Lack of contact with a child despite the child’s objection and financial penalties – the new position of the Supreme Court (III CZP 20/25)

In today’s article, we take a closer look at cases concerning contact with a child. In such matters, the same issue has been recurring for years where one parent indicates that contact does not take place because the child does not wish to meet the other parent. Until recently, this argument often effectively hindered the enforcement of contact arrangements in practice. The latest resolution of the Supreme Court of 3 October 2025 (III CZP 20/25) clearly changes this direction.

In this article, we will elaborate on this issue and examine its key aspects.

New position of the Supreme Court

First and foremost, it should be noted that in the aforementioned resolution, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that a child’s reluctance to have contact does not exclude the possibility of imposing a financial penalty on a parent for failure to comply with a court order. This position undoubtedly has significant implications for the future practice of family law and for decisions issued in such cases.

It should be emphasized that, under the law, contact with a child is not solely a right of the parent, but also an obligation. This means that the parent with whom the child resides cannot simply adopt a passive stance in response to the child’s attitude.

Importantly, until now, courts in many cases adopted precisely such an approach, taking the child’s objection into account as a significant factor in assessing the situation, which in effect resulted in the absence of sanctions imposed on the parent.

Change in judicial practice

The latest resolution of the Supreme Court introduces a substantial change in this respect. It follows that the parent exercising day-to-day care over the child is obliged to undertake real actions aimed at ensuring the execution of contact arrangements, and merely stating that the child is unwilling to meet the other parent is insufficient.

The parent is required to demonstrate that they have actively attempted to facilitate the implementation of the court order. Otherwise, the court may apply the mechanism provided for in the applicable provisions, namely:

  • first threatening the imposition of a financial penalty,
  • and subsequently imposing such a penalty.

The issued ruling fundamentally alters the previously established direction of case law. In practice, this means that the parent’s responsibility is significantly greater and more consequential than before.

Child’s objection vs responsibility of the parent

Importantly, the Supreme Court indicated that even if the lack of contact results from the child’s attitude shaped by both parents or from a conflict between them, this does not preclude the application of financial sanctions.

This statement underscores that courts, when adjudicating individual cases, should focus on the effective enforcement of judgments rather than solely on the declarations made by the parties.

What is most crucial in this matter is that the new position clearly contradicts the earlier line of case law, particularly that which developed following the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 2022.

In that ruling, primary emphasis was placed on the autonomy of the child, and it was indicated that a child should not be compelled to maintain contact. In practice, this led to situations where the argument that the child did not wish to have contact effectively blocked enforcement, and courts exercised considerable caution in applying financial penalties.

A turning point in family law?

The current position therefore appears to be groundbreaking. The Supreme Court clearly emphasizes that the best interests of the child cannot be equated solely with the child’s temporary reluctance to have contact, which may stem from various causes.

In many cases, such an attitude is the result of parental conflict, emotional tensions, or a prolonged lack of relationship. Consequently, the parent who should prevent such a situation will bear responsibility.

Practical implications

Translating these considerations into practice undoubtedly entails significant changes for both parties to the proceedings.

  • The parent with whom the child resides must demonstrate specific actions, such as engaging in discussions with the child, cooperating with specialists, or preparing the child for contact.
  • The absence of such actions may constitute grounds for the court to impose appropriate sanctions.
  • The parent seeking contact gains a stronger legal instrument supporting enforcement.

Undoubtedly, the current resolution of the Supreme Court enhances the effectiveness of proceedings concerning the threat of a financial penalty and increases the likelihood of actual enforcement of contact.

Best interests of the child – new interpretation

It is also essential to emphasize that the reasoning adopted by the Court does not mean that the best interests of the child cease to be relevant; rather, only their interpretation changes.

Currently, instead of focusing exclusively on the child’s will, greater importance will be attached to the need to maintain a relationship with both parents, which has always been highlighted as paramount in the context of the welfare of a minor.

Summary

There is no doubt that the latest resolution of the Supreme Court (III CZP 20/25) constitutes one of the most important rulings in family law cases in recent years.

Taking into account practical experience in handling such cases, it may prove to be a turning point, ensuring that the lack of contact resulting from a child’s reluctance will no longer absolve the parent exercising custody from responsibility.

If you have any questions or doubts, as well as if you would like to cooperate with us, we invite you to contact our attorney Katarzyna, who will be happy to answer your questions and help you throughout the whole procedure.

Phone: +48 502 775 164
Email: k.lewicka@lzw-law.com