to the child, with a psychologist's report or an expert assessment prepared before the first hearing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, provided that before the removal the child was habitually resident in a State party to the 1980 Hague Convention that has accepted Ukraine's accession; the removal breached rights of custody under the law of that State; the applicant was actually exercising those rights; and the child is under 16 (Articles 3, 4 and 38 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction). In that situation a Ukrainian court orders the child's return to the State of habitual residence and may refuse only on grounds proved by the parent keeping the child (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23).

Disputes most often arise over the first condition. If the family left Ukraine after 24 February 2022 because of the war and stayed abroad only temporarily, the court may find that the child's habitual residence is Ukraine, in which case there are no grounds for return (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2026, case No. 761/162/25).

Straight to court. The Convention allows an applicant to bring a claim directly before a Ukrainian court without going through the Central Authority (Article 29 of the Convention) and to file, together with the claim, an application for a ban on the child leaving Ukraine. If the applicant has their own lawyer, the Ministry of Justice does not refer the case to court, takes no steps towards voluntary return, and stops processing the application three months after informing the applicant which court has jurisdiction (paras. 10 and 12 and subpara. 12 of para. 28 of the Procedure for Implementing the Hague Convention in Ukraine, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 952 of 10 July 2006, hereinafter Procedure No. 952).

Applying to the Ministry of Justice does not guarantee that the one-year time limit will be met. In one case the Supreme Court applied the rule on the child being settled in its new environment because the claim was filed one year and 27 days after the removal, even though the father had contacted the Ministry of Justice within six weeks (Supreme Court ruling of 24 September 2025, case No. 718/1867/23). The Ministry of Justice route, with a free representative appointed by a free legal aid centre, suits applicants who are unable to instruct a lawyer in Ukraine (subpara. 14 of para. 9 of Procedure No. 952).

No, you do not need to be in Ukraine in person. The claim, applications and evidence are filed by a lawyer acting under a legal services agreement and an attorney's order issued by the law firm, and you take part in hearings by videoconference using your own equipment, provided you apply no later than five days before the hearing (Article 212(1), (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, CPC).

Witnesses, interpreters and experts may join a videoconference only from court premises (Article 212(6) CPC), so facts known to witnesses abroad are proved mainly through written evidence.

The claim is heard by the local general court for the registered place of residence of the parent keeping the child (Article 27 CPC). Filing in the wrong court delays the case: in one case the claim was first filed with a different district court, and the ruling transferring the case became final only six months later (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24).

The Convention expects a decision within six weeks and gives the right to request a statement of the reasons for any delay (Article 11 of the Convention). In cases that reached the Supreme Court, proceedings through three levels of court took from one year to more than three years (Supreme Court rulings of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23, and 5 April 2023, case No. 308/1403/20).

It is the State with which the child has social and family ties. The court looks at the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons of the child's stay, attendance at nursery or school, knowledge of the language, and the child's social and family connections (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24). Evidence includes a residence permit, address registration, letters from the nursery and school, medical records and insurance, payments for after-school activities, and the family's tenancy agreement.

The child's citizenship and registration abroad are not decisive in themselves. Where the father had given notarised consent only to the children's temporary departure, with an obligation to bring them back to Ukraine, neither their registration in Germany nor their German citizenship made Germany their habitual residence (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 523/14982/23).

Yes, this is wrongful retention (Article 3 of the Convention). Where the applicant consented to the trip, the retention becomes wrongful once the agreed return date has passed or once the applicant has demanded the child's return and been refused (Supreme Court ruling of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21).

It is for the applicant to prove that the consent was temporary. Where the father was present when the child crossed the border and had no evidence that he had agreed only to a holiday trip, the court held the removal lawful (Supreme Court ruling of 5 April 2023, case No. 308/1403/20). Return tickets, messages about the return date and a written demand for the child's return should therefore be kept from day one.

No. The Convention protects rights of custody whether or not the parents are married. Rights of custody may arise by operation of law, by a court decision or by agreement (Article 3 of the Convention), and where the law of the State of residence gives the parents joint custody, one spouse cannot change the child's country of residence without the other's consent (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23).

