EHRM, 13-02-2025, nr. 12119/14

On 11 March 2011 the SDC opened, proprio motu, proceedings to limit the parental custody of both parents given the conflict between them.

On 15 March 2011 the applicant lodged an application seeking to restrict P.'s custody and to establish the child's place of residence as being with her.

On 25 March 2011 the SDC joined that application to the main proceedings.

On 20 June 2011 the SDC ordered that an expert report regarding B.'s psychological state and the parties' parental skills be drawn up by the Family Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny, ‘the RODK’).

On 11 October 2011 the RODK drew up its report, based, among other things, on examinations conducted on 13 and 29 September 2011. The RODK included findings regarding B., his father, P., and the applicant. It stated that B. was emotionally unstable and heavily dependent on his paternal family. He had a close and positive bond with his father and also showed closeness and trust towards his mother. It found that P. was egocentric, authoritarian, overconfident, condescending and manipulative, not abiding by social or legal norms, but driven by his own moral code. He was not in tune with his child's needs and, towards his child, P. was impatient, chaotic and overly commanding. He was belittling and competitive towards the child's mother. He had agreed to the meetings between the child and the mother only if they took place on his terms and under his supervision. P. had expressly stated that, if his conditions were not met, he would not abide by any court orders, even if the police arrived at his house. It was suspected that P. was heavily addicted to alcohol. The RODK stated that the applicant was cooperative and caring. She was emotionally dependent on others and, at times, she could be overemotional, helpless and slightly possessive. In the past, she had threatened to kill herself and her children. The applicant had adapted and responded to B.'s needs, and despite P.'s disturbing actions, she had stimulated and accompanied the child. The RODK concluded that B. had shown a need to be close with both parents, although he was dependent on emotional approval from his paternal family. The parental skills of both parents were diminished by their inability to separate their own conflict from their relationship with the child. The report stated that the child should be in the custody of the applicant, since she was, nevertheless, better suited to respond to the boy's needs and that P. should have regular contact with the child.

On 23 February 2012 the SDC delivered a ruling in which it authorised P. to exercise custody of B. It also ordered the parents to undergo therapy to improve their parental skills and appointed a guardian to monitor the parents' compliance with the ruling. The domestic court observed that, based on unspecified witness testimony and police reports, as well as on a medical certificate, it could not adhere to the RODK's conclusions. Removing B. from the paternal family environment would not be in his best interests. It could not be said that P. was an alcoholic, and B. felt safe in his father's house and any harmful behaviour would cease after P. and the applicant underwent therapy, as ordered by the court.

On 12 April 2012 the applicant appealed against that ruling, among other things, on the grounds that P. was hindering her contact with B. and manipulating the child.

On 8 May 2012 the President of the Sieradz Regional Court (Sąd Okrėgowy, the ‘SRC’) replied to the applicant's request to expedite the proceedings. It was considered that, despite the statutory time-limits having been exceeded, there had been no unreasonable delays in the applicant's case.

On 23 May 2012 the SRC granted the applicant's appeal and changed the ruling of the SDC of 23 February 2012. The court granted full custody of B. to the applicant. The SRC also ordered the court-appointed guardian to supervise the applicant. The court reasoned that the SDC had not had any basis to discredit the RODK's expert report, which was reliable, comprehensive and objective. Moreover, in finding that B.'s removal from his paternal residence would not be in the child's best interests, the lower court had contradicted the experts and itself, given that, in its decision of 11 March 2011 (see paragraph 18 below), it had found that B. had not been in danger while living with his mother. The SRC ordered P. to hand B. over to the applicant. The ruling became immediately final, and on 24 May 2012 the SRC issued a formal instrument of enforcement.

Meanwhile, on 4 March 2011 P. filed an application for an interim measure, seeking to have B.'s residence established at his own address.

