Draft Law #15438-1 of August 5, 2026

Who is affected: orphaned children and children deprived of parental care; children whose parents are in captivity, have gone missing, or have remained in occupied territory; children evacuated without parental accompaniment; children who are participants in criminal proceedings; guardians, custodians, foster parents, and parent-carers of family-type children’s homes; children’s affairs services and guardianship authorities; the prosecutor’s office.

Initiators: 14 members of parliament from the “Servant of the People” faction and the “Restoration of Ukraine” and “Platform for Life and Peace” groups, led by Pavlo Sushko.

Summary:

  • increases the allowance for children under guardianship from the current 2.5 subsistence minimums to 7.0, and for a child with a disability to 10.0 subsistence minimums; the same amounts are extended to children in foster families and family-type children’s homes;
  • substantially expands the definition of “children deprived of parental care”: it now includes children whose parents are prisoners of war, have gone missing under special circumstances, or have been deprived of personal liberty by the occupying authorities, as well as children forcibly evacuated from areas of hostilities without parental accompaniment;
  • introduces the Child Protection Center — a multidisciplinary facility for conducting investigative actions involving a child in a child-friendly environment, with the provision of social, psychological, legal, and pre-medical assistance (the model known internationally as Barnahus);
  • introduces juvenile specialization in the prosecutor’s office: in criminal proceedings involving minors, powers are exercised by specialized (juvenile) prosecutors;
  • enshrines the Unified Information System “Children” at the level of law, designating the state as its owner and listing the categories of children whose data it stores;
  • expands the prohibition on intermediary and commercial activity, now covering not only adoption but also the transfer of children into guardianship, custody, foster families, and FTCHs;
  • obliges a father who is not married to the mother to collect the child from the maternity hospital if the mother has not done so, upon notification by the children’s affairs service;
  • changes the configuration of guardianship and custody authorities — these are designated as district state administrations in Kyiv and Sevastopol and the executive committees of city, town, and village councils;
  • introduces a definition of “family-based forms of upbringing” and clarifies the powers of central executive authorities regarding the protection of children’s rights.

What is right:

  • The creation of the Child Protection Center. A child who has witnessed or suffered from a crime has until now undergone questioning in investigators’ offices, in an environment designed for adults, often repeatedly, and each interview reproduced the trauma. The model in which investigative actions are conducted once, in adapted premises, with the participation of a psychologist and with simultaneous access to medical and legal assistance, is a European standard and a long-standing request of the human rights community. The appearance of juvenile prosecutors logically complements this construction.
  • Expanding the definition of children deprived of parental care. A child whose father has been taken captive while the mother has remained in occupied territory was legally left in limbo: the parents are alive and have not been deprived of their rights, but the child is effectively without care. The same applies to children taken away by the occupiers without their parents. The draft law closes a gap that cost specific children months of uncertainty over their status, and therefore over their placement and payments as well.
  • Extending the prohibition on commercial intermediation beyond adoption is targeted but substantial: a market of “assistance” in placing children under guardianship exists, and the current provision did not cover it.
  • The provision on an unmarried father dismantles the entrenched presumption that a child in a maternity hospital is the responsibility of the mother alone. Where paternity has been established, the duty arises regardless of marriage.

What is wrong:

The sharp increase in the amount of state assistance requires a proper financial and economic justification. Raising the allowance from 2.5 to 7.0 subsistence minimums means payments for each child under guardianship that are almost three times higher, and for children with disabilities the increase is even more significant. On the scale of tens of thousands of children, this amounts to billions in annual expenditure. The text of the draft law contains neither a source of funding, nor a transitional period, nor any mention of amendments to the budget. The idea of increasing payments is itself correct: the current amount does not cover the real costs of maintaining a child, and this is one of the reasons why citizens hesitate to take children into guardianship. But a provision without financial backing will either fail to work or work with a delay — and then it is once again a declaration.

Alternative solution:

  • The provision on increasing the allowance requires a financial and economic justification and a phased schedule — for example, an increase to 5.0 subsistence minimums from the next budget year and to 7.0 a year later, with the source explicitly specified. This would make the provision real rather than deferred.
  • The law should either directly establish the basic requirements for the territorial accessibility of child protection centers and for their staffing and material provision, or clearly instruct the Cabinet of Ministers to approve such standards within a defined period, tied to the date the law enters into force. A provision that merely permits the creation of centers leaves their emergence to the discretion of local budgets, and therefore creates inequality in children’s access to protection depending on where they live.