Important decision
The amendment to family law, effective January 1, 2026, has significantly changed the way courts decide on the living arrangements of minor children following their parents’ separation. The law has abandoned previous terms such as “sole custody,” “alternating custody,” and “joint custody.” Under the new rules, if the parents cannot reach an agreement, the court must determine the extent of each parent’s custody. Separate provisions governing visitation are generally no longer made—contact with the child is now considered part of custody.
The practical impact of this change was also evident in a child custody appeal case we handled this year. At the end of 2025, the trial court awarded sole custody of two minor boys to their mother. The father appealed. However, the appellate court reviewed the case in light of the new legal provisions, under which, in the absence of an agreement between the parents, the court must determine the extent to which each parent will care for the child.
In the case at hand, the court took into account that the father had effectively abandoned the children in the past and had long failed to show adequate interest in them. Nevertheless, it turned out that after January 1, 2026, it is no longer straightforward to leave the matter without any definition of visitation rights if there is no agreement between the parents. For one of the boys, the court thus established a very limited visitation schedule for the father, specifically once every 14 days. For the other boy, no precise arrangement was made; however, under the new provisions, this is primarily an option where a parental agreement exists. The law explicitly states that the court may proceed without specifying the scope of custody only if the parents agree to it.
This raises an interesting practical question: Is it still possible, following the amendment, for a court to issue a decision—without a parental agreement—that would effectively fail to define the other parent’s custody at all? The text of Section 907 of the Civil Code suggests that it is not. If there is no agreement under Section 907(1), the court must, pursuant to paragraph 2, determine the scope of custody for each parent. Both the Ministry of Justice and judicial guidance materials interpret the amendment in the same way: in the absence of an agreement, a specific custody schedule must be established, even if only to a minimal extent.
At the same time, however, it is not true that the opinion of an older child has lost its significance. On the contrary, the court is obligated to ascertain and take it into account; for a child older than 12 years of age, it is assumed that the child is generally capable of expressing his or her opinion independently. Even after the amendment, however, this is not the only factor to be considered. The child’s opinion is very important, but the court is not required to fully adopt it without further consideration if doing so would not be in the child’s best interest.
That is precisely why it will be interesting to see how the courts handle cases involving adolescents who refuse formalized contact with one of their parents and wish to see that parent only on their own terms. Under the old legal framework, it was possible to terminate visitation and leave contact up to the spontaneous decision of a child who was nearly of legal age. After January 1, 2026, however, the text of the law suggests that, in the absence of a parental agreement, the court will have to define at least some scope of care. It remains to be seen how far judicial practice will go in these situations.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
