TY - JOUR
AU - Habdas,, Magdalena
AB - Abstract The aim of this article is to consider how ideas about raising children by parents who have parted have changed in Poland and how they were reflected in changing provisions of family law in order to offer at least an initial answer to the question of whether joint parenting should be a welcomed development in Polish family law. The article will focus not only on indicating when and how the relevant family law provisions have been amended but also on presenting the academic and practical dilemmas faced in the process of introducing a new concept of joint physical custody over a child when parents have parted. It is argued that an honest revision of the challenges and opportunities joint parenting offers, based not only on national experiences but also on research and experiences of foreign jurisdictions, promotes a better understanding of this solution, which in the Polish context is still an emerging concept requiring ongoing research and active academic consideration. I. INTRODUCTION It is not debatable that raising a child always poses a challenge. Meeting that challenge becomes more difficult when the relationship between the child’s parents has broken down and the family environment in which the child was being raised changes significantly or even ceases to exist. When parents decide to separate because they can no longer live together, one of the most difficult decisions that have to be made concerns the question of child custody. This matter may need to be resolved in various legal scenarios, as parents may be a married or unmarried couple and their parting may be a factual occurrence or may be connected with a formal change of their legal status (legal separation and divorce). Regardless of the form and circumstances in which the parents part, any lack of agreement on custodial issues will ultimately need to be resolved by the court. The court ruling will, however, depend on decisions made by policymakers, which have been reflected in the law. Therefore, it is important to shape legal provisions on custody in a manner which allows the court to issue rulings that are in the best interest of the child and allows that child to maintain, whenever possible and reasonable, a healthy and meaningful relationship with both parents. In the above context, this article presents the evolution of Polish provisions concerning the custody of the child when parents divorce officially or factually separate in the light of developments in shared-time parenting taking place in selected foreign jurisdictions. The aim of the article is to consider how ideas about raising children by parents who have parted have changed and how they were reflected in changing provisions of family law in order to offer at least an initial answer to the question of whether joint parenting should be a welcomed and praised development in Polish family law. II. PARENTAL AUTHORITY OF DIVORCED PARENTS – THE POINT OF DEPARTURE IN 1964 The current Polish Family and Guardianship Code (FGC) 19641 came into force on 1 January 1965. Article 58 FGC states that: … in its ruling on the divorce, the court rules on parental authority over a minor child of both spouses and decides how much each spouse is obliged to contribute to the costs of maintaining and bringing up a child. The court may award the exercise of parental authority to one of the parents, restricting the parental authority of the second parent to specific rights and duties in relation to the child. In addition, Article 107 FGC states that: … if unmarried parents both have parental authority, the court may award the exercise of parental authority to one of the parents, restricting the parental authority of the second parent to specific rights and duties in relation to the child (§1). This rule is to be applied mutatis mutandis to married parents who live separately (§2). The above provisions concern the issue of parental authority, which in Polish law encompasses three elements, namely: the personal care of the child, control over his or her property, and the child’s representation (Kalus and Habdas, 2016: 114–20). Therefore, when deciding on parental authority, the court decides on more than just the issue of who will have physical custody of the child. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the decision on physical custody in essence determines decisions concerning the other elements of parental authority. The solution initially adopted by the legislator in the FGC seemed to favour an arrangement in which one parent was awarded parental authority, the other parent retaining such authority only to a limited extent. Nevertheless, this was a development when compared to the previous provisions of the Family Code 19502 and the Civil Procedure Code 19303 (Article 32 and Article 437, respectively) in which such a solution was obligatory. The new provision made the award of parental authority to only one parent a possibility and not a requirement (‘the court may’). This was emphasized in guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 1968, where the court explained that the new FGC allows the court to keep the full parental authority of both parted parents. The court further clarified that such a solution should not be regarded as a rule because it is necessary to analyse the parents’ relationship, their attitude towards the child as well as their ability to cooperate, in order to ascertain their ability to jointly exercise parental authority in a manner that secures the best interest of the child.4 Despite the above possibility, in practice physical custody was usually awarded to one parent alone (Winiarz, 1985: 597) (in the vast majority of cases – the mother). It must, however, be pointed out that this practice was often the result of the parents’ wishes, who in the majority of cases applied for custody to be awarded to the mother (Fuszara, 2011: 221).The other parent (typically the father) retained visitation rights (usually at weekends, parts of vacations, and other festive occasions) and the right to co-decide in designated, important matters concerning the child (eg medical treatment, the choice of a school and further education, how and where the child should spend vacations, and whether the child can change the place of residence). Decision making on important issues concerning the child did not include managing the child’s property, as this was in its entirety the prerogative and obligation of the parent awarded physical custody (Smyczyński, 2005: 137). The court was obliged to specify which decisions were to be taken in cooperation with the non-custodial parent and not simply refer to the general notion of important matters as well as to clearly establish the extent of visitation rights (Walaszek, 1971: 114). Despite this requirement, the courts often resorted to general statements and usually found it easier to award parental authority and physical custody to one parent with a vague determination of the extent to which the parental authority of the other parent was restricted (Stojanowska, 2001: 45–6). According to a nationwide representative study of divorce cases that were filed in 1972 and concluded in 1973, in 69.9 per cent of the cases, parental authority was awarded to the mother with the father retaining the so-called restricted parental authority described above. Interestingly, in 20 per cent of the cases, the courts did retain full parental authority of both parents. Only in 2.6 per cent of the cases did the courts decide that parental authority is to be awarded to the father with the mother retaining restricted parental authority (Stojanowska, 1977: 19). Since the introduction in 1965 of the possibility to retain parental authority of both parents, the number of such judgments had increased substantially. When compared to 1965, in 1967 there were 81 per cent more judgments in which full parental authority of both parents was adjudicated. From 1968 onwards, the number of such judgments increased greatly and in the years 1971–1973 courts awarded full parental authority to both parents four times more often than in 1965 (Stojanowska, 1979: 172–3), although it was debatable whether such a solution was justified in all cases, particularly when files showed that the parents were in open conflict (Stojanowska, 1979: 174–7; Stojanowska, 2000: 61). In a later study (cases concluded between 2 January 2002 and 30 June 2002) concerning parents who filed for legal separation rather than divorce,5 in 60 per cent of the cases, parental authority was awarded to the mother with the father retaining restricted parental authority. In 30 per cent of the cases, the court maintained full parental authority of both parents. However, out of 84 children only 3 were to reside with the father and 81 with the mother. It could be argued that retaining full parental authority of both parents in legal separation (and not divorce) cases may be particularly beneficial, largely, because legally separated parents remain married and it is probable that they will resume their relationship and apply for the separation order to be terminated (Holewińska-Łapińska, 2008: 180–2). The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 