Supreme Court judge highlights the ECtHR’s approaches in cases concerning deprivation of parental rights

Judge of the Supreme Court at the Civil Cassation Court Vladyslav Shypovych participated in the online event “Deprivation of Parental Rights: Practical Aspects”, organized by the Ukrainian Bar Association. During the event, he delivered a presentation titled “The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Cases on Deprivation of Parental Rights”.

First, the speaker presented statistics on cases concerning deprivation of parental rights considered by local general courts during 2021–2025. He also analyzed the dynamics of appellate and cassation review of judicial decisions in this category of cases during 2025.

The speaker drew attention to several information resources relevant to this topic, including:

• the “Children’s Rights” guide to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, available on the Knowledge Sharing platform (ECtHR-KS):

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_rights_of_the_child_ukr;

• the review of ECtHR judgments on the child’s right to be heard and the consideration of the child’s best interests, prepared by the Supreme Court:

https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/ogliady/Oglyad_ESPL_pravo_dutunu.pdf;

• the review of ECtHR judgments concerning children and the protection of their best interests, prepared by the Supreme Court:

https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/Oglyad_Ditu.pdf.

The judge also spoke about the specifics of using the Supreme Court Legal Positions Database (https://lpd.court.gov.ua/) to search for up-to-date case law and explained how it differs from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.

Vladyslav Shypovych further examined the general approaches and principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights when interpreting Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This provision guarantees the right to respect for private and family life and prohibits interference by public authorities with the exercise of this right, except where such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national or public security, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the separation of a family constitutes a very serious interference, while the deprivation of parental rights is a measure that deprives a father or mother of family life with their child. Such measures should be applied only in exceptional circumstances and may be justified solely where there is an overriding requirement related to the child’s best interests.

The judge drew attention to the conclusions of the ECHR in the case T.A. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, according to which national courts must conduct an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and a range of factors, including emotional, psychological, material, and medical aspects. They must then carry out a balanced and reasonable assessment of the relevant interests of each person, constantly focusing on identifying the best solution for the child.

Guardianship and custody authorities can provide significant assistance in such an examination of the family situation. Their participation in cases concerning deprivation of parental rights is mandatory, and, pursuant to Article 19 of the Family Code of Ukraine, they are authorized to submit written opinions to the court regarding the resolution of the dispute.

The speaker also presented and analyzed several examples from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in which the Court assessed the actions of guardianship authorities.

Thus, in the case A and Others v. Iceland, when finding no violation of the Convention, the Court took into account, among other factors, that the national authorities had examined the possibility of applying less restrictive measures before applying to the court to seek the deprivation of the applicants’ parental rights.

At the same time, in Van Slooten v. the Netherlands, when finding a violation of the Convention, the Court observed that the guardianship authorities had abandoned the goal of family reunification at a very early stage, without properly assessing the applicant’s parenting capacity and without demonstrating why the ultimate aim of family reunification was no longer in the child’s best interests.

Vladyslav Shypovych also noted the important role of child protection services in matters related to family support and the social protection of children. He expressed the view that greater attention should be paid to the challenges faced by the staff of these services in their daily work.

The event brought together more than 1,000 participants, with the main audience consisting of child protection service professionals from across the country.