Back to the past. A code that hates women

Every year, in the run-up to March 8, we tell the stories of remarkable women. About women artists who broke stereotypes, about women scientists who changed the world, about the women who fought for equality and thanks to whom we today have the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to make decisions about our own bodies. 

But this year there will be no celebratory posts or historical profiles. Because instead of moving forward toward European human rights standards, we are forced to demand basic things that seemed to have been won long ago. The reason is the draft of the new Civil Code of Ukraine (No. 14394).

Under the guise of recodification, we are being offered a document that throws women’s rights back into the past. Instead of safety and the protection of rights, the authors of the new Civil Code propose to:

• Force survivors of domestic violence to “make peace” with their abusers.
• Ban women from divorcing during pregnancy and in the child’s first year of life.
• Fine them for a canceled wedding.
• Judge whether a marriage is worth anything solely by a woman’s willingness to give birth.
• Cement patriarchal traditions by giving a child the patronymic of a man who does not even take part in raising them.

March 8 is a day of struggle for women’s rights. And today that struggle is unfolding once again — in the information space and in the legal arena. We need to know by name the provisions that someone is trying to pass quietly and without proper expert review.

So what is hiding behind the dry legal wording? Let us start with the basic right to protection.

Article 21. Mediation as a substitution of concepts: when negotiations are called “protection” 

Protection of civil rights and legitimate interests by a mediator 

1. A mediator protects a person’s civil rights and legitimate interests by conducting mediation as an out-of-court procedure for settling a civil conflict (dispute) in the cases and in the manner established by law and/or by contract.

When your rights are violated, you expect protection. If you have been defrauded, beaten, or had your property taken away, you go to court or to the police to restore justice. But Article 21 of the new Civil Code calls mediation a “means of protecting rights,” although by its very nature this is not protection in the authoritative legal sense but a voluntary out-of-court procedure for settling a dispute. 

Mediation is a voluntary dialogue between two parties assisted by a neutral intermediary. A mediator has no power and cannot punish the person at fault. This is not a defender but merely  a facilitator of the conversation.

And substituting “negotiations” for “protection” is extremely risky. 

Olia’s (not) made-up story 

Olha finally dared to leave a husband who had subjected her to economic and psychological violence for years: he controlled every penny, forbade her to work, threatened to take the children away, and from time to time would shove her when he was “in a bad mood” and she was “in the way.”

Olha is looking for protection. She wants the law to guarantee her safety and child support. But what she hears is: “You have an excellent means of protection — mediation. Try to reach an agreement.”

Instead of receiving a court order or help from the police, Olia finds herself at the same table as her abuser. The mediator is a neutral person who simply moderates the dialogue.

Looking Olha in the eye, her husband calmly says: “If you don’t sign away the property right now, I will make sure you never see the children again. I have connections, and you have no money.”

She is not on an equal footing, so she cannot “negotiate,” and she agrees to any terms just to make it end. 

Legally, “protection” through mediation has taken place; in reality, the state has left a woman alone with her aggressor.

A survivor cannot negotiate with an aggressor as an equal.

Calling negotiations “protection” means relieving the state of responsibility for the safety of its citizens. 

It is also worth noting that the use of mediation in domestic violence cases is strictly prohibited in Ukraine by law: the Law of Ukraine “On Preventing and Combating Domestic Violence,” the Law of Ukraine On Mediation, and the Istanbul Convention. Mediation is an unacceptable mechanism in such cases precisely because mediation is a voluntary process based on the equality of the parties, which is impossible in cases of violence, where there is an abuser and a survivor.

We support mediation as a way of resolving conflicts, but we are against using it as a substitute for justice.

_________________________________________________________________________

Article 1488. Changed your mind about getting married? Get ready to pay “moral damages”

Paragraph 4 of Article 1488. Engagement reads as follows: 

4. A person who has refused to enter into marriage after an engagement is obliged to reimburse the other party for the expenses it incurred in preparing for the marriage and the wedding, and also to compensate for moral damage.

The authors decided to restore the institution of engagement as an official status and to add new, punitive elements to it.

The price of saying “No.”

Imagine a woman who realizes a month before the wedding that her fiancé is a tyrant. She sees the first signs of aggression and control and wants to escape from her abuser.