1968 made it clear that maintaining full parental authority of both parents was as an exception (Haak, 1998: 72) because even when divorcing parents want to act in the best interest of the child and are equally capable of raising the child, they are often unable to cooperate with one another, and therefore together cannot factually exercise parental authority to the full extent.6 Enjoying full parental authority by both parents requires them to be able to cooperate when exercising parental authority for the benefit of the child and society (Winiarz, 1987: 148). In any event, maintaining full parental authority of both parents was not to be used in a manner that would lead to the child alternating his or her place of residence, by living periodically with each of the parents (Gapska, 2010). Such an arrangement was viewed as causing a negative impact on the child’s psychological development because of the inherent lack of consistency in upbringing (Czech, 2006: 402). Therefore, even if parental authority was maintained in full for both parents, it was assumed that the court is still obliged to determine the child’s place of residence with one of the parents (Sylwestrzak, 2007: 126). A solution by which the child resides for predetermined periods of time with each of the parents was seen as an inadmissible division of parental authority leading to periodic parental authority.7 The fact that a child may spend shorter periods of time with the non-custodial parent (vacations, school breaks, and holidays) was not questioned; however, the need for the child to have one place of residence was seen as absolutely essential, particularly when both parents retained full parental authority (Ignatowicz, 1985: 900–1). In the opinion of Stojanowska, since the child must have one place of residence with one of the parents, maintaining full parental authority for both parents is a fiction, because in reality the parent who does not live with the child has a factually limited scope of parental authority (Stojanowska, 1983: 36–8). A similar view was expressed by Gromek who indicated that when one parent does not reside with the child on a day-to-day basis, his or her parental authority is factually limited and differs from typical authority exercised by parents who live with their child. This should, therefore, be reflected in the legal award of parental authority (Gromek, 2008: 240). For this reason, it was sometimes argued that maintaining full parental authority of both parents who separate should not be a legally available option because it is misleading (Stojanowska, 2001: 50–1). It may also prove to be impractical when the non-custodian parent (usually the father) shows little interest in current matters concerning the child, but the custodian-parent must seek his consent in numerous matters since he still has full parental authority (Fuszara, 2011: 222). The latter situation would, however, indicate that there is no reason to maintain full parental authority for an uninterested parent with whom communication and cooperation are difficult due to his unavailability and neglect of matters relating to the child. In contrast to the above, in the USA, the concept of shared/joint custody was already emerging in the early 1970s and was seen as a means of keeping both parents involved in the upbringing of a child, avoiding the winner–loser perspective that followed from sole custody orders, and meeting the requests of fathers’ groups who objected to being reduced to weekend visitors (Caulley, 2018: 422–3). In 1978, in the case of Braiman v. Braiman,8 the Court of Appeals of New York established that alternating physical custody of a child between parents would as a rule be contrary to the child’s best interests; however, the court did accept that joint physical custody was a viable option for parents who wish to adopt it voluntarily, who do not have a continuing conflict, and who are able to cooperate. The court emphasized that imposing this type of an arrangement on parents who are conflicted will only exacerbate and be traumatic for the child (Di Fonzo, 2014: 219–20). Despite doubts concerning the desirability of maintaining full parental authority of both parents after their divorce or separation expressed by Polish academics, as the 1980s and 1990s progressed, an increasing number of academics positively assessed, even if only in general terms, the possibility to award full parental authority to both divorcing parents (Sokołowski, 1996: 88–9). In opposition to views claiming that joint custody is not a realistic arrangement, L. Stecki pointed out that scepticism concerning full parental authority of both divorced and factually separated parents is unfounded. In real life situations, a formalistic approach to awarding parental authority to only one parent and restricting parental authority of the other may simply be counterproductive, it usually favours the mother, stigmatizes the parent whose parental authority is restricted, and puts at risk sensible arrangements that parents may have already applied in practice (Stecki, 1992: 47 and 50). Particularly in the latter situation, when parents have been living apart before filing for divorce or separating and have been successful in resolving the issue of exercising parental authority, the court should opt for maintaining full parental authority of both parents, provided that the existent arrangement is consistent with the best interest of the child (Dobrzański, 1975: 341). Even Stojanowska noted that the term ‘restricts parental authority’ used in court judgments is misunderstood by parents because it suggests that the parent with restricted parental authority is being penalized for something he/she did, when in fact this is not so (Stojanowska, 1983: 40). To make matters worse, restricting parental authority could be employed by the court pursuant to Article 109 FGC, but these situations were clearly connected with inadequate exercise of parental authority and the need to protect the child. Although restricting parental authority only as a means of organizing the upbringing of a child by separated parents (Articles 58 and 107 FGC) was a completely different institution from restricting parental authority because the interest of the child was at risk (Article 109 FGC), the language used in court rulings was exactly the same and further confused parents causing unnecessary trauma, disappointment, and difficulty in accepting the judgment. The views of Polish scholars advocating for changes in the language of legislation and for a broader application of joint custody (whether only joint legal custody or both joint legal and physical custody) reflected the discussion that was taking place in other jurisdictions, particularly common law countries, although it was not as conclusive and concrete. In England, the debate on shared parenting had been present at least since the mid-1980s and intensified after the introduction of the Children Act 1989 (Hoggett, 1994: 8–10), which brought about a change in the language of legislation where the concept of parental rights and duties was replaced with parental responsibilities that both parents have and that as a rule should continue even when parents separate (Hoggett, 1994: 9; Trinder, 2014: 35). The emphasis was placed on shared parental responsibilities rather than shared residence (Haux et al, 2017: 574), but this was essential in moving towards a model in which both post-separation parents remain involved in the child’s upbringing. Similarly, a move towards the involvement of both parents in caring for a child after their separation was visible in Australia. Changes favouring the commitment of both parted parents in raising a child were introduced in the 1995 reforms of family law and reflected the English 1989 choices (Smyth and Chisholm, 2017: 587). In the USA, the number of states in which joint custody laws were being implemented was steadily growing: from 9 in the 1970s, to 38 in the 1980s, to 49 in the 1990s (two states remaining with no explicit shared custody laws) and was accompanied by the development of provisions that encouraged physical residence of the child with each of the parents unless it would be detrimental to his/her well-being (Meyer et al, 2017: 501). III. MOVING TOWARDS SHARED PARENTING – THE 2008 AMENDMENT OF FGC In contrast to the above, it was not until the end of the first decade of the 21st century that the advocated solutions of emphasizing the possibility of maintaining full parental authority for both parents post-separation, regardless of the decision on the child’s residence, finally gained traction with the Polish legislator. Only in 2009 did the Polish legislator finally decide to take into account the changing social circumstances and the ongoing discussions concerning parental authority of parents who have parted. In an amendment of 6 November 20089 (which came into force on 13 June 2009), Article 58 FGC (as well as the analogous provision of Article 107 concerning factually separated parents) was changed and now included a new institution resembling the American parenting plan. According to new Article 58 paragraph 1 FGC: … in its ruling on the divorce, the court rules on