On 11 March 2011 the SDC dismissed it. The court relied on the community interview conducted by a court-appointed officer and held that B.'s best interests had not been jeopardised while being in the applicant's custody.

P. lodged an interlocutory appeal against that ruling, which was dismissed by the SRC on 27 April 2011.

Meanwhile, on 15 or 16 March 2011, the applicant requested a court order regarding the child's place of residence (see paragraph 9 above).

On 25 March 2011 the SDC dismissed her application and, acting proprio motu, issued a different order, stating that a court-appointed guardian should supervise the father's custody of B. The court held that B.'s best interests had not been jeopardised while in the custody of his father. It also declared that since both parents enjoyed full parental custody, the child could live with either one of them. It observed that B.'s permanent place of residence would be decided in the course of the main proceedings.

On 30 May 2011 the applicant applied to have the above order changed so that B.'s temporary place of residence would be with her.

On 20 June 2011 the SDC dismissed that application.

On 27 June 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision.

On 1 August 2011 the SRC dismissed that appeal.

On 25 March and 15 April 2011 the applicant filed an application, seeking an order regarding her contact arrangements.

On 26 April 2011 the SDC dismissed the request of 15 April. The court held that the applicant had failed to show any legal interest in obtaining an interim order in that regard. The court reasoned that refraining from issuing the order regulating the applicant's contact rights would not render the enforcement of the future decision regarding custody impossible or seriously difficult within the meaning of Article 730¹ § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 101 below). The court suggested that the applicant should seek contact arrangements in a separate set of proceedings.

Between 2 April and 29 August 2011, the applicant filed several letters with the SDC, informing the court that P. was hindering her contact with her son. In particular, she made the following submissions:

Regarding the period when contact rights were set out in the court orders of 21 October 2011 and 7 November 2011 (paragraphs 42 and 43 below), the applicant made the following submissions, firstly, to the SDC and then, also, to the guardian appointed by the court in the custody decision of 23 February 2012.

According to the applicant's letter of 29 December 2011, in the first two months following the order, P. had effectively hindered the applicant's contact rights. In particular, the applicant could only meet with B. six out of nine times on Wednesdays, and two out of four times at weekends. She did not see the child over Christmas. The meetings had only taken place when the applicant had picked up the child from kindergarten; when the applicant had tried to pick up the child from P.'s house, she had been told either that B. had been ill, or that the child had refused to go with her. The applicant, giving various examples, submitted that P. had manipulated the child and made him feel guilty about meeting with her.

In her letter of 7 March 2012, the applicant conveyed her suspicion that P. had been pressuring B. to refuse the meetings and turning him against her. She submitted that seven meetings (between 25 January and 29 February 2012) had not taken place and described several situations when P. had either picked up the child from the kindergarten on the applicant's day, had told her that the child had been ill (without a medical certificate or with a certificate indicating a future date), or had taken B. out of town. She also recounted how P. had pressured B. into refusing to go with his mother and how he had provoked an argument and ended up not allowing her to have her meeting with the child.

In her letter of 23 April 2012 the applicant submitted that ten meetings (between 2 March and 9 April 2012) had not taken place, either because B. had refused to go with her when he had seen P. or his relatives waiting for him in front of the kindergarten, or because he had not been at the kindergarten in the first place. She also claimed that P. had told B. that if he went with his mother, she would not return him. The applicant submitted that she had been going to the kindergarten on alternative days in order to spend time with B. there.

On 5 May 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the SDC seeking contact rights for her and B.'s grandmother. She also filed an application for an interim order in that matter.

On 6 May 2011 the SDC declared that, given the child's actual place of residence, it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci and transmitted the case to the Zduńska Wola District Court (the ‘ZWDC’).

On 30 May 2011 the applicant asked the SDC to expedite the proceedings.

On 6 June 2011 the ZWDC dismissed the applicant's request for an interim order, essentially considering that the SDC was better placed to rule on the issue. On 7 June 2011 the ZWDC asked the SRC for the case be reassigned to the SDC.

