Divorce with children after the amendment: one procedure, new custody rules and a stronger position for the child

One proceeding instead of two: divorce and child adjustment in one package

It is now the case that divorce and the adjustment of relations with minor children are separate – first the court decides on the children and only then can the divorce follow. In practice, this means filing two petitions, two different court proceedings, two docket marks and often two different court hearings. The result is a longer wait not only for the divorce itself, but above all for clarity on how the child will live after the parents’ separation.

The new Civil Code regulation, in force since January 2026, changes this procedure. The law now provides that both issues – i.e. divorce and child custody – are usually resolved at the same time in one joint proceeding. The parents file a single petition and the court decides both the divorce and the child’s residence, custody, contact with the other parent and maintenance. For families, this means fewer formalities, simplification of the whole process and, above all, a shorter period of uncertainty. The child will no longer have to wait for a final decision in a long two-stage procedure while the parents are effectively not living together.

It is important to stress, however, that even after the amendment, the court cannot rule on the divorce before the relations with the minor children have been finally settled. The difference lies in the fact that everything will take place in one proceeding – if the parents already have a final decision on the children from a previous proceeding, the court can dissolve the marriage without further proceedings, without reopening the issue of the children.

The law does not forget about exceptional situations where joint proceedings would not be practical. For example, if one of the spouses refuses the divorce on principle and it is obvious that the divorce proceedings themselves may be significantly prolonged, the court may decide on the children separately first. In such a case, the child’s best interests are taken into account – i.e. the desire to adjust his or her living situation as soon as possible without having to wait for the resolution of the dispute between the parents regarding the divorce itself.

No more “alternate” and “exclusive” care: emphasis on cooperation, not competition

It is now common to use terms such as ‘alternate care’, ‘sole custody’ or ‘single parent custody’ when making decisions about children. However, in practice, these terms often lead parents and their legal representatives to see the proceedings as a dispute over the outcome – who will be the ‘main parent’ and who will remain ‘in contact’. The discussion then focuses on who will ‘get’ custody rather than what the child’s daily life will look like after the separation.

The amendment effective 1 January 2026 changes this thinking. Terms such as alternate or sole custody will no longer be used, as the law is based on the principle that both parents have an equal right and duty to care for the child. The child has the right to remain in contact with both parents and to be cared for by both – and it is on this basis that decisions will now be made.

The court will therefore not determine the ‘type of care’ by a formal label, but will focus on the specific arrangement. It will set out where the child will habitually reside, how much time he or she will spend with each parent and what the days, weeks and transitions between households will look like in practice. The focus is on the needs of the individual child – taking into account their age, schooling, leisure activities and the ability of the parents to communicate with each other.

This means that models such as the ‘week at mum’s, week at dad’s’ rotation are not disappearing from practice – they are just no longer formally referred to as ‘alternating care’. In short, the court will decide that the child spends part of the time with one parent and part with the other. Similarly, situations where the child lives mostly with one parent and sees the other parent regularly will be described factually – without labels. Both parents will retain their parental responsibility, which is not per se extinguished or limited by the decision on the extent of custody.

The fundamental shift thus also concerns the arguments in the proceedings themselves. Instead of fighting over a particular form of custody, a substantive assessment should be made: who is actually caring for the child, how the child benefits from the arrangement and whether the other parent is being prevented from caring. The law explicitly emphasises the right of the child to have contact with both parents, not only in person but also by telephone, e-mail or video calls. It also gives the courts greater power to set conditions to ensure that the agreed regime is respected. If one parent violates the rules, this may be grounds for modification.

It is important for parents to know that the amendment does not prescribe any ideal custody model in advance. It does not say that a 50/50 split of time is best, nor does it say that the child should automatically be with one parent. Each situation will be assessed individually and the aim is to find the arrangement that best suits the needs of the individual child. Legal terminology thus gives way to practical insight: what the child really needs and how both parents can contribute.

