Restriction of the child’s contact with the parent: when is it necessary and how to proceed?

Quick overview

Restriction of contact comes into play when contact with a parent is dangerous or significantly burdensome for the child. The court may narrow the contact, impose conditions, order assisted contact, regulate only indirect contact or, in exceptional cases, prohibit personal contact. The petition is filed with the general court of the child. Evidence is key: reports from a psychologist, the OSPOD, medical records, witness statements or incident reports. If the child is at immediate risk, a quick interim court protection can also be sought.

When a restriction of contact is really appropriate

The basic rule is simple: a child should have contact with both parents if it is safe and beneficial for the child. Since 2026, the Civil Code explicitly states that a child has the right to equal custody of both parents, and parents have the right to equal custody of their child. At the same time, however, the court can intervene in contact if the child’s best interests require it.

In practice, restricting contact is most often appropriate when it occurs:

• violence against the child or the other parent,
• abuse or suspected abuse,
• alcohol or drug addiction,
• serious psychological instability of the parent,
• repeated neglect of the child,
• severely manipulative behaviour or traumatic conflicts,
• situations in which the child manages contact only with great difficulty and this is documented professionally.

However, not every tension between parents automatically constitutes a reason for limiting contact. The court will always distinguish between a normally conflictual break-up and a real threat to the child. This is crucial in practice. Mere disagreements between parents, different parenting styles or dysfunctional communication between former partners are usually not enough. The impact on the child is decisive.

What has changed since 2026

As of 1 January 2026, the Civil Code is based on the concept of custody of both parents. It is no longer to be automatically considered that one parent “has custody of the child” and the other “only has access”. There is now more emphasis on the extent of each parent’s custody and, in addition, on the right to indirect contact and information about the child when the other parent is caring for the child. This also has implications for how the courts consider limiting contact.

In other words, if a parent’s contact is to be restricted, the court should explain exactly why such intervention is necessary and why a less intrusive solution is not sufficient. Moreover, the explanatory memorandum to the amendment explicitly points out that if there are really serious problems on the part of the parent in exercising parental responsibility, the court should not just stick to “prohibiting contact”, but should also consider limiting parental responsibility or its exercise under Section 870 et seq. of the Civil Code.

How the court decides on the restriction of access

The proceedings are conducted as a juvenile court custody proceeding. The Special Proceedings Act expressly provides that the court decides, inter alia, on custody, access and parental responsibility. The general court of the child has local jurisdiction.

The petition is usually filed by the parent who claims that the existing contact endangers the child, or the OSPOD is also active in the proceedings. The court examines:

• what the specific risks are,
• whether they are documented,
• how the child experiences the situation,
• what the child’s previous relationships with both parents are,
• whether there is a more lenient solution than a total ban.

In practice, much depends on the quality of the evidence. It is not enough to make a general statement that ‘the child is sad to be away from the other parent’. It is helpful if the parent provides evidence of specific incidents, reports from the school, doctor, psychologist, police reports, communications between the parents or the conclusions of the OSPOD. The most common mistake is just that the parent comes with a very strong feeling but no solid foundation.

What variations of restrictions can the court choose

The court does not have to choose only two extremes – either normal contact or a complete ban. A range of solutions is available.

For example:

• shorten the period of personal contact,
• prohibit sleepovers,
• specify the exact place of contact,
• determine who may or may not participate in the contact,
• regulate only indirect contact, such as telephone or video calls,
• make professional supervision a condition,
• restrict or prohibit personal contact in connection with the limitation of parental responsibility.

Assisted contact is usually appropriate where the parent-child relationship is weakened, the parent behaves unpredictably, the child is afraid of contact, but a complete ban would be premature. Professional presence gives the child greater security and gives the court feedback as to whether the regime can be relaxed over time.

A complete ban on personal contact is a last resort. The Explanatory Memorandum to the amendment specifically mentions that it should only be used where the child’s protection cannot be ensured by a lesser measure or where there is already a more serious interference with parental responsibility.

When interim intervention by the court is appropriate

If a child is at immediate risk, it is not reasonable to wait months for a final decision. In such a situation, rapid interim protection is an option. In particular, the Special Court Proceedings Act distinguishes between interim measures for the most serious situations pursuant to section 452 and other forms of interim arrangements for the child. The most serious cases are typically situations where the life, development or other important interests of the child are seriously threatened.

However, this does not mean that every contact dispute will automatically lead to an immediate prohibition of contact. Interim protection is mainly intended to be used where immediate action is needed. For ordinary, albeit heated, parental conflicts, it is often more important to quickly file a high-quality motion on the merits while seeking interim relief to the extent necessary.

Example from legal practice

Our firm was contacted by the mother of a six-year-old boy who had long raised concerns about the child’s father’s inability to handle contact without alcohol. He had been disoriented on several occasions during handoffs, the child had returned from visits upset, and on one occasion the father had even gotten behind the wheel with the child after consuming alcohol. The mother was concerned, but at the same time did not want to cut off contact completely without further contact, lest she herself face the accusation that she was preventing contact.

In the first phase, we recommended carefully documenting the incidents, securing a child psychologist’s report, and communicating factually through reports to make it clear that the goal was not to “punish the other parent” but to protect the child. Subsequently, we prepared a proposal to limit contact and suggested an assisted regime rather than a complete ban. The court ultimately provided for brief assisted visitation on a regular basis while setting conditions for possible future expansion of contact if the father could demonstrate stabilization of his condition. Cases like this show that courts often look for an intermediate step: not to ignore the risk, but not to sever the relationship permanently if it is not yet necessary.

What if the other parent arbitrarily blocks contact

It is important to distinguish between the two situations. One is when a parent asks the court to restrict contact to protect the child. It is another thing if the parent just blocks contact arbitrarily without a court order.

The Civil Code now explicitly states that if a parent unreasonably prevents the other parent from caring for the child on a permanent or repeated basis, this is grounds for a new court decision on the child’s relationship. In addition, the parents must refrain from anything that interferes with the child’s relationship with the other parent or makes it more difficult to raise the child.

If there is already a final custody or access order and one parent does not respect it, a petition for enforcement can be filed. The court will usually first call on the obligor to comply, may involve the OSPOD, work with a guidance regime, impose supervision or professional assistance and, in extreme cases, may even proceed to remove the child and hand him/her over to the person to whom the decision grants the right of custody or access for a limited period of time. This is a truly exceptional solution.

Summary

Restricting a child’s contact with a parent is an exceptional instrument designed to protect the child, not to punish the parent. From 2026, the whole area is considered in the context of the care of both parents and equal parental responsibility. The court may limit contact, impose conditions, order assisted contact or, in exceptional cases, prohibit personal contact. The key is always the best interests of the child and the quality of the evidence. If the situation is acute, swift interim protection can be sought. If, on the other hand, the other parent is blocking contact without justification, there are judicial means to enforce the decision.