On 14 June 2011 the applicant appealed against the dismissal of her application for an interim order.

On 15 June 2011 the SRC reassigned the case from ZWDC to the SDC.

It appears that on 18 July 2011 the SRC, following up on the applicant's appeal, quashed the decision of 6 June 2011 and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 19 September 2011 the applicant asked the SDC to expedite her request for an interim order. She argued that since the initial decision had been quashed, nothing had happened in her case. She also indicated that under the appliable law, a request for an interim order should be decided within seven days.

On 14 October 2011 the applicant modified her original request for contact rights.

On 21 October 2011 the SDC issued an interim order, setting out the applicant's (and her mother's) contact with B. away from P.'s house (two weekends per month, every Wednesday and selected days during the 2011 Christmas and New Year holiday period).

On 7 November 2011 the SDC issued a main decision, establishing the applicant and her mother's long-term contact arrangements with B. away from the child's place of residence (two weekends per month, every Wednesday afternoon and night until Thursday morning, one week during winter holidays, a month during the summer holidays, and on an alternating basis, selected days during the Christmas and Easter holidays).

On 22 February 2012 the SRC dismissed the father's appeal against that decision.

On 27 January 2012 the applicant asked the SDC to enforce the final ruling of 7 November 2011 (see paragraph 43 above) regarding her contact rights.

On 15 February 2012 the SDC declared that it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci and referred the case to the ZWDC.

On 24 February 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that for reasons of procedural economy, the case should stay with the SDC, where all the other proceedings regarding the applicant's family situation were pending.

On 6 April 2012 the applicant wrote to the President of the SRC asking for assistance in the enforcement of her contact with B. by expediting the proceedings in her case. She submitted that the father had been hindering her contact rights and that, despite the court's ruling setting out those rights, she had not had any contact with her son since February 2012.

On 16 April 2012 the SRC dismissed the applicant's interlocutory appeal against the ruling of 15 February 2012. The court observed that the proceedings regarding contact rights would not be hampered given that the two courts in question were at a short distance from one another and that a copy of the case file from the other court could always be appended to the file of the case regarding contact rights.

On 8 May 2012, in reply to the applicant's complaints about the protraction of the various proceedings regarding her family situation, the President of the SRC informed the applicant that on 7 May 2012, the case file had been released by that court and that her application regarding the enforcement of contact rights would now be examined by the ZWDC.

The subsequent proceedings in respect of the applicant's contact rights are described in paragraphs 63–82 below.

On 27 November 2012 the ZWDC, acting proprio motu, issued an interim order concerning the applicant's contact with B. It authorised the applicant to meet with B. on eight occasions over two months, namely on two Saturdays and two Sundays of the month between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., without P. being present. The first four meetings were to take place at P.'s house, the remainder away from the father's home. It also ordered a guardian to supervise each meeting.

On 13 December 2012 P. appealed against the interim decision, asking that the meetings take place in his house under his and the guardian's supervision.

On 15 January 2013 the applicant replied to P's appeal.

On 11 March 2013 the SRC partly granted P.'s appeal, ordering that all the applicant's meetings with B. would take place in P.'s house, without him being present, but under the supervision of a court-appointed guardian.

In a letter of 13 August 2013 sent to the President of the ZWDC, the applicant submitted that, for a long time, she had not been able to enforce her contact rights set out in the decision of 27 November 2012, because, despite her repeated interventions, the guardian, who was supposed to supervise the visits, had only been assigned to her on 12 June 2013. On 3 September 2013 the President of the ZWDC replied that she had not found any shortcomings on the part of the court or the guardians. Various court documents submitted to the case file demonstrate that a court-appointed guardian was remunerated for her work between August and September 2013. It had not been specified how many meetings had taken place in that period.

