Reasons for the resolution
In its judgement of 22.6.2022, SK 3/20, Legalis, the Constitutional Tribunal held that Article 59816 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 59815 § 1 of the NPC, in so far as they cover situations where the misuse or non-execution of obligations is related to the conduct of a kid not caused by the individual under whose care the kid is situated, is incompatible with Articles 48(1) and 72(3) of the Constitution of Poland.
In the light of the above, on 9.6.2025 the civilian Chamber of the ultimate Court was asked whether it was possible to order payment under Article 598 of the Court’s judgement cited above.16 § 1 of the KPC, where the wrongful performance of the obligations arising from the decision governing contact with the kid of the second parent is related to the conduct of the kid which is the consequence of the proceedings of both the parent exercising custody of the kid and the parent entitled to contact the child.
In its resolution of 3.10.2025, III CZP 20/25, Legalis, SN indicated that the fact that the parent in charge of the kid does not comply with the work of contact due to the child's attitude does not exclude the anticipation of ordering the payment of a monetary sum to the parent entitled to contact (Article 598)16 § 1 KPC), besides erstwhile the child's attitude is due to the behaviour of both parents.
The essence of the problem
The 2022 judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal afraid a situation where the provisions of the civilian procedure governing contact with a kid did not take into account circumstances in which the absence of specified contact could consequence from the conduct of the kid itself — independent of the influence of the individual concerned. The Court called into question the appropriateness of imposing an work to pay a sum of money to a guardian in specified cases, considering that the mechanics infringes constitutional standards for the protection of the child's welfare.
In its message of reasons, the CCC indicated that both Article 59816 § 1 of the NPC and Article 59815 § 1 of the NPC enters the scope of application of the child’s autonomy erstwhile it has no desire to contact the parent. In the Court's view, a legal mechanics that allows the application of financial sanctions to a kid in a situation where it does not exercise its obligations relating to contact with the child, but due to the fact that it takes account of the child's will (the opinion). This in turn accords with the constitutional standard of protection of the child's welfare. The Court besides stressed that the automatic threat of financial sanctions and the imposition of those sanctions on the parent (care) for infringements referred to in Article 598 respectively15 Paragraph 1 and Articles 59816 § 1 of the KPC, irrespective of the facts underlying the infringement, is contrary to the function which the contested provisions were intended to fulfil. Therefore, erstwhile considering the application of both Article 59815 Paragraph 1 and Article 59816 § 1 of the KPC, guardian courts should take into account whether the individual under whom the kid is liable has failed or failed to execute his duties as a consequence of taking into account the will of the kid (expressed by himself, without the influence of the individual under whom the kid is situated).
In turn, the resolution of the ultimate Court of 3.10.2025 develops the deliberations made by the Constitutional Tribunal and allows for the anticipation of ordering payment of the monetary sum under Article 59816 § 1 KPC to a parent entitled to contact, where the child's attitude is due to the behaviour of both parents.
In its deliberations, the welfare courts – erstwhile applying Article 59816 The NPC, therefore, should take into account ex officio not only whether the child's will has been taken into account, but besides whether the child's attitude derives from the actions of both parents.
Comment
Both the ultimate Court resolution of 3.10.2025 and the Constitutional Court ruling of 22.6.2022 lay down the circumstances which the General Court should take into account of its own motion, with a view to ruling on the basis of Article 59815 § 1 KPC and Article 59816 In addition, although the resolution under discussion only refers to Article 59816 § 1 of the NPC, so there is no greater uncertainty as to its applicability to Article 59815 § 1 KPC.
Grounds for decisions on Article 59815 Paragraphs 1 and 59816 § 1 of the KPC, therefore, as a certain standard, should be not only an individual opinion relating to the assessment of the deficiency of contact due to the child's undisturbed will, but besides the anticipation of attributing work to both parents if the child's attitude is due to the behaviour of both of them. What is different is the expression of the will by the kid in a way that is independent (without the influence of the individual under whom it remains), and what is different is the situation created by the parents of the child, which led to a decision being taken by the child. It is clear that the kid implements his or her rights under the control of adults, whereas the implementation of contacts between the parent and the kid constitutes both the right and the work of the parent and the child, in accordance with Article 113(1) of the Law of 25.2.1964. – household and caring code (i.e. OJ of 2023 item 2809). However, the will of a child, even if expressed alone and in a 3rd party's absence, is frequently a consequence of the situation that parents themselves have led to. If, therefore, the child’s failure to communicate with 1 parent is the consequence of his own decision, the kid should grow his consideration by considering what led the kid to adopt specified an attitude.
The decisions of the ultimate Court and the Constitutional Court discussed above should be approved.
Resolution of the SN of 3.10.2025, III CZP 20/25, Legalis