parental authority over a minor child of both spouses and on contacts of parents with the child as well as decides how much each spouse is obliged to contribute to the costs of maintaining and bringing up a child. The court takes into account the agreement of the spouses on how to exercise parental authority, and maintain contact with the child after the divorce, if it is compatible with the best interest (welfare) of the child. Siblings should be brought up together, unless the welfare of the child requires a different ruling. Pursuant to a new paragraph 1a of Article 58 FGC: … the court may award the exercise of parental authority to one of the parents, restricting the parental authority of the second parent to specific rights and duties in relation to the child. The court may leave the parental authority with both parents at their unanimous application, if presented in the agreement referred to in § 1, and if it is reasonable to expect that they will co-operate in matters concerning the child. The amendment of Article 58 FGC was aimed at ensuring that the courts award parental authority to both divorcing (and similarly: factually or legally separated) parents only after a proper assessment of the circumstances was made. The assessment should allow the court to determine whether both parents will be able to exercise full parental authority for the benefit of the child. Arriving at a conclusion was to be made possible by a parenting plan (or as the legislator called it – an agreement on exercising parental authority) that was to be submitted to the court jointly by both parents, ie the parents were expected to present a single parenting plan to the court (Mostowik, 2013: 22–3). The new wording of Article 58 paragraphs 1 and 1a FGC suffered from the same weakness as the old version (Stecki, 1992: 47), namely despite the acknowledged advantages of involving both parents in bringing up the child (Sokołowski, 2013a: 456), Article 58 paragraph 1a FGC first mentions the solution by which parental authority is granted to one parent (who also has physical custody of the child), with the second parent retaining parental authority to a limited extent, including visitation rights and participation in making more important decisions concerning the child. Only in the second sentence did the legislator indicate the possibility to retain full parental authority (understood as legal custody, but not necessarily influencing the decision on the child’s residence) of both parents, when there should have been no doubt that this was not a secondary or an exceptional option (Ignaczewski, 2009: 77–8). As a matter of fact, it seemed that this option was the one that the legislator wished to make the preferred solution (Goettel, 2015: 119–20; see Domański (2015: 26) for an opposite view). Nevertheless, when compared to the pre-2009 version, the amendment of Article 58 FGC did introduce an express reference to the fact that the court may retain full parental authority of both parents. In order for the court to do so, four requirements had to be met: both parents needed to apply jointly for such a judgment and prepare a parenting plan; and the court was obliged to assess whether the plan secured the interests of the child and whether the parents could reasonably be expected to cooperate in matters concerning the child. These four requirements were meant to ensure that courts would not hastily retain parental authority of both parents. If the requirements were not met, the court was obliged to award parental authority to one parent and restrict the parental authority of the other (Domański, 2015: 26–7). In 2012, it was estimated that judgments retaining full parental authority of both parents amounted to around 33.2 per cent of all divorce judgments (Stojanowska, 2014b: 757). The newly introduced requirements did not bring about the expected results. First, the legislator did not specify the content or the form of the parenting plan. On the one hand, this meant that there was significant flexibility in how it was prepared; however, it also meant that some parenting plans were very general and did not address all or at least the main issues that could cause future disagreements between the separated parents (Holewińska-Łapińska, 2012). Additionally, the acceptance of very general and vague parenting plans by the courts effectively meant that the main goal of the legislator was not being achieved, since overly vague and concise parenting plans did not ensure a proper assessment of the circumstances that warranted retaining full parental authority of both parents (Ignaczewski, 2010b: 371; Kosińska-Wiercińska, 2011: 30–1). Moreover, the fact that there was no obligation to draw up the parenting plan in writing further obscured the situation as it was unclear whether such a parenting plan could be prepared or ‘emerge’ in the process of divorce proceedings forming a part of the record of these proceedings (Sokołowski, 2013b: 242–3). Even the question of how to treat a written parenting plan caused confusion, as it was unclear whether the court should copy the whole agreement or parts of it into the judgment or simply annex the agreement and make it an integral part of the judgement, or conversely – not make it an integral part of that judgment but consider it in order to maintain parental authority of both parents (Ignaczewski, 2010a: 64–5; Czech, 2011: 486–9; Sokołowski, 2013a: 460; Manowska, 2014: 532). Secondly, in order for both parents to retain full parental authority, they were obliged to jointly apply for such a solution and present the parenting plan. Practice quickly showed this requirement to be too stringent and susceptible to abuse. Bearing in mind that parents usually divorce because of the irreconcilable breakdown of their relationship, frequently they have difficulty in cooperating during divorce proceedings. Despite this, the legislator required them to be unanimous in complex, difficult, and emotionally charged matters concerning their child and the future performance of parental authority. It is difficult to disagree with Ignaczewski who emphasized that disputes between parents as to who should have physical custody of the child and other related matters are completely normal and indicate the parents’ attachment to the child and their concern for providing the child with best care rather than their inability to cooperate (Ignaczewski, 2014: 251–3). The lack of unanimity between the parents should not, therefore, exclude the possibility for the court to retain full parental authority of both parents, if it is reasonable to expect that they will be able to share parental authority after the divorce (Wierciński, 2012: 26). Meanwhile, the amended Article 58 FGC introduced an automatic solution of awarding parental authority to one parent with the simultaneous restriction of the parental authority of the other parent if the parents did not jointly apply for joint parental authority and have a ready parenting plan. Unfortunately, such a regulation was easy to abuse by mothers, who by simply refusing to apply for joint parental authority and to prepare a parenting plan, were ‘by default’ (due to long-standing court practice) awarded parental authority (which first and foremost included physical custody), with the father’s authority being restricted to visitation rights and co-deciding in more important matters concerning the child (Kosińska-Wiercińska, 2011: 30; Szczekała, 2015: 433). This problem was also noted by Sokołowski, but it is difficult to accept his conclusion that in such situations, the court should restrict the parental authority of the parent (usually the mother) who for his/her egoistic reasons (sometimes also in order to negotiate a more favourable division of matrimonial property) (Szczekała, 2015: 433) refuses to agree on joint parental authority with the other parent (Sokołowski, 2013a, 462–3). Once again it must be emphasized that it is difficult to separate those actions of one parent which are directed, as a means of retaliation, against the other parent from those which unequivocally reflect one parent’s inability to secure the best interest of the child. However, if the attitude of one parent indicates that he/she will obstruct the other parent’s access to the child and thus may damage the child’s relationship with the other parent, it is, of course, advisable to award parental authority and physical custody of the child to the parent who will not exclude the other parent from the child’s life. There can be no doubt that a child should benefit from a relationship with both parents without being manipulated into not developing a bond with the parent who does not have physical custody (Domański, 2015: 29). It is interesting to note that at roughly the same time in the Netherlands, a new 2009 divorce law introduced a mandatory requirement for separating parents to draw up a parenting plan. This measure was believed to positively influence the child’s best interests by ensuring the parents’ consensual arrangements as to physical and legal custody and by in effect reducing the parents’ conflict regarding custody and consequently the length and the level of dispute in divorce proceedings. The