On 12 September 2013 the applicant made a new interim application for another set of meetings with her son. She also submitted that the previous meetings had taken place, but that P. and his family had been watching and effectively disturbing them.

On 26 September 2013 the ZWDC set out new contact arrangements. The applicant was allowed to meet with her son on two alternating Saturdays and two alternating Sundays of the month between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. All the meetings were to be supervised by a guardian. The Saturday meetings were to take place away from P.'s house. The Sunday meetings were to take place at P.'s house, without P. or his family being present. Starting on 1 December 2013, the applicant was to spend time with B. alone, without the guardian.

Both the applicant and P. appealed against that ruling.

On 25 November 2013 the SRC quashed the decision of 26 September 2013. It held that allowing the applicant's meetings away from P.'s house was a premature step in that it could be traumatic for the child, who, despite the applicant's love and efforts, was still distrustful towards her. The court suggested that an expert report should be obtained in that regard.

On 9 January 2014 the applicant asked the guardian to indicate the dates of her meetings with B., in accordance with the decision on her contact rights of 11 March 2013 (see paragraph 66 above).

On 23 January 2014 the guardian responded that no such dates could be determined, because the case file was with the SRC.

Court documents in the case file show that a guardian supervised the applicant's meetings with B. on 22 February, 16 and 22 March, and 6 and 12 April 2014.

On 2 December 2014, in a decision adopted in the main custody proceedings (see paragraph 91 below), the ZWDC set out the following contact arrangements: the applicant was to see B. on two alternating Saturdays and two alternating Sundays every month. For the first three months, the meetings were to take place between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., at P.'s house and without P. or his family being present. As from the fourth month, the meetings were to take place between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., away from P.'s house, without P. or his family being present. In the first two months, the meetings away from P.'s house were to take place in the presence of a guardian. In the first three months, P. was to take B. to those meetings.

In that decision, the domestic court observed that, based on the guardian's reports, interviews and several expert reports, including the one dated 3 July 2014 (see paragraph 90 below) and further testimony, during the initial visits conducted in P.'s house, the child, on the one hand, had started opening up to the mother through play, but, on the other hand, had been unwilling or reluctant to engage with her. B. had talked back to the applicant, reluctantly accepted her gifts or left the room. As of 14 February 2014, B. had first become aggressive towards the applicant, and then had started ignoring her altogether. The applicant's bond with B. was weak.

In the court's view, the situation could be remedied by gradually moving the meetings out of P.'s house and by balancing out the roles of the parents. It was important for P. to undergo parental training and to show his approval of B.'s meetings with his mother, in particular, by taking him to those meetings. The domestic court stressed that its decision was driven by the child's best interests; it aimed to carefully reestablish the bond between the child and his mother and alleviate the negative impacts of the parental conflict on the child. The court observed that the aims could have already been achieved if the ZWDC's decision of 27 November 2012, which had set out similar contact arrangements (see paragraph 63 above), had not been changed as a result of P.'s appeal (see paragraphs 64 and 66 above).

As a result of the appeal lodged by the applicant, on 6 May 2015 the SRC made, among others, the following changes to the applicant's contact arrangements with B. (see paragraphs 92 and 93 below). The applicant's meetings with B. were to take place away from P.'s house after two, instead of three, months. After three — instead of four — months, the meetings were to take place from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. As from the fifth month, the meetings were to be extended and would take place from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

According to a medical certificate issued on 3 July 2015 by a psychiatrist from a public hospital, the applicant had been treated for depression and an adjustment disorder associated with a series of traumatic experiences regarding her inability to be with her son, threats that she had received and battery on the street of which she had been a victim. The psychiatrist determined that the applicant had shown symptoms that were typical for victims of psychological violence. She concluded that the applicant would be unable to have contact with B. in P.'s house for fear of being exposed to further threats and owing to the risk to her mental and physical health.

The applicant refused to exercise her contact rights at P.'s residence and insisted on meeting with B. at another location. She ceased all contact with B. and the child's father. She paid the child support that had been imposed on her by the SDC's decision of 22 November 2016.

