Senators want to change the rules governing child custody. Courts should explicitly take violence and other risks into account

The sponsors criticize the current legislation primarily because, when determining the scope of care, it generally requires the court to base its decision on the best interests of the child but does not provide more detailed statutory criteria. Under the new provisions, the court would be required to assess, in particular, the child’s safety and protection from physical, sexual, or domestic violence; the child’s physical, psychological, and emotional needs; the stability of the child’s upbringing and the care provided thus far; the parents’ ability to raise the child; family ties; and the child’s own opinion. Refusal to allow contact with the other parent, motivated by a legitimate need to protect the child from violence, should not be held against the parent who is protecting the child.

The rules regarding high-risk parents would also change significantly. In cases of domestic or sexual violence, conduct constituting an intentional violent crime, or severe substance abuse, the proposal provides for a court obligation to consider restricting parental responsibility. At the same time, a new intermediate category is to be established for cases where care by both parents is not in the child’s best interest, but the situation does not yet warrant the restriction or termination of parental responsibility. In such cases, the court could place the child in the care of one parent and separately regulate the child’s contact with the other.

The amendment also affects court proceedings. It seeks to explicitly impose on the guardian ad litem the obligation to act impartially, actively promote the child’s rights, and protect the child’s interests. For new interim decisions, the maximum time limit for a ruling would be reduced from three months to 30 days, and it would now be possible to appeal such decisions. However, the proposal has also drawn criticism from experts. Critics point out that some of the rules already stem from current law and case law, that there is no data available to support claims of systematic failure under the new regulations, and that some of the proposed criteria could once again lead to a comparison of which parent is “better.” At the same time, the Ministry of Justice is preparing its own amendment, so the final form of any changes is not yet clear.