Maryna’s (not) made-up story

Maryna is 24. Six months ago she said “yes” to her boyfriend, Oleh. Oleh is successful, well-off, and fond of grand gestures. He threw a loud engagement party that every local page wrote about, and he has already put down a deposit at an upscale restaurant. But a month before the wedding, the fairy tale turned into a nightmare. Oleh began to control Maryna’s every step and to check her phone, and he forbade her to see her friends. And yesterday, during an argument, he raised his hand against her for the first time. Maryna is frightened; she realizes she has made a mistake and does not want to marry a man like this. She packs her things and says there will be no wedding.

Oleh’s reaction is immediate and cynical. He does not shout. He takes out his phone and calls his lawyer.

— “You can go,” he says. “But you will pay me for everything. Not just for the restaurant. You will compensate me for the moral damage of humiliating me in front of my family and my business partners. It will be a sum with five zeros. Do you have that kind of money? Or will your parents sell their apartment to pay it off?”

Maryna knows she does not have that kind of money. She also knows that going to court against Oleh would be long and expensive.

Demanding payment for moral damage because someone changed their mind is economic coercion into marriage, wrapped in the pretty word “engagement.” A marriage should be a union of love, an equal partnership, and not a contract with a penalty for walking out. P.S. “For the chosen ones only.”

And, of course, the article is a reminder: only a woman and a man may become engaged.

Same-sex couples are once again left outside the legal field. They are allowed neither to marry nor even to officially promise to do so.

We are against punishing people financially for making the timely decision “not to marry.”

_________________________________________________________________________

Article 1512: Pregnant? Endure it. Given birth? Endure another year.

Article 1512. The right to file a claim for the dissolution of a marriage

Part 2. A claim for the dissolution of a marriage shall not be granted during the wife’s pregnancy or within one year after the birth of a child, except in cases where:

1) domestic violence or other unlawful conduct containing elements of a criminal offense has been committed against one of the spouses or against the child.

In November 2024, we all rejoiced when the Verkhovna Rada finally removed from the law the shameful ban on divorce during pregnancy (No. 4073-IX). That was an important victory for the human rights community, since the previous restrictions often forced women to stay in a marriage with their abusers, because the courts simply refused to accept their claims.

Bringing this ban back in the new draft Civil Code is a deliberate and cynical act of revenge that cancels out the country’s European integration achievements and contradicts the fundamental principles of human rights. 

The authors of the new Civil Code have decided that women have too much freedom. So they are bringing the ban back.

What does this mean in practice? If you are pregnant or have a child under one year old, you cannot get a divorce. 

“But there is an exception for violence!” the draft’s defenders will say. There is — but in order to get a divorce, you have to prove that your husband committed a criminal offense. The problem is that in real life domestic violence does not always immediately receive a criminal law classification. It often involves situations that go through administrative procedures, emergency restraining orders, and reports to the police without a conviction or even without criminal proceedings being opened.

Ira’s (not) made-up story

Iryna is 29. She has a four-month-old son. The past year of her life has turned into hell. Her husband, once caring, changed completely during her pregnancy. At first it was shouting about “dirty dishes.” And yesterday he shoved her for the first time. Hard, into a wall, while she was feeding the baby. She called the police. The patrol arrived, calmed him down, drew up a report under Article 173-2 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (domestic violence), and drove away. It is an administrative offense. The fine is UAH 340.

Ira packed her things, took her son, and went to a lawyer to file for divorce. The lawyer looked at her with pity and laid a printout of the new Civil Code on the desk. – “Iryna, I cannot file your claim,” he said. “Article 1512 of the Civil Code. Divorce is prohibited until the child turns one.”

– “But he is aggressive! I have a police report!” she exclaimed.

– “That is not enough,” the lawyer explained. “The law allows an exception only if there are elements of a criminal offense. Your husband pushed you, but he did not cause bodily harm of medium severity. That is an “administrative matter.” As far as the court is concerned, you are an ordinary family that has to be preserved. You will have to wait another 8 months.”

Iryna has nowhere to go, she has no money of her own (because she is on maternity leave), and she cannot get a divorce in order to receive child support and the status of a free woman. 

