Ukraine’s government has submitted legislation designed to overhaul how domestic courts handle requests for the return of children allegedly wrongfully removed to or retained in the country. Registered as Bill No. 16177, the measure would amend civil procedure, family law, enforcement rules and legislation governing departure from Ukraine by citizens, foreigners and stateless persons.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine reported the registration on Thursday, October 22. The legal policy committee was designated as the lead committee, while a broad group of parliamentary panels covering foreign affairs, human rights, law enforcement, children and youth, social policy, the budget, anti-corruption and European integration were also assigned to examine the proposal.

The bill is rooted in the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Despite its name, the treaty’s return mechanism is a civil remedy rather than a criminal proceeding and does not itself determine final custody. Its central premise is that a child wrongfully taken across borders should generally be returned promptly so that custody and parental-responsibility questions can be decided in the state of habitual residence.

Speed is therefore embedded in the treaty framework. Article 11 calls on judicial and administrative authorities to act expeditiously and allows an explanation to be requested when no decision has been reached within six weeks of the start of proceedings. The Ukrainian government’s explanatory memorandum says existing national procedures have not always delivered decisions within that benchmark, weakening the practical effectiveness of the return system.

The memorandum points to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in M.R. and D.R. v. Ukraine, Khabrovskiy v. Ukraine, Vilenchik v. Ukraine, Lyakh v. Ukraine and Bakharov v. Ukraine. According to the government, those cases identified violations of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with excessive proceedings in Hague return disputes among the central concerns.

At the heart of the proposal is a new chapter in the Civil Procedure Code dedicated exclusively to Convention cases. A claim would have to identify the child’s habitual-residence state, explain why the removal or retention was wrongful, describe any attempt to achieve a voluntary return and propose practical arrangements and funding for the journey. Foreign-language documents would require Ukrainian translations certified by the translator’s signature and, where available, seal.

The timetable would be markedly compressed. A defence response could not be given more than five days, and subsequent written submissions would face the same maximum period. A court would be required to begin the hearing within 15 days after opening the case and decide it within 15 days after the hearing begins, with a single extension of no more than 15 days in exceptional circumstances. Appeals would have to be filed within ten days and resolved within 15 days after appellate proceedings are opened.

Access to the Supreme Court would also be narrowed. Cassation would generally be unavailable, subject to exceptions where the first-instance court relied on specified Hague Convention defences or where an appeal raises a legal question of fundamental importance for consistent case law. The design reflects a deliberate trade-off: fewer layers of routine review in exchange for speed, while preserving a route for particularly serious risk assessments and precedent-setting issues.

The government additionally proposes concentrating jurisdiction. The head of each appellate court would select two local general courts in the relevant appellate district to hear Hague return claims. The claimant could choose between the designated courts associated with the defendant’s declared or registered residence. The explanatory note cites comparable forms of concentration in countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. The expected benefit is a smaller pool of judges developing sustained expertise in treaty law and cross-border evidence.

Interim safeguards form another substantial part of the package. A court could temporarily prevent the respondent, the child or both from leaving Ukraine until a judgment is issued, and it could secure temporary contact between the claimant and child. Where ordinary service has failed despite the court’s efforts, notice of a hearing could be posted on the judiciary portal at least seven days in advance, supplemented by telephone, email or another traceable communication channel when contact information is available.

The fast-track model would not require return in every case. Judges would still have to decide whether the removal or retention was wrongful and consider the treaty’s limited exceptions. The child would participate and be heard when sufficiently mature, with educators or psychologists consulted if necessary. Proposed Family Code changes expressly address domestic violence, allowing the court to consider whether return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. Mediation or judge-assisted settlement would remain possible, but any related suspension could last no more than 15 days.

Enforcement provisions seek to prevent a favourable judgment from becoming ineffective. A return order would set out deadlines, handover arrangements, travel costs and, if necessary, authority for compulsory entry into premises where the child is located. In an exceptional situation involving concealment or a change of residence, the child could be placed temporarily with relatives or other people with whom the child has close ties, rather than only in an institution. The government presents that option as a less traumatic protective measure.

The explanatory memorandum says implementation would require no additional state or local budget spending. It records approval without comments from the State Judicial Administration, procedural approval by the Supreme Court and partial incorporation of observations from the parliamentary human rights commissioner. The reform is also linked to Ukraine’s rule-of-law roadmap under the EU accession process. As of October 23, however, the text remained a government bill under parliamentary consideration; its deadlines, travel restrictions and specialised-court model would apply only if the measure completes the legislative process and enters into force.