If the parents never lived together, the court checks whether the father actually exercised custody. The removal was held lawful where the father did not live with the child and his paternity was registered only after the child had left (Supreme Court ruling of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21).

The Convention exempts documents from legalisation and similar formalities (Article 23 of the Convention), and the court may take direct notice of foreign law and decisions without any recognition procedure (Article 14 of the Convention). A Ukrainian translation is required in any event.

However, the Supreme Court has held that copies of foreign court decisions without an apostille are not properly certified written evidence (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 523/14982/23; Article 95(4) and (8) CPC). Foreign court decisions and certificates issued by public authorities should therefore carry an apostille.

Even after a year, the court orders the child's return unless there is evidence that the child is settled in its new environment (Article 12(2) of the Convention). Settlement must be proved by the respondent with evidence of the child's social integration: nursery or school, activities, friends, medical care, a change of language. The passage of time alone, medical certificates and a place on a nursery waiting list do not prove it (Supreme Court ruling of 23 March 2023, case No. 344/6604/21).

Besides settlement, the court also considers whether the applicant failed to act: if the father knew for more than a year where the child was and took no steps, the court may doubt that the retention was without his consent (Supreme Court ruling of 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24). A claim filed after a year should therefore explain, with evidence, what the applicant was doing throughout that period.

No. A decision on return is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue (Article 19 of the Convention), and in return proceedings the court decides neither which parent the child will live with nor whether the child should be removed from a parent (Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22).

Custody and residence after the return are decided by the court of the State of the child's habitual residence, and the parent who took the child may go back with the child and apply to that court (Supreme Court ruling of 25 December 2024, case No. 344/24144/23).

If the application was sent to the Central Authority, the regional office of the Ministry of Justice invites you to return the child voluntarily or to take part in mediation, and children's services inspect the child's living conditions within 15 days and draw up a home assessment report (paras. 12 and 13 of Procedure No. 952). Your written explanations to the Ministry of Justice at this stage should be prepared with a lawyer, because the Ministry may find the application manifestly ill-founded and inform the Central Authority of the other State accordingly (Article 27 of the Convention).

Next, the applicant or the representative appointed for them files a claim with the court for the place of residence of the parent the child is living with, often together with an application to ban the child from leaving Ukraine (Article 27 CPC; ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 14 February 2022, case No. 754/7569/21). The statement of defence is filed within the time limit set by the court, together with all the evidence supporting the exceptions relied on.

The grounds are exhaustive: the child was not habitually resident in the applicant's State; the applicant was not exercising custody, consented to the removal or subsequently acquiesced in it; the claim was filed more than a year after the removal and the child is settled; there is a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or of an intolerable situation; a child of sufficient maturity objects; or return would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of Ukraine relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Articles 3, 12, 13 and 20 of the Convention).

Each ground must be proved by the parent keeping the child, and the court interprets them narrowly (Supreme Court ruling of 7 October 2026, case No. 511/4471/24). Grounds the Supreme Court has accepted as sufficient include notarised consent to the child's departure outside the EU for several years that also authorised the other parent to make all decisions concerning the child, domestic violence documented by the police and a doctor, and the mother's inability to leave together with the child (Supreme Court rulings of 29 April 2026, case No. 303/5427/23, 4 September 2024, case No. 334/5244/23, and 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24).

Not in itself. The Supreme Court weighs martial law together with the other circumstances in light of the child's best interests. In one case it did not accept martial law as a sufficient ground for returning the child to the father abroad (Supreme Court ruling of 24 September 2025, case No. 718/1867/23); in another, it agreed on that basis that staying with the mother in Ukraine was in the child's best interests (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21). The war does not help the respondent once another State has been proved to be the child's habitual residence: the court then treats the security situation as an argument in favour of return (Supreme Court ruling of 20 November 2024, case No. 714/1022/23).