New parental responsibility: when a court can limit a parent’s rights

Until the end of 2025, if a parent is not limited in his or her capacity and the court has not expressly limited, suspended or suspended the exercise of parental responsibility, he or she formally has the same rights and obligations as the other parent – regardless of whether or not he or she actually cares for the child. In practice, this means that even a parent who sees the child minimally or not at all has the right to co-determine major issues such as school choice, consent to medical care or moving. The other parent then often has to ask the court to resolve the specific dispute or to intervene in the scope of the other parent’s rights.

The amendment, which will enter into force in January 2026, does not address this discrepancy between ‘paper’ and real parenting by creating a new institution, but rather by strengthening and clarifying the existing arrangements. The law confirms that parental responsibility belongs equally to both parents. At the same time, however, it emphasises that the child’s best interests should always be the key guiding principle in its exercise – including in deciding whether to limit it.

If one of the parents fails to care for the child for a long time or systematically fails in fundamental matters, the court still has the means to limit his or her share of parental responsibility. It may suspend or partially limit the exercise of parental responsibility or relieve the parent of that responsibility altogether. The amendment does not change these powers, but better links them to custody decisions – so that courts can respond more effectively to situations where one parent is not genuinely interested in the child, but at the same time can impede a crucial decision.

The law also continues to assume thatlimiting or removing parental responsibility should occur primarily where the child is genuinely at risk or the parent is seriously and persistently failing to meet his or her obligations. In practice, this is particularly the case in cases of serious domestic violence, severe addictions, long-term imprisonment or the parent’s incapacity. These situations are not explicitly listed in the law, but are based on the explanatory memorandum to the amendment and on established case law. The key criterion always remains the best interests of the child.

For parents, this implies two important facts. First, the amendment provides a clearer framework for when it is appropriate to seek intervention in the parental responsibility of the other parent – for example, in cases of long-term absence of interest, repeated failure to fulfil obligations or threatening behaviour. Secondly, the law aims at greater consistency in the courts: important issues in a child’s life should not be decided by a parent who has no real involvement in the child’s upbringing, but at the same time the other parent should not be automatically excluded from decisions just because the child lives mainly with the mother or father.

The aim of the amendment is not to punish one parent, but to ensure protection and stability for the child. Intervention in parental responsibility is therefore to be used only where it is really appropriate – and to prevent the non-participating parent from influencing important decisions in the child’s life without adequate care or concern.

Interim decision: a quick and balanced solution to an urgent situation

As of January 2026, a new institute – the interim decision– will be introduced into Czech family law. This is an instrument designed to allow for a quick and temporary arrangement of custody and access to the child in situations where it is necessary to intervene quickly, but at the same time it is not appropriate to apply a traditional interim measure.

In current practice, parents usually apply for an interim measure in urgent cases. The court often decides very quickly – sometimes even without hearing the other parent, just on the basis of a unilateral application and attached documents. The result is a situation where one of the parents only learns of a fundamental change in the child’s circumstances from the order served, without having had the opportunity to comment on the matter beforehand.

The new institution of the interim decision is intended to redress this imbalance. The aim is to reconcile the need for rapid intervention with the right of all concerned – including the child, if able – to be heard. The court will thus be able to decide on temporary custody or access arrangements both in proceedings already under way and before they are initiated. However, this will always be after all parties have had the opportunity to respond to the application and to make representations. Although the decision can only be based on written documents, it cannot be made unilaterally “behind the back” of the other parent.

Also important is the limitation that the law places on the actual content of the provisional decision. In this way, it will not be possible to entrust a child to the care of persons outside the family by default – for example, to an institution or a completely unrelated person. The only exception will be in special situations, such as possible adoption or other intervention under special statutory arrangements. In normal practice, this will mainly involve temporary decisions on where the child will live, what contact with the other parent will look like or how care will be temporarily exercised.

The law also sets clear timeframes. The court is to make a decision without undue delay, within three months of the petition being filed at the latest. The interim decision itself will then only be valid for as long as necessary, but no longer than three months after it becomes enforceable. If it is necessary to extend this regime, the court must do so by a new decision, again after an assessment of the situation and with the participation of all the parties involved.

The law also addresses the issue of appeals. In some cases, an appeal will not be admissible against an interim decision – in particular where the decision is based on a proposal by the parties. In others, for example if the court decides without a motion, an appeal will be possible. This, too, confirms that the purpose of this instrument is primarily a flexible and temporary setting, not a fundamental and permanent intervention in the life of the child and the family.

