Tuloblsud refused to pay for his son, his father, who left the family

The Tula Regional Court considered an appeal in the case of the right to receive a lump sum payment to family members of a serviceman who disappeared during a special military operation. The judicial panel on civil cases came to the conclusion that the father of the fighter did not acquire the right to social benefits provided for by law, since he actually avoided the upbringing and maintenance of his son.

The lawsuit was filed by the mother of a soldier who served under contract in the Russian Armed Forces. The woman asked to deprive the ex-husband of the right to payments due to family members of the SVO participant.

The plaintiff and the defendant had been married since 1994. On September 18 of the same year, they had a son, but family life did not work out, and in 2000 the couple divorced.

According to the woman, after the birth of the child, the father showed no interest in his life, did not participate in the upbringing and did not provide his son with moral, physical and spiritual support. After the dissolution of the marriage, the mother independently engaged in the upbringing of the child and provided for it until the age of majority.

On July 26, 2025, his son signed a contract for military service in the Russian Armed Forces. On January 28, 2026, he went missing while performing tasks of a special military operation near the settlement of Kupyansk.

The mother of the soldier considered that the former spouse, who did not participate in the life of his son and did not perform parental duties, should not receive payments in connection with his disappearance.

The court of first instance agreed with the arguments of the plaintiff and satisfied the claims. However, the defendant did not agree with the decision and filed an appeal.

When considering the case, the regional court examined the submitted materials and found that the fact of the man’s self-removal from the upbringing and maintenance of his son was confirmed by evidence. However, the defendant and his representative did not provide evidence disproving these circumstances.

The appellate instance stressed that the kinship with a serviceman and the absence of a decision on deprivation of parental rights do not mean an unconditional right to receive social benefits provided for by law.

The court also took into account that after the dissolution of the marriage in 2000, the mother independently raised her son and supported him until the age of majority. Taking into account the purposes of the disputed payments, the judicial panel concluded that the father had not acquired the right to receive them.