The war matters for a different question, namely whether a foreign State has become the child's habitual residence. A temporary stay in Poland with the child under temporary protection did not make Poland the child's habitual residence, and the mother's return to Ukraine with the child was not treated as abduction (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2026, case No. 761/162/25).

Only if the claim was filed more than a year after the removal. In that case the child being settled is a ground for refusal, and nursery, school, activities, friends and a change of language are the main evidence of it (Article 12(2) of the Convention; Supreme Court ruling of 20 September 2023, case No. 127/17880/22).

If the claim was filed earlier, the court does not examine settlement at all, even where the child has lived in Ukraine for more than two years by the time the case is heard (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24). The defence then has to rest on other grounds: the applicant's consent, the fact that the applicant was not actually exercising custody, or a grave risk to the child.

The court may refuse return if the child objects to it and has reached an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of the child's views (Article 13(2) of the Convention). The Convention sets no age: the Supreme Court did not take into account the views of a five-year-old because a psychologist did not confirm sufficient maturity (Supreme Court ruling of 16 November 2022, case No. 953/6251/21).

The child's views may be expressed in a report by a psychologist or the guardianship authority, in a video or audio recording, in an expert report, in the courtroom or by videoconference (Supreme Court ruling of 29 July 2026, case No. 295/4672/24). Statements by adults about what the child wants are not an acceptable form.

Yes. Consent to the removal or subsequent acquiescence is a separate ground for refusal (Article 13(1)(a) of the Convention). Consent may be written, or oral if there is evidence of it, while acquiescence is inferred from the absence of any objection during the whole period before the application was filed (Supreme Court ruling of 11 February 2026, case No. 441/2203/24).

A later change of mind does not make the removal wrongful if the consent covered the move: notarised consent to the child's departure outside the EU for several years, together with authority to make all decisions concerning the child, ruled out wrongful removal (Supreme Court ruling of 29 April 2026, case No. 303/5427/23). If, however, the consent covered only a trip for a fixed period, keeping the child beyond that period becomes wrongful retention (Supreme Court ruling of 22 November 2023, case No. 754/7569/21).

You can file such a claim, but the court will not decide it on the merits while the return case is pending: the Convention expressly prohibits the courts of the State to which the child has been taken from deciding on rights of custody until the question of return has been determined (Article 16 of the Convention). If the applicant has their own lawyer, it is that lawyer who informs the court in the residence case of this prohibition, because in that situation the Ministry of Justice does not do so (para. 12 of Procedure No. 952). If the return order has become final and the State of return has not agreed to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian court, the residence proceedings are closed (ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 18 September 2023, case No. 545/2247/18).

A residence order made in Ukraine is not in itself a ground for refusing return (Article 17 of the Convention). The respondent's efforts are therefore better directed at the return case than at parallel proceedings.

The judgment can be appealed within thirty days of its pronouncement or of the date the full text was drawn up, and the appellate court's ruling can be challenged by cassation appeal within thirty days (Articles 354(1) and 390(1) CPC). When opening cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court may suspend enforcement of the return order until it has considered the appeal (Supreme Court ruling of 30 November 2022, case No. 344/20234/19).

Once the judgment becomes final, it is enforced by the State Enforcement Service (para. 11 of Procedure No. 952). Until the return order has been enforced, and unless the State of the child's residence has agreed to Ukraine's jurisdiction, Ukrainian courts do not hear disputes over removal of the child from a parent or the child's place of residence (Supreme Court ruling of 16 April 2025, case No. 545/3933/21). Going back with the child and applying to the court of the State of residence is the way to take part in deciding custody, which a return order does not determine (Article 19 of the Convention).

Yes. In Hague Convention cases the court may secure the claim by banning the child, accompanied by anyone, from crossing Ukraine's state border until the case is decided (ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 14 February 2022, case No. 754/7569/21; Article 150(1)(10) CPC). In ordinary disputes between parents over residence or contact, this measure is not available (ibid.).