Dutch law does not specify the manner of drawing up the parenting plan (this can be done informally with the help of lawyer or mediator) but indicates that the plan should at least include the decision on how the parents will take care of the child (thus also the child’s residence), the exchange of information and consultation arrangements, as well as child maintenance obligations (Coenraad, 2014: 371–2; for difficulties and proposed solutions of calculating maintenance payments in the Netherlands, see also Curry-Sumner and Montanus (2012: 304–29)). Recent studies have shown, however, that the introduction of a mandatory parenting plan has brought about few changes in divorce proceedings, in post-divorce family life, and the child’s well-being (although it did result in an increase in the number of parenting plans, their more comprehensive nature, and their more frequent updating), probably because prior to 2009 Dutch parents who were separating were already accustomed to making written agreements concerning their children and possibly also because separating couples view the mandatory nature of the plan as a formality (required to obtain a divorce) and do not necessarily apply it to post-separation life (de Bruijn et al, 2018: 394–5). In addition, the lack of a parenting plan is rarely employed by the court as an obstacle to divorce, since in practice the court often finds reasonable grounds for the parents’ inability to provide a parenting plan and makes its own ruling on the custody of children (Coenraad, 2014: 371). This Dutch experience would seem to confirm that the Polish legislator in 2008 may have overestimated the potential, positive effect of the role of parenting plans in the divorce process as a whole as well as in proceedings concerning custody, particularly since the stringent legal requirements for maintaining full parental authority of both parents stipulated in Article 58 paragraphs 1 and 1a FGC caused mothers to gain bargaining power because their lack of cooperation would lead to the default sole custody decision traditionally issued in favour of mothers. The introduction of the parenting plan in Polish law should nevertheless be seen as a move towards making the parents more aware of co-parenting possibilities after separation. It should also be noted that unlike in the Netherlands, in Poland there was no established practice of drafting parenting plans by separating parents. Unfortunately, in this situation, convincing mothers to abandon their ‘default’ position and agree to a parenting plan did not equalize the position of the parties, but arguably strengthened the mother’s position (Mnookin and Kornhauser, 1979: 950–97; Allen and Brinig, 2011: 304–24). One should also observe that continuing joint parental authority after divorce was introduced in the Netherlands in 1998 and the 2009 divorce law built on that concept and promoted shared-time parenting by instructing the judges to consider shared residence of the child as the first option of shaping parental responsibilities (Nikolina, 2012: 122). IV. THE UNRESOLVED MATTER OF JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY Apart from the above mentioned shortcomings, the 2008 amendment of the FGC failed to resolve one more very controversial issue, namely whether the express possibility, mentioned in Article 58 paragraph 1a FGC, of retaining full parental authority of both divorced (also factually and legally separated) parents included the possibility for the court to rule that parents will have physical custody of the child periodically (shared-time parenting), ie the child will live with each of the parents for a predetermined period of time. This ruling could theoretically follow either from the court’s independent proposal based on assessment of the circumstances or from the parenting plan submitted by parents wishing to jointly retain full parental authority. The question was a logical consequence of maintaining full parental authority of both parents. Since both of them enjoy the same extent of parental authority, why should the child reside only with one parent? At least in theory, this not only reduces the child’s prospects of developing a quality relationship with the non-custodial parent (usually the father) (Nielsen, 2013: P I, 63) but is also incompatible with that parent’s nominal, full parental authority. In addition, Polish parents, attorneys, courts and academics alike have not been immune to practices present in other countries, such as Belgium Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, France, Spain, Canada, or the USA,10 where various forms of joint physical custody had become a relevant and noticeable manner of resolving the question of parental authority of divorced or otherwise separated parents. The Commission on European Family Law (CEFL), a European organization researching the harmonization of family law in Europe,11 in its Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, stated in Principle 3:20 that: (1) If parental responsibilities are exercised jointly the holders of parental responsibilities who are living apart should agree upon with whom the child resides. (2) The child may reside on an alternate basis with the holders of parental responsibilities upon either an agreement approved by a competent authority or a decision by a competent authority. The competent authority should take into consideration factors such as: (a) the age and opinion of the child; (b) the ability and willingness of the holders of parental responsibilities to cooperate with each other in matters concerning the child, as well as their personal situation; (c) the distance between the residences of the holders of the parental responsibilities and to the child’s school.12 Other international instruments, such as the United Nation’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe’s European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights and the Convention on Contact Concerning Children, The EU Charter, or Brussels II bis Regulation all promote joint exercise of parental responsibilities, emphasizing the child’s right to contact with both parents and being able to maintain a good relationship with both of them, save for circumstances in which that would be detrimental to the child’s best interests (Nikolina, 2012: 142). The mentioned CEFL principles, although non-binding, are unique in the sense that they explicitly consider shared-time parenting as an option, additionally indicating factors that should be taken into account when such an option is being considered. Despite the presence of joint physical custody in other European countries, the majority of Polish academics were rather reluctant to acknowledge it as a legally permissible solution under Polish law, particularly if it were to take the form of symmetrical, joint physical custody. In the opinion of Sokołowski, such solutions do not secure the best interest of the child, but rather the interests and emotional needs of the parents. The child does not benefit from changing his/her environment, surroundings, after-school playmates, may be periodically separated from his/her stepsiblings, etc; therefore, symmetrical joint physical custody does not meet the most basic requirement of protecting the best interest of the child, even when parents live in the same neighbourhood and close to one another (Sokołowski, 2013a: 455). A similar view was expressed by Ignaczewski, who noted that joint physical custody excludes the possibility of upbringing the child in a consistent manner and satisfies the emotional needs of parents rather than those of the child (Ignaczewski, 2010b: 368–9). Also Manowska indicated that alternating the place of the child’s residence violates the child’s right to a stable environment (Manowska, 2014: 530). A consistently negative opinion of joint physical custody was and is held by Stojanowska who rejects this solution and classifies it as impermissible under Polish law. She emphasizes that it secures the egoistic needs of the parents while subjecting the child to an inconsistent upbringing and treating that child as an object that is traded between the parents. The child often receives conflicting messages from parents who introduce different rules of behaviour. The lack of proper exchange of information between the parents may result in the lack of proper control of the child or may teach the child to manipulate the parents (Stojanowska, 2014a: 306–10, 2014b: 771, 777–82). This view was also shared by Czech (Czech, 2011: 501–2). The above views were challenged by those who were willing to accept that there may be situations in which joint physical custody, even in its symmetrical version, does secure the best interest of the child. If such situations exist, there are no legal obstacles in Polish law for the court to agree to or even establish joint physical custody (Zegadło, 2011: 14–5). In the opinion of Gójska, research concerning joint physical custody does not yield unambiguous conclusions; however, it has shown that it may have positive effects for some children who develop a quality relationship with both parents rather than have one full-time parent and one weekend or holiday parent. These