The Supreme Court explained when conflict between parents cannot be a reason to limit communication with a child

The court emphasized: the child’s right to contact with each parent must be protected even after divorce

In its resolution of May 20, 2026 in case No. 639/3386/24, the Supreme Court clarified the approach to resolving disputes regarding the participation of parents in raising a child after divorce.

The court emphasized that a conflict between former spouses in itself cannot be a reason to destroy the child’s connection with one of the parents, and a formal approach in such disputes is unacceptable.

The father appealed to the court due to obstacles in communicating with his son

In the case, the father requested to eliminate obstacles in communicating with his minor son and determine the procedure for his participation in raising the child. According to the plaintiff, after the divorce, the mother began to prevent him from contacting the child.

At the same time, the mother filed a counterclaim to determine the child’s place of residence with her.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the father’s claim and determined the order of visits, providing for the first meetings in the presence of the mother. The court of appeal changed this decision and excluded the mandatory presence of the mother during the father’s communication with the child.

Supreme Court: adult conflict should not harm the child

The Civil Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court emphasized that when resolving family disputes, courts should primarily proceed from the best interests of the child, and not from the personal conflict between the parents.

“The very fact of emotionally tense relations between former spouses should not violate the interests of the child and his right to communicate with each of the parents,” the Supreme Court emphasized.

The court also drew attention to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The child has the right, not the obligation, to communicate with the father

Separately, the Supreme Court emphasized an important legal conclusion:

“The child has the right, not the obligation, to maintain regular personal relations and direct contact with the parent who lives separately.”

At the same time, the Court noted that the case materials did not contain evidence of the father’s negative influence on the child or the facts that the son does not emotionally accept the father.

Why did the court allow meetings without the mother

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court on the inexpediency of the mother’s presence during meetings between the father and his son.

The courts established that there were hostile relations between the parties, and during joint meetings in the presence of the child, conflicts and quarrels arose, which negatively affected his psychological state.

That is why the court concluded that communication between the father and the child without the mother’s presence would better comply with the principle of ensuring a “safe, calm and stable environment” for the child.

The court did not see a dispute about the child’s place of residence

Regarding the mother’s counterclaim to determine the child’s place of residence, the Supreme Court agreed with the previous instances: there was no real dispute between the parties, since the child actually lived with the mother, and the father did not deny this.

The court emphasized that filing such a claim with the court must be preceded by a real dispute between the parents regarding the child’s place of residence.

Conclusion of the Supreme Court

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court and confirmed: even in the presence of a conflict between the parents, the child’s right to contact each of them must be preserved, if this does not contradict his safety and interests.