Under martial law, the Supreme Court considered it appropriate to frame the measure as a restriction on the child leaving without the applicant's consent, so that the child can still be taken to safety if their life is in danger (Supreme Court ruling of 31 January 2024, case No. 711/4569/23). The application lists all of the child's passports, including foreign ones, and a copy of the ruling is sent to the Administration of the State Border Guard Service.

The court may stay the proceedings or dismiss the return application if it has reason to believe that the child has been taken to another State (Article 12(3) of the Convention), and the Ministry of Justice stops processing the application as soon as the Administration of the State Border Guard Service confirms that the child has left (subpara. 9 of para. 28 of Procedure No. 952). The procedure then has to start again in the State to which the child has been taken.

Under martial law, the parent who has taken the child often spends only a few months in Ukraine before moving on. The application for a travel ban is therefore filed together with the claim or even before it, and the court considers it within two days without notifying the respondent (Articles 149(2) and 153(1) CPC).

Yes. Interim measures may be granted before a claim is filed if failing to take them could make it harder to enforce the judgment (Article 149(2) and Article 152(1)(1) CPC). The Supreme Court upheld a restriction on the child's travel imposed before the return claim was filed, amending it to a restriction on leaving without the applicant's consent (Supreme Court ruling of 31 January 2024, case No. 711/4569/23).

Once the interim measures ruling is made, the claim must be filed within ten days (Article 152(4) CPC), otherwise the court will discharge the measures (Article 158(13) CPC). The main set of documents for the claim should therefore be ready before the application is filed.

Within two days of receiving it, without notifying the respondent (Article 153(1) CPC), so the respondent learns of the application only after the ruling has been made. The interim measures ruling takes effect immediately, and an appeal against it does not suspend enforcement (Article 153(11) CPC).

The application must show a real risk of the child being taken abroad, such as a previous removal without consent, plans to move to another State, the respondent's foreign citizenship, or concealment of the child's whereabouts. The court checks whether the measure is connected with the subject matter of the claim and whether it is proportionate (Article 150(3) CPC).

A contact schedule is difficult to obtain as an interim measure in a return case: in one case the court rejected the request because a schedule does not secure enforcement of a return order (ruling of the Prydniprovskyi District Court of Cherkasy of 12 July 2023, case No. 711/4569/23). An interim measure must be connected with the subject matter of the claim (Article 150(3) CPC).

Contact between the applicant and the child pending the court's decision is arranged by children's services at the applicant's request (subpara. 6 of para. 13 of Procedure No. 952). In the application for interim measures it makes more sense to ask the court to order the respondent not to obstruct contact by video call (Article 150(1)(3) CPC).

You can ask for this measure, but the court may consider it unnecessary if a travel ban is already in place. That is how the court ruled in a case where it restricted the child's travel outside Ukraine but refused to order the passport to be surrendered (ruling of the Prydniprovskyi District Court of Cherkasy of 12 July 2023, case No. 711/4569/23). The court may apply several measures, but each must be proportionate to the claims made (Article 150(2) and (3) CPC).

In practice it matters more that the travel ban covers all of the child's documents, including any foreign passport, and that the ruling is sent to the State Border Guard Service without delay.

The blocking of contact should be recorded with evidence, such as screenshots of messages, call logs and letters. It then becomes an argument for interim measures and in assessing the child's best interests. At the same time, an application is made to children's services to set contact arrangements pending the court's decision (subpara. 6 of para. 13 of Procedure No. 952).

If the child's whereabouts are unknown, the Ministry of Justice, acting on the return application, contacts the National Police, the State Migration Service and the State Border Guard Service (para. 9 of Procedure No. 952), while the lawyer obtains border-crossing records through an attorney's request to the Administration of the State Border Guard Service.

If the claim is dismissed, the court discharges the interim measures in its judgment, but they remain in force until the judgment becomes final, including while an appeal is pending (Article 158(9) and (10) CPC). That is what the court did when it refused to order the child's return to Romania and lifted the travel restriction (judgment of the Prydniprovskyi District Court of Cherkasy of 28 March 2024, case No. 711/4780/23).

