When a Child Refuses to Visit the Other Parent: Law vs. Reality

I come across this situation often in family law, and it is one of the most painful. A child says they do not want to go to their father. Or their mother. They cry, they plead, they will not get in the car. The parent they are with then faces a choice with no good option: force the child to go, or give in and risk breaching a court order?

The wider context of custody proceedings after the reform is covered in my article Child custody disputes — what parents need to know. This piece deals with one specific situation.

¶ What the law says

A court decision on care and contact is binding on both parents. If the child is to spend every other weekend with the father, the mother must get the child ready and hand them over. And vice versa.

If a parent fails to comply with the decision, the other parent can apply for enforcement. Since January 2026:

• the court decides on ordering enforcement without undue delay, usually within two months,
• the fine is at least CZK 5,000 and at most CZK 50,000 (roughly EUR 200 to EUR 2,000), and it can be imposed repeatedly,
• the court can also order a first meeting with a mediator or an appointment with a child psychologist, set a plan for gradually getting the child used to contact, or order contact supervised by the child welfare authority (known in the Czech Republic as OSPOD),
• it can order the parent to allow substitute care or contact to the extent they frustrated it, or to reimburse costs reasonably incurred,
• as a last resort, removal of the child or a change to the custody arrangement may be considered.

In August 2026 the Constitutional Court reiterated that a court may not leave an enforcement application sitting unresolved, even while proceedings to change custody are running in parallel. It has to decide on it, even if it ends up rejecting enforcement (finding file no. I. ÚS 1940/26; a finding, or nález, is a Constitutional Court ruling on the merits of a constitutional complaint).

At the same time, a child is not a parcel. The court is guided by the child's best interests, and those do not always coincide with carrying out a judgment to the letter.

¶ What happens in practice

Courts and OSPOD know that a child who actively resists contact cannot simply be "delivered". They also know that the reasons for refusal vary a great deal.

Age and maturity matter. A three-year-old who cries at handover is in a different position from a thirteen-year-old who can explain why they do not want to go to the other parent. The court has to find out what the child thinks, and the older the child, the more weight their view carries.

But the child's view does not decide the matter on its own. The court examines whether it is genuine, or whether someone has shaped it, knowingly or not.

¶ Between respecting the child and manipulation

In practice people talk about parental alienation, sometimes about "parental alienation syndrome". It is not a medical diagnosis. Courts do, however, assess such situations and take them seriously.

Alienation means that one parent influences the child to reject the other. This might be through constant remarks, exaggerating the other parent's faults, creating fear, or drawing the child into the dispute and into what is happening in court.

The line between a legitimate concern and manipulation is thin. A parent whose child experienced violence or neglect at the other parent's home behaves differently from a parent who is systematically steering the child away from a healthy relationship. Courts make this distinction, typically with the help of an expert.

How far this can go is shown by a Constitutional Court finding of 1 September 2026 (file no. I. ÚS 1029/26). After lengthy evidence-taking, an expert report and unsuccessful attempts at less drastic solutions, the courts in that case placed a twelve-year-old girl in institutional care. The reason was that her father had, over a long period and demonstrably, damaged her relationship with her mother. The Constitutional Court upheld this as a measure of last resort. Judge Jan Wintr, however, wrote in a dissenting opinion that a conflict between parents should not be resolved by separating the child from the family. It was an exceptionally serious case, not standard practice. The finding also points to the other side of the issue: if a child's stance persists despite every effort and the child is growing up, this may in time lead to an arrangement that reflects their long-held wish.

¶ What to do

Work with OSPOD. Tell them what is happening. OSPOD can talk to the child and to both parents and propose next steps. The court asks for its opinion.

Consider applying to change the care or contact arrangement. If the situation has changed substantially since the last decision, the court can adjust the arrangement: change the extent of contact, set up gradual reintroduction or supervised contact. Before it decides on the merits, you can ask for a provisional decision. The court will only issue it, though, once the other parent and the child have had the opportunity to respond to the application.

Expert report. In complex cases the court orders an expert report in psychology or psychiatry. The expert assesses the child's relationship with both parents and the reasons for the refusal. An expert is not infallible, but the report carries a lot of weight with the court.

Therapy and mediation. Sometimes a structured conversation with a therapist or mediator helps more than the court. The aim is not to talk the child round. It is to understand what is going on and find a safe way forward for the child. Mediation is not appropriate, however, where domestic violence is involved.

Supervised contact. If there are concerns about the child's safety, the court can order contact to take place in the presence of a professional. It is meant as a bridge, not a permanent arrangement.

¶ What not to do

Do not use force. Physically compelling the child will not help them. Equally, you must not encourage or feed their resistance.

Do not make the child the judge. Contact with a parent is for the adults and the court to decide, not the child. Asking "do you want to go to Dad's?" and then taking the answer to court harms the child.

Do not gather "evidence" through the child. Filming a crying child, questioning them about what happened at the other parent's home, recording phone calls: this damages the child and often backfires on you in court.

¶ When refusal signals a real danger

Sometimes a child's refusal is a sign of neglect, violence or abuse. Then it is your duty to protect the child, even if that means not handing them over.

But take the right route:

• Acute danger: call the police (158) and contact OSPOD. Acute cases are dealt with by a special interim measure, on which the court rules without delay. It is OSPOD that applies for it.
• Violence in the family: protection against domestic violence has its own fast tools, from police eviction to an interim measure that the court decides within 48 hours. I describe them in Domestic violence and the law.
• A provisional decision on care and contact is not a tool for acute danger. The court issues it only once all parties have had the opportunity to respond.

Act on facts, not impressions. And keep a record of every weekend the child was not handed over, together with the reason: the court will ask why you did not comply with the decision.

A child does not choose their parents. But they have a right to a safe relationship with both of them.