The legislator has provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, and more specifically in Articles 598 ¹⁵ and 598 ¹⁶ , the possibility of ordering the payment of a specific amount in a situation where the person in whose care the minor is remains hinders the other parent from contacting him or her.

The first provision provides for a so-called "warning" for the person in whose care the child remains. In such a case, " the guardianship court will threaten to order the person entitled to contact with the child to pay a specified sum of money for each violation of the obligation ."

However, in accordance with the second article quoted, the guardianship court may order the person taking care of the child to pay the amount due, determining its amount according to the number of violations, if the court has threatened him/her with such a sanction at that time and he/she still does not fulfill his/her obligation¹.

In order for these provisions to be applicable, the following conditions must be met:

• defining what obligations the person taking care of the child has regarding the child’s contact with the other parent,
• demonstrating that this obligation is not being performed or is being performed improperly.

Looking at the premises mentioned above, it becomes clear to us, first of all, that there must be an omission to fulfil a specific obligation, e.g. by constantly hindering the contact of the entitled parent with the child, not answering calls from a parent who wants to arrange a meeting with the minor, or convincing the child that he or she does not need contact with the other parent.

With this in mind, we should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to impose sanctions in a case where the custodial parent genuinely did not contribute in any way to their child's decision. The recent decision of the Constitutional Tribunal challenging the articles cited at the beginning seems groundbreaking. Imagine a situation where a child commits an act prohibited by law, fully aware of the decision they made, but the consequences of the child's behavior are passed on to their mother. Does it make sense to impose sanctions on the child's mother? Probably not. A mother is in the same position when her child consciously and voluntarily decides not to see their father. Even though a child remains in the care of their parents until a certain age, they still have rights. These rights are enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and are, in a sense, a reiteration of general human rights. It is often said that a child has, above all, the right to express their views. So why not consider the child's opinion in this situation? It's unwise to pressure a person into changing their mind, and it's even more absurd to use such practices against a child. Such actions can have negative consequences in the future. The adult child may then struggle with emotions, expressing their opinion, and opposing a person, for example, when the actions taken could pose a threat. It's also often said that when ruling on such sensitive matters, the court primarily considers the child's opinion and best interests. It's also worth referring to Article 216 ^{§ 1} of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that " the court, taking into account the circumstances, the child's mental development, health, and degree of maturity, will take into account the child's opinion and reasonable wishes " ² .

Of course, when assessing a given situation, it is always necessary to carefully analyze the entire factual situation to determine whether the parent taking care of the child is not, through his or her behavior, discouraging the child from contacting the other parent.

¹ Act of 17 November 1964 - Code of Civil Procedure, Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1805
² Act of 17 November 1964 - Code of Civil Procedure, Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1805

|