From Sole and Alternating to Co-Equal Parenting

The End of Formal Labels

• sole custody by one parent,

• alternating care at precisely defined intervals,

• and joint care, if the parents agreed on the care and were both able to provide it.

This categorization was often a source of unnecessary conflict, with parents fighting over the "type of care" rather than its specific arrangement. It also led to parents feeling like either the "resident parent" or the "second-in-line," which further exacerbated tensions.

Equality as a Starting Point

The new legislation is based on the principle that parental responsibility remains joint and equal after a divorce. Divorce does not make parents unequal partners—the child continues to have two parents with the same degree of responsibility and rights.

Therefore, the court will no longer determine the "type of care" but will decide on the scope and manner of each parent's care. The law allows for care to be arranged individually—according to the child's age, daily routine, distance between residences, the child's needs, and the practical capabilities of each parent.

Scope of Care Instead of Assigning the Child

Instead of the traditional "granting of sole custody," the court will now decide:

• the extent to which each parent will care for the child,

• when and how the child will be with each of them,

• and, where applicable, what rules will apply to handovers, communication, or the involvement of other persons.

This approach is intended to allow for greater flexibility and adaptation to the specific family situation—without the need to formally decide whether it is sole or alternating care.

Option to Limit Certain Influences

The law also grants the court the power to restrict care in a certain environment or in the presence of specific individuals if it is necessary for the child's best interests. This will most often apply to situations where the child would be exposed to the negative influence of a third party (e.g., a parent's partner, a conflict-ridden family member) or where the care environment is not safe for the child.

However, this option is not intended for broad interference in a parent's domestic life. The court may use this tool only if there are specific and serious reasons to believe that the child would be harmed without such a restriction.

Room for Parental Agreement

The fundamental rule remains that parents can reach an agreement. If the agreement respects the child's best interests, the court will generally approve it. The amendment strengthens the possibility for parental agreements not to be limited by formal categories and for the court not to interfere unnecessarily with the content of the agreement, provided the child is not at risk.

This new approach thus encourages consensual solutions and individual care arrangements, rather than pitting parents against each other in a battle for "resident status."

Summary

From January 2026, when deciding on child care, it will no longer be determined whether it will be sole, alternating, or joint care. Under Czech legislation, the starting point is that both parents have equal responsibility for the child even after divorce, and the court will only decide on the specific scope and manner of care.

It is important to note that equal care should not be confused with uniform care. The amendment does not explicitly presume that the child must spend the same amount of time with each parent. The court's decision must continue to respect the uniqueness of each situation and the child's best interests. Thus, the change in terminology does not alter the principle—care should be arranged fairly, not mechanically divided.