The state tells the woman: go back to your abuser. Endure it. Maybe if he beats you harder — hard enough for criminal charges — we will grant you a divorce.

We are in favor of protecting motherhood and childhood, and we are categorically against this “protection” turning into the forced imprisonment of a woman in a dangerous marriage. 

_________________________________________________________________________

Article 1513. “Make peace with him, it is not as if he killed you.” 

Article 1513. Court measures for the reconciliation of spouses

1. A court may take measures to reconcile the spouses if this is consistent with good morals.

5. If one of the spouses has committed domestic violence or other unlawful conduct containing elements of a criminal offense, no measures shall be taken to reconcile the spouses.

We are returning to the notorious practice of “Soviet courts,” where the main goal was to preserve the “cell of society” at any cost, even at the cost of a woman’s safety.

Imagine the situation: a woman decides to leave an abusive husband. He controls her, humiliates her, and gets physical. The police came and drew up a report on an administrative offense (the most common practice in Ukraine). She  files for divorce so she can finally breathe out. And the judge says: “No. You have 6 months for reconciliation.”

Why? Because that is what the new draft Civil Code says. The only way to avoid it is if the violence contains elements of a criminal offense.

And if it is “just” domestic violence (an administrative offense), psychological pressure, or economic control, it does not count. Guided by the vague notion of “good morals,” the judge will send her off to make peace with her tyrant.

The problem lies in the dual classification of domestic violence in Ukrainian law. In Ukraine it can be either an administrative offense (a fine) or a criminal one (Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

It becomes a criminal offense only when it is committed systematically. But national legislation gives no clear and unambiguous definition of that “systematic” nature. How many times does a woman have to be beaten, or how many times does she have to call the police, for the system to recognize it as a criminal matter? Three? Five?

This legal gap makes it extremely difficult to protect survivors effectively and to hold abusers genuinely accountable. Because of it, the lion’s share of domestic violence cases remains merely an “administrative offense.”

If it is “only” an administrative offense, psychological pressure, or economic control, then as far as the law is concerned it does not count. Guided by the vague notion of “good morals,” the judge will send the woman off to make peace with her tyrant.

Those six months can cost a woman her health or even her life. This is time the abuser will use for blackmail, intimidation, or hiding the couple’s shared property.

A free person has the right to leave a relationship freely. This is an axiom of the civilized world.

_________________________________________________________________________

Article 1514. “For better, for worse”… as long as you meet the quota for children. Grounds for the dissolution of a marriage at the claim of one of the spouses. 

2. …… A wife’s refusal to give birth to a child, or her inability to give birth to a child, may be grounds for the dissolution of the marriage.

The new draft Civil Code states it outright: not wanting or not being able to have children is a separate ground for divorce.

You might ask, what difference does it make? People divorce anyway when they have different views of the future. But there is a difference. 

Because the state is telling us: “A normal marriage is one with children. If you do not want them, or (even worse) cannot have them, your marriage is defective.” This is the legalization of reproductive pressure and a tool for blackmailing women. In the 21st century, the only reason for divorce is the absence of a desire to be together. Period.

Katia’s (not) made-up story

Kateryna is 32. For the past five years she and her husband have been living from one ovulation to the next. Hundreds of tests, hormone injections, two failed IVF attempts. She blames herself, even though the doctors say: “You just have to get through this, there is a chance.” But her husband got tired of waiting and filed for divorce. Kateryna receives a copy of the statement of claim. And there, in black and white, citing Article 1514, it says: “Grounds for the claim: the wife’s inability to give birth to a child.”

In court, her medical record becomes evidence. Her diagnosis becomes a subject of discussion for strangers. Her husband is not just leaving; he is putting it on the legal record: “I am divorcing her because she is broken. She is not performing her function.”

Guided by the law, the judge grants the claim on exactly those grounds. 

It is humiliating. “For better, for worse,” but “only as long as you can bear children.” Making reproductive function the measure of a family’s worth is barbaric. The problem with this provision is that it effectively ties the value of a marriage to a woman’s reproductive function. The very language of the provision is unequal: for a man it is an unwillingness to have a child, for a woman it is a refusal to give birth.

