New legal regulation in the area of family law, effective from January 2026, brings, amongst other things, a change in terminology – instead of the existing term contact between parent and child, it works with the broader concept of scope of care, as also follows from the provisions of Section 887 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code (hereinafter also referred to as “CC”). This is not merely a linguistic change. This shift emphasises that the relationship between child and parent cannot be reduced solely to time-limited contact, but that it is part of broader parental responsibility and care for the child in all its complexity. Both parents remain bearers of full parental responsibility – and this is key to understanding how parental roles should function even after divorce or separation of unmarried parents.
In practice, however, situations arise where the agreed or court-ordered regime does not function in reality. Two typical levels can be distinguished. The first relates particularly to younger children: it is primarily a conflict between parents, whilst children who cannot express themselves regarding the situation are fully dependent on the behaviour of adults. The second level occurs when the child – typically older, at an age where we actively apply their participatory rights – itself refuses contact with the predominantly non-caring parent. This attitude is, as a rule, a consequence of the original conflict between parents. In both cases the result is the same: the court-adjusted scope of care for the child does not function in fact and the legal state ceases to correspond to the actual state.
The traditional instrument of remedy in these situations is enforcement of the decision in accordance with the relevant provisions of Act No. 292/2013 Coll., the Act on Special Court Proceedings (hereinafter “ZŘS”), Section 500 et seq. – summons to fulfil the obligation, imposition of fines on the parent who prevents the realisation of care, or in the case of younger children also removal of the child with the assistance of OSPOD and the Police. However, practice shows that the sanction approach typically further deepens the conflict between parents, does not resolve the actual cause of the problem and is extraordinarily traumatising for children.
It is precisely for this reason that in recent years consideration of more appropriate procedures has increasingly gained ground: not merely to enforce compliance with the court decision, but actually to resolve the family conflict between its participants – with expert assistance that can help to stabilise the relationship dynamics, and above all contribute to the healing and functioning of future relationships in the family. An important role should be played here in the first phase by the social and legal protection of children authority (orgán sociálně-právní ochrany dětí), which has the statutory possibility to work with the family even before the dispute reaches the phase of court enforcement of the decision. These powers follow from Act No. 359/1999 Coll., on the Social and Legal Protection of Children, specifically in Sections 12 et seq.
How European family law views the matter
The problem of non-functioning contact between parent and child is not specifically Czech – it is one of the most demanding topics in family law across Europe.
This approach also reflects the broader European consensus. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Süss v. Germany (No. 40324/98, § 91) expressly stated that the domestic courts were aware of their duty to preserve the bond between father and daughter and that they clearly imposed on the caring parent the duty to contribute to changing the child’s negative attitude towards the other parent. It was precisely this combination – the court’s awareness of the value of preserving the relationship and the active obligation imposed on the caring parent – that was decisive for the ECtHR in assessing compliance with Article 8 of the Convention.
From this an important conclusion follows for practice: authoritative enforcement of the decision is not sufficient in itself and in cases where the child refuses contact as a consequence of long-term parental conflict, it may even be counterproductive. The key is precisely that positive obligation – active work with the family dynamics, which can only be ensured by an expert with sufficient time mandate. An experienced therapist should work with the child’s resistance and with the negative attitudes of the caring parent and gradually create conditions for actual restoration of the relationship.
The Czech legal regulation, with its emphasis on the therapeutic approach and expert assistance to the family, is thus going in the right direction, where the duty is to focus on “the best interests of the child” in its deepest sense: not merely formal fulfilment of the court decision, but actual preservation and restoration of functioning relationships in the family.
How then to proceed when the legal state does not correspond to the actual one?
First and foremost, it is necessary to identify the actual cause of the problem. In most cases where the court-adjusted scope of care does not function, we do not primarily face a legal problem, but a failure of parental cooperation – and most often a situation where one of the parents consciously or unconsciously disrupts the child’s relationship with the other parent. This phenomenon, referred to in the specialist literature as parental alienation, represents a serious interference with the rights of the child and with the rights of the affected parent. The new legal regulation effective from 1 January 2026 responds to this reality, expressly in Section 889(1) CC, which imposes on each parent the duty to refrain from conduct that disrupts the child’s relationship with the other parent or makes their upbringing more difficult.
The resolution of such situations should therefore be directed primarily towards a conciliatory approach – that is, towards seeking agreement and cooperation, not towards escalation of the conflict. The court, OSPOD and legal representatives of the parents should consistently consider whether it is not appropriate, already in the early phase, to involve expert assistance: not in order that formal requirements of the proceedings be met, but in order that actual work be done with the family dynamics.
The Act in Section 503 ZŘS enables the court to order, as one of the further measures in enforcement of the decision, a meeting with a mediator for a duration of three hours. This statutory period is in practice entirely insufficient – precisely in cases where one of the parents does not cooperate or where the child refuses contact with the other parent as a consequence of long-term parental alienation. Three hours cannot provide an experienced therapist with the space to break through the initial resistance, gain the trust of the child and parents and create conditions for actual change. Yet it is precisely an experienced therapist with a sufficient time mandate who has a real chance – despite initial unwillingness – to initiate the process of healing relationships.
The Act does not in any way exclude a longer therapeutic process. Courts have scope to order participation in family therapy to the necessary extent as part of their decision – and it would be desirable for this practice to become a routine part of court decisions in matters where non-functioning scope of care signals a deeper family conflict. The therapist can then continuously report to the court on the development of the situation, which enables the court to monitor whether the child’s circumstances are actually changing for the better.
However, the key role in this entire process does not lie solely on the shoulders of the court. Lawyers representing parents in family matters and OSPOD workers are those who can – and should – influence parents even before the matter escalates to the enforcement phase of the decision. A conciliatory approach by a lawyer in family law is not a manifestation of weakness nor abandonment of the client’s interests. On the contrary, it is an expression of professionalism and deep understanding that in family disputes involving children, the long-term interest of the client and the interest of the child most often lie on the side of reconciliation, not victory.
Petra Šatavová and Adéla Haak
This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.