children that demonstrate high self-esteem are more mature and socially adaptable as well as less confrontational. These positive effects are achievable, provided that special conditions exist, namely that the parents have an amicable and respectful relationship with effective communication skills (Gójska, 2010: 430–1). According to Justyński, it would be irrational to dismiss joint physical custody as always contrary to the best interest of the child also because if it is a solution employed in other countries that have a similar legal system and a set of values, then it must have produced positive results. There is no reason to assume that foreign legislators do not want to protect the best interest of the child and have not properly considered the potential disadvantages of such a solution. Although joint physical custody may not be the right solution in all cases, it would be incorrect to assume that it will be the wrong solution in all cases (Justyński, 2011: 9). A similar argument was made by Kosińska-Wiercińska who added that if parents live close to one another and were both equally involved in raising the child, joint physical custody is a more natural solution, beneficial to the child (Kosińska-Wiercińska, 2011: 31–2). Interestingly, despite the continuing controversies concerning shared-time parenting, Polish court practice has shown that after the 2008 FGC amendment, courts began issuing rulings (although extremely rarely) on joint physical custody, a solution that before the 2008 FGC amendment was viewed as unacceptable and contrary to the best interest of the child. A nationwide study performed by the Institute of Justice concerning divorce judgments that became final in 2014 (Domański, 2016: 97ff, 144–7) showed that in that year, there were only 23 judgments (from 10 different regional courts) in which joint physical custody was accepted by the court as a means of regulating the parental authority of divorced parents. In the analysed cases, only 4 children were over 13 years of age, 15 were between the age of 7 and 13, and 15 were under the age of 7. The main conclusion of the study is that symmetrical, joint physical custody is currently being adjudicated by courts very infrequently. The majority of parents who agreed to joint physical custody had higher education, a stable job, a good or excellent financial situation, and lived in large cities or their suburbs. In the analysed cases, the dominant reason for the divorce was spousal infidelity (15 cases, out of which 13 concerned infidelity of the wife). In a study concerning divorce cases in which parental authority was awarded to one parent (including physical custody) with the simultaneous restriction of the other’s parental authority, it may be noted that such a solution concerned parents who were less educated, less affluent, and lived in smaller towns than their counterparts with symmetrical, joint physical custody. Also, the reason for divorce was different because it was usually associated with substance abuse (alcohol) by the husband, often connected with domestic violence. However, as Domański points out, the practice of awarding joint physical custody leaves a lot to be desired. An analysis of court files showed that the courts awarded joint physical custody when they were aware of a strong conflict between the parents, or despite already diagnosed (by expert psychologists) problems concerning the behaviour of the child that may have been attributed to joint physical custody the parents implemented before divorcing, or without examining the attitude of the child towards such an arrangement (Domański, 2016: 144–7). The above findings seem to confirm the previously mentioned fears expressed by academics that the lack of regulations concerning at least the minimum necessary contents of a parenting plan may lead to very superficial arrangements and the lack of proper analysis performed by the court before issuing a ruling on parental authority. Unfortunately, studies show that Polish family courts rarely engage in meticulous proceedings in order to ascertain the actual situation of the parents and the child, arriving at conclusions concerning parental authority that are difficult to reconcile with the situation at hand and the best interest of the child (Stojanowska, 2014b: 760ff). One should note that while discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of joint physical custody post the 2008 FGC amendment were taking place in Poland, an important development occurred in Australian law. Changes favouring the commitment of both separated parents in raising a child were already reflected in the 1995 reforms of Australian family law (see Section II), but became more definite in the 2006 reforms. The changes implemented in 2006, unlike the 1995 ones, which left fathers’ groups disillusioned due to their small impact on practice, introduced a presumption of shared parental responsibility which triggered a requirement for the courts to consider awarding equal time with each parent, or if that proved contrary to the best interests of the child or impracticable (Turnbull, 2009: 147–63), to ensure that the child has substantial and significant time with each parent (Fehlberg et al, 2011: 326–7). Although symmetrical, joint physical custody (equal time living arrangements) was not in fact established as the default setting, this seems to be the understanding prevalent among the general population and even professionals (Fehlberg et al, 2018: 377; Keogh et al, 2018: 524–5). An important voice in the enactment of the 2006 reforms was undoubtedly fathers’ groups fighting for joint physical custody in order to maintain a relationship with their children after the breakdown of their relationship with the mother (Fehlberg et al, 2018: 374–5). V. THE HESITANT INTRODUCTION OF JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY As has already been mentioned, the 2008 FGC amendment was an important step forward when it came to introducing a new institution of family law, namely the parenting plan. It was the first attempt to emphasize that decisions concerning parental authority should first and foremost come from parents who wish to cooperate on matters concerning the child and this premise was retained in a later FGC amendment (Makar and Maniara, 2017: 114). Unfortunately, the legislator did not avoid mistakes discussed above, which were negatively assessed by academics and courts alike. These shortcomings were presented in detail by the Association of Polish Judges, Iustitia, in a statement concerning a new draft amendment of FGC provisions on the parental authority of divorced or separated parents. The Association agreed that the 2008 FGC amendment removed the necessary flexibility in the court’s rulings on parental authority and that the automatic restriction of one parent’s parental authority, when a parenting plan was not submitted, was contrary to the best interest of the child. It was further stated that the legislator should introduce a rule by which parental authority, whenever possible and compatible with the child’s welfare, was retained in full for both parents.13 As a result, pursuant to an FGC amendment of 25 June 201514 (which came into force on 29 August 2015) in Article 58 paragraph 1 FGC it was provided that: … in its ruling on the divorce, the court rules on parental authority over a minor child of both spouses and on contacts of parents with the child as well as decides how much each spouse is obliged to contribute to the costs of maintaining and bringing up a child. The court takes into account the written agreement of the spouses on how to exercise parental authority, and maintain contact with the child after the divorce, if it is compatible with the best interest (welfare) of the child. Siblings should be brought up together, unless the welfare of the child requires a different ruling. Article 58 paragraph 1a provides: … if agreement mentioned in § 1 has not been reached, the court, taking into account the child’s right to be raised by both parents, decides on the manner joint parental authority and contacts with the child are to be exercised. The court may award the exercise of parental authority to one of the parents, restricting the parental authority of the second parent to specific rights and duties in relation to the child. Finally, according to Article 58 paragraph 1b: ‘… at the unanimous request of the spouses the court does not make a ruling on the contacts with the child, rights and duties in relation to the child.’ In addition to the above, the legislator has amended three provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)15 concerning the implementation of family court judgments and has expressly referred to court rulings that allow the child to live with each of the parents in recurring time periods (Articles 582, 598, and 756 CCP). The above changes to Article 58 FGC indicate that the legislator has now given priority to maintaining parental authority of both parents in divorce rulings (Bieliński, 2016: 143) (an analogous principle applies to parents who separate legally or factually – Articles 61 paragraph 1 and 107 FGC) by a clear reference to the child’s right to be raised by both parents. Simultaneously, the parents may, by preparing a parenting plan, secure a custom-made solution on how parental authority will be exercised. The parenting plan must now be made in writing; however, its exact or at least minimum contents are not regulated and there is still no uniformity as to how it is connected with the court judgement (Strzebinczyk, 2016: 180 – see Section III) and the court is obliged to acknowledge solutions provided therein (Ignatowicz and Nazar, 2016: 367) unless they are inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Smyczyński, 2016: 159). The court no longer must have a reasonable expectation that the parents will cooperate in exercising parental authority. However, it seems that a contrary expectation may still cause the court to assess the parenting plan as unfeasible and, therefore, inconsistent with the child’s best interests. Even if parents are unable to agree on a parenting plan, it is now within the court’s discretion to maintain full parental authority of both parents, provided that this is in the best interest of the child. Such a solution reflects international trends in family law (Nikolina, 2012: 143). Maintaining full parental authority of both parents is a proper solution for all situations when there is no reason to restrict one parent’s parental authority because both are equally fit to raise the child. It also avoids stigmatizing one of the parents (Ignaczewski, 2014: 243–4; Strzebinczyk, 2016: 182; Grabowska, 2017: 102). Nevertheless, the fact that currently maintaining full parental authority of both parents is the preferred option does not necessarily mean that in all such situations, parents should automatically propose and courts automatically agree to joint physical custody (Domański, 2016a: 116). The Association of Polish Judges, Iustitia, has voiced its reservations about introducing the possibility to indiscriminately resort to symmetrical, joint physical custody because it benefits the child only when a number of additional conditions are met, starting with the parents living close to each other, through the acceptance of the visiting child by the parents’ new families, ending with developed communication skills between the divorced or separated parents. The Association emphasized that joint physical custody should not become the new default setting. However, the Association does promote awarding joint legal custody. This allows the child to reside with one of the parents and have one home, but does not excessively limit the other parent’s access to the child, nor does it stigmatize or punish the other parent. Furthermore, the Association stated that it is unacceptable for the court to accept very general parenting plans and decisions concerning visitation rights because this results in judgments that do not contain any specific solutions and do not instruct the parents as to the manner in which they should exercise parental authority.16 Currently, due to the 2015 amendment of FGC and CCP, the latter expressly referring to court rulings that allow the child to live with each of the parents in recurring time periods, it is not plausible to hold that Polish courts cannot award joint physical custody (Domański, 2016a: 106; Grabowska, 2017: 104). This custody does not have to be symmetrical because in order for it to function properly many conditions should be met. Unfortunately, the legislator has neglected to provide further guidance or premises for employing symmetrical, joint physical custody (Ignatowicz and Nazar, 2016: 369). Moreover, the legislator refers to rulings that allow the child to live with each of the parents in recurring time periods in CCP and not in substantive family law, perhaps indicating the legislator’s reluctance to clearly acknowledge joint physical custody as a viable option, deserving consideration. It is interesting to note that the Polish 2015 amendment resembles the solution adopted by the UK legislator. Following the Children Act 1989, the English law on custody has evolved in the direction of favouring the post-separation involvement of both parents in parenting. However, neither strict rules on joint physical custody nor any mathematical formulae as to division of parenting time have been introduced (Smyth, 2017: 496). Although the Children and Families Act 2014 in section 11 did introduce the presumption that the involvement of both parents is in the best interest of the child, this ‘involvement’ may be ensured in various ways and it is expressly stated that it does not denote an equal splitting of time the child spends with each of the parents. Moreover, the limits of shared parental responsibility are defined by the principle of the child’s best interests, so the presumption must always be tested against that principle (Eekelaar, 2015: 24–6). The position taken in Polish provisions bears a resemblance to the English solution because Article 58 paragraph 1a FGC frames the presumption of joint parenting from the perspective of the rights of the child and not the parents. It is the child who has the right to be raised by both parents, but not the parents who may demand that they have an equal time parenting arrangement. Although, when making a custody decision, the court must take into account the child’s right to be raised by both parents, the overriding principle of the FGC is always the welfare of the child. Thus, as in England, although the starting point is the involvement of both parents, there is no presumption of equal or any other defined time division of parental responsibilities, the involvement (or being raised by both parents) may take various forms and all arrangements must adhere to the principle of the best interest of the child, even if this leads to a traditional sole custody order. Nevertheless, both in England and in Poland, the door to implementing joint physical custody, even in its symmetrical form, has been opened and courts as well as parents themselves in mediation do have the possibility to make such arrangements. The situation in the USA differs from that in Poland and in England because the movement towards shared-time parenting was more or less complete by the end of the 20th century (see Section III). Currently, in all states custody decisions must take into account the best interests of the child, and nearly all states have established guidelines that facilitate the determination of custody solutions in accordance with those interests. Most states either have a presumption of joint custody (that refers to joint legal as well as joint physical custody) or at least a recommendation in its favour. However, differences among states exist as to what formula for parenting time allocations should be applied to truly ensure shared-time parenting and how the presumptions work in litigation practice (Di Fonzo, 2014: 217 and 221–2). VI. LESSONS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS As has already been mentioned, the 2006 family law reforms in Australia emphasized joint parenting, including shared-time parenting, for post-separation families. The Australian reform is interesting because it consisted not only of substantive law changes but also of amendments in procedure (the introduction of mandatory mediation and a less adversarial process) and the simultaneous introduction of a network of Family Relationship Centers, which assist parents in resolving conflicts concerning child custody. Comprehensive data compiled by various authorities facilitated empirical research on the effects of shared-time parenting and the effects of the 2006 reforms. First, it has been established that shared-time parenting works best for families and is not in opposition to the child’s best interests when there is no (or low level) conflict, no family violence or child abuse, the parents’ established capacity to cooperate, a comfortable financial situation, compatible/flexible working time. This usually coincides with parents having higher education levels and opting to resolve custody matters through consensual avenues (Turnbull, 2009: 161; Fehlberg et al, 2011: 322; Kaspiew et al, 2011: 402). Secondly, it has been shown that the emphasis placed on shared parenting in the 2006 amendment has not in itself lead to an increase of shared-time parenting. Although shared-time arrangements have been on the rise in Australia since 2002, after 2006 they plateaued rather than began to grow at faster than previously observed rates (Smyth et al, 2014: 140). This indicates that there is a limit to the number of situations when shared-time parenting is a viable option because of the required circumstances mentioned as the first finding (Smyth et al, 2014: 141). In contested cases, where a court order was needed to resolve the custody issue, shared-time parenting orders of near equal time did, however, increase in the first 5 years following the 2006 amendment, from 2 per cent to about 10 per cent (Kaspiew et al, 2011: 411), which is a result of the fact that new legislation did give the courts more flexibility in formulating their custody decisions (Parkinson, 2014: 328–9). Recently, it has been reported that since 2006/2007, shared-time parenting arrangements have reached a steady