On 28 June 2018 the applicant applied for contact rights to be exercised two hours per week away from P.'s house. As established by the domestic court (decision of 28 March 2019, see paragraph 98 below), the applicant had declined P.'s offer to settle the case with the arrangement that contact with the child would take place at P.'s house.

As submitted by the Government, presumably in 2018, the applicant had several meetings with the child at the Consultative Panel of Court Experts. Ultimately, the mother-child bond was effectively severed (see paragraph 97 below).

On 13 June 2013 the ZWDC, acting proprio motu, issued an interim order and determined that B.'s temporary residence would be with his father. The court held that such a solution would be the least harmful for B.

On 19 August 2013 the SRC dismissed the applicant's appeal against that ruling.

It appears that on 18 January 2013 the ZWDC declared that it did not have jurisdiction, given that, on 23 May 2012 the applicant had been given custody of the child (see paragraph 16 above). The case was therefore transferred to the SDC.

The case file was not immediately transferred to the SDC, because the appeal regarding contact rights was being examined by the SRC, which gave a ruling on 11 March 2013 (see paragraph 66 above). On an unspecified date the case file was then transferred to the SDC.

On 5 May 2013 the SDC formally asked the SRC to transfer the case back to the ZWDC, owing to the fact that the child had ultimately remained with P. On 31 May 2013 the SRC granted that request.

On 10 June 2013 the President of the SRC replied to the applicant's complaint about the delays, lodged on 23 May 2013 with the Minister of Justice. The president found the applicant's allegations unjustified given the need to have the case file transferred between the courts at different levels of jurisdiction and the case, as such, transferred between the courts of the child's changing place of residence.

Following up on the SRC's decision of 25 November 2013 (see paragraph 71 above), on 3 April 2014 the ZWDC ordered an expert report to be drawn up regarding B.'s condition and his relationship with his parents.

On 3 July 2014 the RODK submitted its report based, among other things, on the examination of all persons concerned conducted on 4 June 2014. The experts found that B. had a bond with both parents. That bond was nevertheless distorted by the parental conflict, in particular, by P.'s strongly deprecating attitude towards the child's mother. Given his loyalty to P. and to his paternal family, B. had a negative view of his mother and rejected her from his life. B. perceived his father as the primary caregiver and had a very strong bond with him and with the paternal family. The experts concluded that removing the child from P.'s family environment could provoke B.'s opposition to the applicant. They also concluded that it was in the child's best interests, in the long term, to have undisturbed access to a freely developed relationship with both parents. To avoid B.'s total alienation from his mother, P. would have to completely abandon his authoritarian and rigid exclusion of the applicant from the child's life. To mitigate the negative consequences of the child's past exposure to P.'s attitude, and to normalise his relationship with the applicant, it would be necessary to set out broad contact rights for the applicant at her place of residence, without third parties and with the possibility of the child spending nights there. It was suggested that P. should take the child to such meetings and encourage him to have a relationship with his mother.

On 2 December 2014 the ZWDC partly changed the ruling of the SRC of 23 May 2012, granting parental custody to P. and assigning his address for B.'s temporary residence (see paragraph 16 above). Relying on Article 97 of the Family and Custody Code as the legal basis, the court gave its decision in the same ruling as the one regarding the applicant's contact rights (see paragraph 75 above). In that context, the court observed that ensuring mutual contact between a child and a non-custodial parent and changing or setting out contact arrangements, surely fell under ‘important matters relating to the child’ within the meaning of that provision (see paragraph 100 below).

On 21 January 2015 the applicant appealed against that ruling.

On 6 May 2015 the SRC changed the ruling in so far as it concerned the applicant's contact arrangements (see paragraph 78 above) and dismissed the remainder of her appeal. In the latter context, the court held that after spending four years under P.'s de facto custody, it would be against B.'s best interests to restore custody to the applicant.