We demand that this archaism be removed. A marriage falls apart when love and respect disappear, not when someone has failed to meet the “quota for children.”

_________________________________________________________________________

Article 1543. “There is no father, but a “patronymic” you must have.” “Just write down somebody.” How the law puts pressure on mothers.

Article 1543. Determining a child’s patronymic.

1. A child’s patronymic shall be determined by the father’s first name.

2. The patronymic of a child born to a woman who is not married, provided that paternity in respect of the child has not been acknowledged, shall be determined by the first name of the person whom the child’s mother has named as the father.

Why, in the 21st century, when women give birth to children, raise them, and provide for them on their own, does the law still force a child to be labeled with a man’s name? Even if that man is merely a biological father or, worse, an abuser.

You carried the child for 9 months. You went through the pain of giving birth. You did not sleep at night, and yet the law says: the child must bear the father’s name. Even if you are raising the child alone. Even if there is no father in the child’s life and never will be.

And now let us transfer this dry provision into our wartime reality. Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV). Imagine a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape by a Russian occupier and made the extraordinarily difficult decision to keep the child.

What does the state offer her in Article 1543 of the new Civil Code? It forces her to record a patronymic. If by some miracle the woman learned the name of her torturer during the occupation, will the law really force her to give the child the rapist’s name and tie him to the family forever? And if there is no name, the law demands that the woman invent a phantom man. That she lie, just to satisfy the system.

The state is cementing a patriarchal tradition: a patronymic is mandatory.

Why do we still not have the right to give a child a name derived from the mother (a matronymic)?

Why is a woman’s name worth less for identifying a child than a man’s? 

Mariia’s (not) made-up story

Mariia’s pregnancy looked nothing like the pictures on Instagram. It was the result of violence. She went through hell and through therapy, and she made the difficult decision to keep the child. She decided that her daughter would have a new life, a clean slate. Mariia gave birth to a wonderful girl. She came to the civil registry office to receive the birth certificate. In the “father” field she put a dash. But then the clerk looked at the “patronymic” field.

– “What patronymic shall we write?” the official asked. – “None,” Mariia replied. “There is no father. I want to give her my own name. Let her be Hanna Mariivna. Or simply without a patronymic, the way it is in Europe.”

The official sighed and opened Article 1543 of the new Civil Code. – “You can’t, dear. The law says clearly: the patronymic is determined by the first name of the father. Even if there is no father. You have to give the name of the person whom you… name as her father. Well, come up with some man’s name. Write “Ivanivna” or “Olehivna.” What difference does it make to you?”

Mariia felt sick. She is being offered a choice: either write down the rapist’s name and tie him to the child forever. Or lie and invent a man who does not exist, just to satisfy the bureaucratic machine.

She left the office with a certificate in which her daughter had a made-up patronymic. The law told her plainly: your name is not enough. For the child to be “complete” in the eyes of the system, she needs a man’s “stamp.” Even if that man is a fiction or a criminal.

Why force a woman to lie? Why create a phantom father in official documents?

We demand alternatives. If there is no father, a patronymic should not be mandatory. Or there should be the right to give a child the mother’s name.

Bureaucracy must not matter more than a family’s dignity and peace of mind.

The draft of the new Civil Code (No. 14394) shows how the state sees a woman’s place in society. And, judging by the articles we have analyzed, we are still being reduced to a convenient function: powerless before an abuser, obliged to give birth, and subordinated to archaic traditions.

Under the slogans of a “European renewal of legislation,” we are being offered the revenge of a system in which preserving a fictitious marriage matters more than physical safety, and bureaucracy stands above human dignity.

March 8 is a painful reminder that no right is carved in stone forever. Rights have to be defended every day. Our safety, our choice, and our children cannot be bargaining chips in the backroom games of the Code’s authors.

The project is implemented by Insight NGO with the technical support of UN Women in Ukraine and funding from the United Nations Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund (WPHF), a flexible and rapid funding instrument that supports quality interventions to strengthen the capacity of local women to prevent conflict, respond to crises and emergencies, and seize key peacebuilding opportunities.

This material was prepared with the financial support of the United Nations Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund (WPHF), but this does not mean that the views expressed and the content are officially endorsed or recognized by the United Nations.