level of 16 per cent of custody solutions post-separation (Smyth and Chisholm, 2017: 594). Thirdly, facilitating shared parenting responsibilities and shared-time parenting is only achievable and produces desired effects both for children and their parents (in particular, fathers who felt deprived of reasonable access to children in sole custody solutions) when carefully crafted substantive law presumptions, procedural instruments (mediation, less adversarial process), and a developed system of institutions assisting families in reaching an agreement and not escalating conflicts are implemented simultaneously and are complementary (Parkinson, 2014: 337–42; Smyth and Chisholm, 2017: 598–9; de Jong, 2018: 59–62). Numerous matters remain unresolved (Post, 1989: 316–25; Nielsen, 2014: 614–36; Di Fonzo, 2015: 1003–23), as researchers pose further questions in need of consideration. These include, but are not limited to, the issue of whether there should be a presumption in favour of joint physical custody considering that it may: work too automatically to properly protect the child’s best interests, be abused by parents who are not interested in physical custody but use the presumption as bargaining power, unnecessarily influence arrangements already agreed to and performed by parents, sooner or later prove impracticable (Jeske, 2011: 21–2), and may cause the parents’ interests to override the best interests of the child (Meyer et al, 2017: 508; Caulley, 2018: 442). In the USA, discussions regarding time allocation formulas/ratios continue, as the primary caretaker doctrine and the approximation model are debated (Dolan and Hynan, 2014: 45–96; Caulley, 2018: 429–32). Controversies persist regarding the safety of shared-time parenting for infants and young children (Robb, 2012: 15–22), with some studies showing that it has negative developmental effects and that the tender years (possibly with the primary caretaker) doctrine retains its validity in such cases (Fehlberg et al, 2011: 325; Jeske, 2011: 22; Keogh et al, 2018: 540–42; also see Brinig (2015: 251–3, 255, and 259)). Concerns are also voiced over adopting shared-time parenting arrangements when parents are severely conflicted as shared-time parenting requires developed cooperation abilities (Di Fonzo, 2014: 219–20; compare Cognetti and Chmil, 2014: 184–5). The need to conduct more empirical studies regarding the children’s experience of shared-time parenting remains unfulfilled (Jeske, 2011: 23; see also Davies (2015: 1–14)). However, Nielsen points out that shared-time parenting need not be viewed as available to only the chosen few because conducted studies do show that in order for the children to benefit, parents need not to be particularly cooperative, with no conflict, wealthy, well-educated, and in complete agreement as to shared-time parenting (Nielsen, 2013: P. II, 133). Simultaneously, it should be emphasized that although the need to substantially involve both parents in raising the child post-separation should no longer be questioned, shared-time parenting (joint physical custody) remains exceptional, as in an international perspective it accounts for no more than 20 per cent (one in every five) post-separation divorce arrangements (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway (Kitterød and Wiik, 2017: 556–71), the Netherlands, the UK, and many states of the USA) with the exception of Sweden and Belgium (Vanassche et al, 2017: 545–55), where it reaches 33 per cent (Smyth et al, 2014: 110). This could be caused by the mentioned requirements for shared-time parenting to work in practice. Researches also question the sustainability of such arrangements as data show that within 1–3 years, shared-time parenting is usually abandoned and substituted for one parent as the primary caretaker patterns (Jeske, 2011: 21; McIntosh, 2017: 394–5). In addition, substantive law provisions on joint parenting and shared-time arrangements must be supplemented by procedural law. The latter should limit the adversarial nature of divorce, separation or custody proceedings, be augmented by collaborative (or cooperative) counselling from legal professionals (Eekelaar and Maclean, 2013), and supported by family centres providing education, training, and mediation to separating parents (Singer, 2014: 179–82; de Jong, 2018: 51–2, 59, 61–2, and 67). VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS The Polish legislator has come a long way in making a shift from almost automatic sole custody rulings in divorce cases to rulings, which prioritize the child’s right to be brought up by both parents. It is paradoxical that the 2008 FGC amendment, despite taking into account criticisms voiced in academic writings, did not achieve the desired effect of ensuring that court rulings on parental authority properly reflected the family situation and the best interest of the child. By excessively limiting the courts’ discretion in maintaining full parental authority of both parents in divorce cases, the legislator maintained the pre-2008 status quo in which one parent was awarded full parental authority, while the other retained only restricted parental authority. Nevertheless, this was a lesson worth learning, as the legislator finally realized that in today’s world and society, the child should not be ‘divided’ between the separated parents, but parents should cooperate in bringing up their child. Therefore, the 2015 FGC amendment makes it clear that priority is given to arrangements that allow both parents to be truly involved in caring for the child. Moreover, the parents may benefit from a custom-made arrangement, if they agree on a parenting plan. Polish courts, parents, and attorneys still have a long road ahead of them. The question that they should now be considering is not whether shared-time parenting is justified, but rather how it should be exercised and what conditions must be met in order for this solution to be truly beneficial for the child. Joint parenting does not always have to denote symmetrical, joint physical custody because there is a whole range of measures that can ensure quality involvement of both parents in the child’s life, even if that child resides primarily with only one parent. Family judges, attorneys, and parents must have access to understandable psychological findings and guidelines. In Poland, there is a visible need for professional training of members of legal professions (particularly in the area of collaborative counselling – a notion still unexplored) as well as for comparative research, interdisciplinary (law and psychology) deliberations, and social campaigns that accustom the society to this fairly new possibility of keeping both parted parents actively involved in bringing up their child. At this point, it is viable to state that the Polish legislator has made a move in the right direction. However, conscious efforts still need to be made to ensure that courts, attorneys, and parents follow that path and learn from the experience of other jurisdictions, where research already offers important insights into the advantages and weaknesses of shared-time parenting. Footnotes 1 Act of 25 February 1964, initially promulgated in Journal of Statutes 1964, No. 9, Item 59. 2 Act of 22 August 1950, Journal of Statutes 1950, No. 34, Item 308. 3 Act of 29 November 1930 as amended, consolidated version 30 September 1950. 4 Supreme Court resolution of 18 March 1968, III CZP 70/66, OSNC 1968/5/77. 5 It should be noted that legal separation was introduced into the Polish legal system in 1999 with the intent of providing devout Catholic couples a legal option to leave the other spouse, but without formally divorcing, as the latter is a violation of religious principles (Fuszara, 2011: 213). Legal separation is not a prerequisite of divorce and the requirements of legal separation are very similar to those of a divorce. Practice has shown that legal separation is extremely rare. In 2017, there were 65,300 divorces and only 1,600 legal separations (GUS, 2018: 104). Nevertheless, custody arrangements in separation cases are made with the application of divorce provisions (Article 613 § 1 FGC), and thus in this article, no further distinction is made between custody regulations possible for divorcing or legally separating spouses. 6 Supreme Court decision of 1 February 2000, III CKN 1148/99, LEX No. 306669; Court of Appeals in Białystok decision of 14 September 1995, I ACz 266/95, LEX No. 30170. 7 Supreme Court judgment of 4 November 1953, II C 481/53, LEX No. 196535; Supreme Court judgment of 22 April 1952, C 414/52, LEX No. 117176. 8 44 N.Y.2d 584; 378 N.E.2d 1019 9 Journal of Statutes 2008, No. 220, Item 1431. 10 See in particular Special Issue on Shared-Time Parenting after Separation of the Family Court Review, Volume 55, Number 4, October 2017; information on national custody laws compiled by the European Union: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/children/parental-responsibility/index_en.htm (accessed 17 December 2018); Council of Europe Report on Equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers, particularly the explanatory memorandum by Ms Hetto-Gaasch, http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=22022&lang=en (accessed 17 December 2018). 