According to a certificate issued on 23 October 2015 by a psychologist in a private practice, P. had been undergoing therapy sessions to improve his parental skills in response to his son's needs. The sessions were also attended by B. It was assessed that the father-son relationship was very good, and no issues were flagged as to B.'s condition. That certificate was challenged by the applicant before the ZWDC. She stressed that the psychologist in question lacked the professional qualifications to conduct psychotherapy and that she had not elaborated on her findings which greatly diverged from what had been established by the RODK experts.

On 29 December 2016 the ZWDC reinstated the father's full parental custody rights and lifted the guardian's supervision (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant, who had been notified about those proceedings, did not participate.

On 27 September 2018 court-appointed experts drew up the third report regarding B. and his relationship with his mother, as ordered by the SRC on 28 February 2018. The experts concluded that, while the bond between the child and the mother had effectively been severed and B. did not wish to spend any time with his mother, it would be better for B. if the mother were allowed to be present in his life.

On 25 March 2019 court-appointed experts drew up the fourth report regarding B. and his relationship with his mother, as ordered by the ZWDC on 7 November 2018. The experts concluded that, owing to B.'s negative attitude towards his mother and his unwillingness to meet with her, it would not be in his best interests to impose on him an obligation to meet with the applicant, even if the meetings were to take place in P.'s house.

On 28 March 2019 the ZWDC divested the applicant of custody of B. That ruling was final.

In the context of parental custody, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a court decides on ‘important matters relating to the child’ (Article 97 § 2 of the FCC). Regardless of who exercises parental authority, the parents and their child have the right and obligation to maintain contact with each other (Article 113 § 1 of the FCC). In the absence of an agreement between the parents, the court will decide on how contact is to be maintained with the child by the non-custodial parent (Article 113¹ of the FCC).

An application for an interim order can be filed by a party to any civil case (Article 730 of the CCP) that has demonstrated legal interest (Article 730¹ § 1 of the CCP). Legal interest in seeking an interim order exists when the lack of such an order makes it impossible or seriously impedes the execution of a judgment rendered in the main case or otherwise makes it impossible or seriously difficult to achieve the purpose of the proceedings in the main case (Article 730¹ § 2 of the CCP). An application for an interim order must be examined immediately and no later than one week from the date of its receipt by the court (Article 737 of the CCP). If the law provides for the application to be examined at a hearing, such a hearing is held within one month from the date of receipt of the application (ibid.).

A final court decision regarding custody or contact can be modified at any time if the interests of the child so require. This can be done pursuant to an application by either parent or by the court acting of its own motion (Article 577 of the CCP and Articles 106 and 113⁵ of the FCC).

Since 13 August 2011 a domestic court, at the request of the party, must order the custodial parent to cease hindering the contact rights of the non-custodial parent within a set time-limit, on pain of a fine or punitive damages (Article 582¹ § 3 and Articles 598¹⁵ to 598²¹ of the CCP). A court decision on contact arrangements serves as an enforceable order for the purposes of such a request.

A court can subject the enforcement of parental custody to the supervision of a guardian (Article 109 § 2.3 of the FCC). The court can also subject the enforcement of contact rights between a non-custodial parent and a child to the supervision of a guardian or another designated person (Article 113² § 2.3 of the FCC). Establishing supervision for meetings between a parent and a child is intended to first bring about that meeting, and then to arrange the relationship between the parents in such a way that those meetings can take place without external interference and without the presence of third parties. The task of guardians in this type of supervision can be compared to the function of mediators. Their task is to bring the parties to an agreement regarding contact and to regulate them in such a way that they can take place in a form similar to the natural state (see T. Jedynak and K. Stasiak (eds), An outline of the guardian's work methodology, Warsaw, 2013, section 3.1.1).

