The situation where, after a divorce, a former spouse officially earns a minimum wage or is registered as unemployed, yet purchases cars and real estate, is one of the most common schemes for evading child support. However, Ukrainian legislation contains mechanisms that allow parents to seek justice, even if the child's father hides his actual level of wealth.

Anna Salienko, a lawyer at the law firm "Prykhodko & Partners," explained to RBC-Ukraine how the law works in such cases and why courts are increasingly siding with children.

Why a percentage of income doesn't work

The classic evasion scheme is built on understating official income. If child support is collected as a percentage of income (according to Article 183 of the Family Code of Ukraine), the amount payable from the official "minimum wage" is negligible. This creates an illusion of legality for the payer but does not cover the child's actual needs.

The expert points out the only effective solution to this situation: one must file a lawsuit to collect child support as a fixed monetary amount (Article 184 of the Family Code). If a court has already ruled on percentage payments, the method of collection can be changed through the court.

Burden of proof: who must prove what?

A key tool for protecting the child's rights is Part 3 of Article 182 of the Family Code. It states that the court is not limited by the size of the payer's official earnings if they have expenses exceeding this income and cannot prove the legal origin of the funds.

In simple terms, the mother does not necessarily have to "calculate" the father's hidden accounts or underground income. It is sufficient to prove that his lifestyle does not correspond to his declared income. The purchase of a new car, real estate, or expensive trips become weighty arguments. In this case, the burden of proving the origin of funds shifts to the child support payer.

Important nuances and exceptions

Courts evaluate evidence in the aggregate, however, there are limits to this approach. The Supreme Court of Ukraine proceeds from the premise that not every receipt of money is considered income for calculating child support.

For example, one-off transactions, such as the sale of one's own car or apartment, are not considered regular earnings. This is viewed as an exchange of one asset for money. Similarly, inherited or gifted property is not included in the base for calculating child support.

Guarantees for children

Lawyer Anna Salienko highlighted two critically important circumstances that protect the child's interests in any situation:

  • Minimum payment threshold: Regardless of the payer's official status, the amount of child support cannot be less than 50% of the subsistence minimum for a child of the corresponding age. At the same time, the full subsistence minimum is the recommended benchmark.
  • Calculation of debt for the unemployed: If the payer is officially unemployed and accumulating arrears, the debt is calculated based on the average wage in the respective region, not from zero.

Thus, Ukrainian law sends a clear signal: attempting to hide actual wealth through "grey" schemes or fictitious unemployment does not exempt one from responsibility towards the child.