The new institution thus strikes a better balance between the speed of proceedings and the right to a fair trial. It is intended to serve as an effective aid when it is necessary to set up a temporary regime while maintaining a balance between the parents – and above all respecting the interests of the child.

When a parent does not respect the judgment: remote contact, stricter sanctions and the possibility of changing custody

In 2025, enforcing a court order on a child’s contact with a parent is often lengthy and inefficient. Even when a parent has the court decision in hand, in practice they face a number of obstacles. The other parent may restrict access in various ways – citing the child’s illness, other activities or simply “not wanting to go”. As a result, it is difficult for the parent who has the right to contact to claim it, and the possibilities for sanctions are often limited in practice. While the court may impose a fine or change custody, this is more rare and occurs over time.

From January 2026, the situation changes. The amended law brings concrete tools for faster and more effective enforcement of decisions. First of all , it explicitly introduces the concept of indirect contact – i.e. the right of a child to remain in contact with a parent via telephone, video calls, e-mail or other forms of remote communication. The court will thus be able to explicitly determine not only the regime of face-to-face contact, but also when and how the distance communication is to take place – for example, regular video calls on specified days and times. The parent with whom the child lives is then obliged to actively facilitate and support such contact. Blocking communication will be considered a breach of the court order.

Penalties for non-compliance with the judgment are also being tightened. The new law sets a minimum fine of at least CZK 5,000 for violation of a court order. At the same time, the courts are obliged to decide on a motion for enforcement of a judgment within two months of the commencement of proceedings. This is intended to reduce the current practice, whereby motions for sanctions remained pending for a long time and a parent who did not respect the judgment did not have to face any immediate consequences.

The possibility of changing the custody arrangement itself is also significantly strengthened. If one parent repeatedly and deliberately prevents the child from having contact with the other parent, the court can make a change – and give custody to the other parent. The law makes it clear that the child has a right to have contact with both parents and that this right cannot be unreasonably interfered with. If one parent ignores these rules for a long time, he or she may lose his or her exclusive role in the child’s care.

The amendment thus sends a clear message: a court decision on access is not a mere recommendation, but a binding rule that must be respected. A parent who does not respect this decision must expect concrete consequences – not only in the form of a fine, but also in terms of interference with the child custody arrangements themselves.

Summary

The amendment, which comes into force on 1 January 2026, fundamentally changes the shape of parental divorce and court decisions about children. As a rule, divorce and the adjustment of the relationship with the minors – i.e. custody, access and maintenance – will now be heard in one joint proceeding. This will eliminate the current double-track system and the associated lengthy period of uncertainty when the child and the parents await a decision from two different court proceedings.

The Act also abandons the formal division of custody into alternate, sole or joint custody. Instead of fighting over labels, the emphasis is on what custody will look like in concrete terms: where the child will live, how he or she will spend time with each parent and how both will be involved in his or her daily life. A child has a right to the care of both parents – and the courts have a duty to actively protect that right.

The role of parental responsibility is also being strengthened. The courts are given clearer tools to limit or modify the involvement of a parent who fails, neglects or endangers the child. At the same time, however, the other parent should not automatically be excluded from the child’s life if the contact is safe and meaningful for the child.

Another important innovation is the institution of an interim decision, which allows for a quick and temporary adjustment of the custody and access regime – for example, if the situation needs to be adjusted before the end of the proceedings. This instrument ensures that the child does not have to live in legal uncertainty, while giving all parties, including the child, a voice.

Changes also affect the enforcement of court decisions. The amendment explicitly introduces indirect contact – i.e. communication at a distance (telephone, e-mail, video call) – and strengthens sanctions for blocking it. It establishes a minimum fine for non-compliance with a judgment and also obliges courts to decide on applications for enforcement more quickly. If one parent systematically prevents the child’s contact with the other, this can now lead to a change of custody.

Overall, the amendment shifts the focus from court disputes between parents to the real needs of the child. It favours agreement, balance and continuity of care. It makes divorce and the adjustment of relationships a process that is intended to be less conflictual and more focused on the best interests of the child.