When required by circumstances, the guardian has an obligation to lodge applications seeking a change to or revocation of a measure ordered by a court (section 11.1 of the Court-Appointed Guardians Act of 27 July 2001 (Ustawa o kuratorach sądowych), as in force at the material time).

A court can oblige the parents and the minor to undertake a specific course of action, in particular, to work with a family assistant in order to implement a work plan with the family, or refer the parents to a facility or specialist dealing with family therapy, counselling or providing other appropriate assistance to the family, while at the same time indicating the method of monitoring the implementation of the orders issued (Article 109 § 2.1 of the FCC). A similar regulation operates in the context of contact rights (Article 113⁴ of the FCC).

The FCC, as such, makes no provision for family mediation in childcare cases (see Kacper Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 32407/13, § 87, 10 January 2017). However, pursuant to Article 570² of the CCP, in all matters in which a settlement is allowed under the law, a court may refer the participants to mediation (Article 10 of the CCP). Such mediation may extend to the subject of child custody or contact for a non-custodial parent with a minor child (resolution of the Supreme Court of 21 October 2005, III CZP 75/05, OSNC 2006). Mediation is further regulated in Article 183^1–15 of the CCP.

Pursuant to the submissions made by the Polish Government in the framework of the execution of the Court's judgment in Kacper Nowakowski (cited above), extensive measures have been undertaken by the authorities to ensure that mediation is widely used in family-law cases (Communications from Poland DH-DD(2022)23, 5 January 2022, and DH-DD(2022)587, 31 May 2022). The number of cases regarding family matters settled through in and out-of-court mediation has risen from 406, in 2012, to several thousand per year as from 2017 (Communications from Poland DH-DD(2018)23, 12 January 2018 and DH-DD(2022)587, 31 May 2022).

The applicant complained that the authorities had been unable to effectively enforce lawful decisions in her favour and that there had been a series of long procedural delays in the proceedings regarding her family situation. She also complained that the courts had ruled in favour of her child's father despite an expert's recommendation that she should be the custodial parent and despite being aware that the father had been hindering her contact with the child.

The Government argued that the authorities had complied with their positive obligations to secure to the applicant the effective exercise of her right to respect for her family life. The Government stressed that the authorities had been reacting to a complex family situation marked by a strong conflict between the two parents and the child's negative attitude towards the applicant. They had ultimately acted in the child's best interests.

The general principles concerning respect for family life, positive obligations of the State and the importance of the interests of a child in matters concerning childcare disputes were summarised in the cases of E.K. v. Latvia (no. 25942/20, §§ 73–77, 13 April 2023), P.K. v. Poland (no. 43123/10, §§ 81–86, 10 June 2014), and Malec v. Poland (no. 28623/12, §§ 66–67, 28 June 2016).

The Court reiterates that, in relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, Article 8 encompasses a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but one of means (see Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, §§ 83 and 85, 15 April 2014, with further references).

Moreover, in proceedings concerning children it is important to take into consideration that time takes on a particular significance, as there is always a risk that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of the issue before the court and that the decision-making procedure should provide the requisite protection of parental interests (ibid., § 86, and T.C. v. Italy, no. 54032/18, § 58, 19 May 2022). The Court also reiterates, however, that the obligation of expeditious examination of a childcare case and the obligation to assess the merits of the case on the basis of quality and sufficient evidence are equally important components of the notion of diligence which the domestic courts should manifest in order to comply with Article 8 of the Convention (see M.H. v. Poland, no. 73247/14, § 8, 1 December 2022).

Lastly, the child's best interests must be the primary consideration and may, depending on their nature and seriousness, override those of the parents (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§ 204 and 206, 10 September 2019, and Malec, cited above, § 67). In this context, the Court considers that, in principle, it is in the child's best interests to maintain contact with both parents, in so far as practicable, on an equal footing, save for lawful limitations justified by considerations relating to those interests (see Kacper Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 32407/13, § 81, 10 January 2017).