If the claim is granted, the measures remain in force for 90 days after the judgment becomes final and, if enforcement proceedings are opened within that time, until the judgment is fully enforced (Article 158(7) and (8) CPC). The writ of execution must therefore be submitted for enforcement within those 90 days.

Every client of Disputes Law Firm, without exception, signs a legal-services agreement in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On the Bar and Practice of Law."

An appendix to the agreement, called the "Assignment," clearly sets out the specific service the client will receive, the result the client expects, the point at which the client's instruction is considered duly performed, and the fee for the work along with the terms of payment.

One copy of the agreement stays with the law firm, and one is given to the client.

We do guarantee that every member of Disputes Law Firm — lawyers and management alike — will take diligent, high-quality, and timely action aimed at achieving the result the client expects.

We do guarantee that, under any circumstances, we will not take, or fail to take, any action that would harm the client's legally protected rights and interests.

We do guarantee that we will not disclose to any third party, without the client's written consent, any information obtained by the firm while performing the agreement.

At the same time, we do not guarantee, and are not responsible for, the actions, decisions, or omissions of third parties, including court staff, judges, prosecutors, enforcement officers, staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the management or staff of enterprises, institutions, and organisations of any form of ownership, or of private individuals.

Why? Because we can only guarantee what falls within our own will and responsibility — the decisions, actions, and omissions of third parties are not within our control.

Disputes Law Firm takes on clients from Ukraine and from abroad alike, which is why we offer nearly every payment method commonly used internationally.

You can pay in cash at our office, by card at our office payment terminal, through the Privat24 online banking system, by bank transfer to any branch, or in foreign currency to a foreign-currency account.

For clients abroad, we also offer payment by PayPal and by IBAN transfer in euros or US dollars.

Since 2015, our clients have left reviews on platforms including TrustPilot, Google My Business, and Facebook.

You are welcome to read these reviews before deciding whether to work with our firm.

When setting the fee, we take into account the complexity of the case, the time the work will require, the client's financial circumstances, and other relevant factors provided for by the Law of Ukraine "On the Bar and Practice of Law."

In most cases we offer a fixed fee: an agreed, set amount for the service that covers the work through to the expected result.

Where the complexity or unusual nature of a matter makes it impossible to estimate the time the client's instruction will require, we offer hourly billing instead.

To assess the fee, you will need to provide details of your circumstances, answer the lawyer's questions, and supply the relevant documents.

Please get in touch using whichever method suits you from the "Contacts" section of this site, or via the "Ask a Lawyer" button, for answers to any questions you may have — including about the cost of our services.

Consult with an Attorney

Our
Team

Learn More
Learn More

Family Law Success Stories

Property acquired in a civil marriage can be recognized as joint, but not automatically. What exactly must be proven in court and what evidence is...
Research
This article explains what a Ukrainian marriage contract can and cannot cover under the Family Code, and how courts apply these rules....
Research
Establishing paternity through court when the father is abroad involves unique procedural challenges. This article covers court procedures, DNA...
Research
A custody dispute in Bilotserkivsky Court and recognition of a Jordanian Sharia Court judgment both closed after the couple reconciled and relocated...
Successful cases in resolving disputes and solving problems of our clients
The father has the right to submit a written application to the State Border Guard Service to prohibit the child from leaving Ukraine, and the...
Research

REVIEWS

We do not publish client reviews on the website because they do not inspire trust.

Check out real reviews from our clients on Google, Facebook, or TrustPilot.

Google

Facebook

triangle with all three sides equal

TrustPilot

Contacts

Phone

+38 (050) 392-82-96

Email

Щоб побачити e-mail, увімкніть JavaScript у браузері

Messengers

WhatsApp

Real-time chat with an attorney

Chat here

Working hours

Monday - Friday
9:00 - 18:00

Address

5, Pyrohova Street, Office 2A, Second Floor, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01054

MESSAGE


Please fill in the required fields.
Please fill in the required fields.
Please fill in the required fields.