Divorce does not affect adoption — UNBA calls changes to the Family Code unnecessary

The formalization in the Family Code of the rule that the fact of divorce between adoptive parents is not in itself a ground for annulment of adoption is inappropriate—this rule is already ensured by judicial practice.

This was emphasized by the Committee of the Ukrainian National Bar Association on Family Law following an analysis of draft law No. 13283 of May 14, 2025, «On Amendments to Article 238 of the Family Code of Ukraine to Clarify the Grounds for Annulment of Adoption».

The current version of the article provides that adoption may be revoked by a court decision if:

1) it is contrary to the interests of the child and does not provide him or her with a family upbringing;

2) the child suffers from mental retardation, mental or other serious incurable illness, which the adopter did not know and could not have known at the time of adoption;

3) regardless of the adopter's will, a relationship has developed between the adopter and the child that makes it impossible for them to live together and for the adopter to fulfill their parental duties.

The authors of the legislative initiative propose to supplement the article with a provision stating that «the fact of divorce between the parties is not a ground for annulment of adoption». They justify this by the need to establish uniform judicial practice.

However, the UNBA pointed out that the initiator did not cite any Supreme Court rulings or decisions of other courts containing conclusions that the dissolution of marriage between the parties is an independent ground for annulment of adoption.

The current legislation does not provide for such grounds, and the Supreme Court has consistently established a stable practice: the dissolution of marriage between adoptive parents does not terminate their obligations towards the child (see, for example, the ruling of 16 April 2025 in case No. 127/37017/23).

Therefore, the advocates point out that the draft merely duplicates the obvious legal position and does not create new guarantees for the protection of the child's interests. Instead, such wording may lead to ambiguous interpretation due to the use of the procedural term «parties» without specifying who exactly is meant.

The UNBA Committee also reminded that the law should be clear, precise, understandable, and provide for the results of its implementation.

The full comments of the UNBA on draft law No. 13283 can be found at link.