11 http://ceflonline.net (accessed 17 December 2018). 12 http://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Principles-PR-English.pdf (accessed 17 December 2018). 13 Stanowisko Stowarzyszenia Sędziów Polskich “Iustitia” wobec projektu z 23.09.2014 r., http://www.iustitia.pl/opinie/945-opinia-w-sprawie-zmian-kodeksu-rodzinnego-i-opiekunczego (accessed 17 December 2018). 14 Journal of Statutes 2015, Item 1062. 15 Act of 17 November 1964, consolidated version Journal of Statutes 2014, Item 101 as amended. 16 Stanowisko Stowarzyszenia Sędziów Polskich “Iustitia” wobec projektu z 23.09.2014 r., http://www.iustitia.pl/opinie/945-opinia-w-sprawie-zmian-kodeksu-rodzinnego-i-opiekunczego (accessed 17 December 2018). REFERENCES Allen D. W. , Brinig M. ( 2011 ) ‘ Do joint parenting laws make any difference?’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 , 304 – 24 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bieliński A. K. ( 2016 ) ‘Ustanie małżeństwa [The end of the marriage]’ in A. H. Bieliński and M. Pannert (eds), Prawo rodzinne [Family Law] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck , 102 – 152 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Brinig M. F. ( 2015 ) ‘Substantive parenting arrangements in the USA: unpacking the policy choices’ , Child and Family Law Quarterly 27 , 249 – 59 . WorldCat Caulley A. M. ( 2018 ) ‘Equal isn’t always equitable: reforming the use of joint custody presumptions in judicial child custody determinations’ , Public Interest Law Journal 27 , 403 – 60 . WorldCat Coenraad L. M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Voices of minor children heard and unheard in judicial divorce proceedings in the Netherlands’, Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 36 , 370 – 80 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Cognetti M. P. , Chmil N. ( 2014 ) ‘ Shared parenting—have we really closed the gap? A comment on AFCC’s Think Tank Report’, Family Court Review 52 , 181 – 86 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Curry-Sumner I. , Montanus P. ( 2012 ) ‘ Child maintenance in the Netherlands’, European Journal of Social Security 14 , 304 – 29 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Czech B. ( 2006 ) ‘Article 58 commentary’ in Piasecki K. (ed), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary] , Warszawa : Lexis Nexis , 393 – 451 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Czech B. ( 2011 ) ‘Article 58 commentary’ in Piasecki K. (ed), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary] , Warszawa : Lexis Nexis , 461 – 549 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Davies H. ( 2015 ) ‘ Shared parenting or shared care? Learning from children’s experiences of a post-divorce shared care arrangement’, Children & Society 29 , 1 – 14 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat de Bruijn S. , Poortman A. R. , van der Lippe T. ( 2018 ) ‘ Do parenting plans work? The effect of parenting plans on procedural, family and child outcomes’, International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family 32 , 394 – 411 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat de Jong M. ( 2018 ) ‘ Suggestions for a divorce process truly in the best interests of children (1)’, Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeinse Hollandse Reg – Journal for Contemporary Roman Dutch Law 81 , 48 – 69 . WorldCat Di Fonzo J. H. ( 2014 ) ‘ From the rule of one to shared parenting: Custody presumptions in law and policy’, Family Court Review 52 , 213 – 39 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Di Fonzo J. H. ( 2015 ) ‘Dilemmas of shared parenting in the 21st century: how law and culture shape child custody’ , Hofstra Law Review 43 , 1003 – 23 . WorldCat Dobrzański B. ( 1975 ) ‘Art. 58 commentary’ in Dobrzański B. , Ignatowicz J. (eds), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary] , Warszawa : Wydawnictwo Prawnicze , 331 – 54 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Dolan M. J. , Hynan D. J. ( 2014 ) ‘Fighting over bedtime stories: an empirical study of the risks of valuing quantity over quality in child custody decisions’ , Law & Psychology Review 38 , 45 – 96 . WorldCat Domański M. ( 2015 ) ‘Powierzenie wykonywania władzy rodzicielskiej jednemu z rodziców w wyroku rozwodowym [Awarding parental authority to one parent in the divorce judgment]’ , Prawo w Działaniu 21 , 7 – 79 . WorldCat Domański M. ( 2016 ) ‘Orzekanie o pieczy naprzemiennej w wyrokach rozwodowych [Adjudicating joint physical custody in divorce judgments]’ , Prawo w Działaniu 25 , 97 – 148 . WorldCat Domański M. ( 2016a ) ‘ Rozstrzygnięcie w wyroku rozwodowym o miejscu pobytu dziecka [Rulings on the child’s place of residence in divorce judgments ]’, Przegląd Sądowy 11–12 , 107 – 20 . WorldCat Eekelaar J. ( 2015 ) ‘The Role of the best interests principle in decisions affecting children and decisions about children’ , International Journal of Children’s Rights 23 , 3 – 26 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Eekelaar J. , Maclean M. ( 2013 ) Family Justice. The Work of Family Judges in Uncertain Times , Oxford; Portland, OR : Hart Publishing . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fehlberg B. , Sarmas L. , Morgan J. ( 2018 ) ‘ The perils and pitfalls of formal equality in Australian family law reform’, Federal Law Review 46 , 367 – 96 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Fehlberg B. , Smyth B. , Maclean M. , Roberts C. ( 2011 ) ‘ Legislating for shared time parenting after separation: a research review’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 25 , 318 – 37 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Fuszara M. ( 2011 ) ‘Divorce in Poland’ , Societas/Communitas 12 , 211 – 27 . WorldCat Gapska E. ( 2010 ) Czynności decyzyjne sądów w postępowaniu cywilnym [The Court’s Decision Making Process in Civil Procedure] , Warszawa : Wolters Kluwer , chap. 5, section 2.3.1.3, LEX el. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Goettel M. ( 2015 ) ‘Władza rodzicielska jako przedmiot rozstrzygnięć w postępowaniach sadowych [Parental Authority as a Subject of Rulings in Court Cases]’ in M. Nazar (ed ), Prawo cywilne – stanowienie, wykładnia i stosowanie. Księga pamiątkowa dla uczczenia setnej rocznicy urodzin Profesora Jerzego Ignatowicza, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCK , 111 – 26 . WorldCat Gójska A. ( 2010 ) ‘Mediacja [Mediation]’ in Ignaczewski J. (ed), Władza rodzicielska i kontakty z dzieckiem [Parental Authority and Contacts with the Child] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck , 411 – 85 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Grabowska A. ( 2017 ) ‘Zmiany w zasadach orzekania o władzy rodzicielskiej przy rozwodzie [Changes in the Principles of Rulings on Parental Authority after Divorce]’ in Andryszczak M. , Badowiec R. , Gęsicka D. (eds), Prawo – rodzina – praca , Toruń : WN UMK , 97 – 106 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gromek K. ( 2008 ) Władza rodzicielska. Komentarz [Parental Authority. Commentary] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC GUS ( 2018 ) Concise Statistical Yearbook of Poland , Wrszawa : GUS , https://stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/5515/1/19/1/maly_rocznik_statystyczny_polski_2018.pdf (accessed 26 February 2019). WorldCat COPAC Haak H. ( 1998 ) Ustanie małżeństwa. Komentarz , Toruń : TNOiK . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Haux T. , McKay S., , Cain R. ( 2017 ) ‘ Shared care after separation in the United Kingdom: limited data, limited practice?’, Family Court Review 55 , 572 – 85 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hoggett B. ( 1994 ) ‘Joint parenting systems: the English experiment’ , Tolley’s Journal of Child Law 6 , 8 – 12 . WorldCat Holewińska-Łapińska E. ( 2008 ) ‘Ocena realizacji zasady ochrony dobra dziecka w praktyce orzekania separacji z zastosowaniem modeli Stojanowskiej [An assessment of abiding by the principle of protecting the child’s welfare in the practice of adjudicating separation with the use of Stojanowska’s model]’ in M. Kosek and J. Słyk (eds), W trosce o rodzinę. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Profesor Wandy Stojanowskiej , Warszawa : C.H. Beck , 169 – 85 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Holewińska-Łapińska E. ( 2012 ) ‘Pozostawienie władzy rodzicielskiej nad wspólnymi małoletnimi dziećmi obojgu rozwiedzionym rodzicom oraz rozstrzygnięcia o kontaktach z dziećmi w wyrokach rozwodowych [Retaining parental authority over minor children and ruling on visitation rights in divorce judgments]’, https://www.iws.org.pl/analizy-i-raporty/badania-instytutu-wymiaru-sprawiedliwosci-w-ujeciu-tematycznym/prawo-rodzinne-i-zagadnienia-zwiazane-z-jego-funkcjonowaniem/ (accessed 29 September 2017). Ignaczewski J. ( 2009 ) Rozwód po nowelizacji. Art. 56 – 61 KRO. Komentarz [Divorce after Amendment. Art. 56-61 FGC. Commentary] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ignaczewski J. ( 2010a ) ‘Wykonywanie władzy rodzicielskiej [Exercising parental authority]’ in Ignaczewski J. (ed), Władza rodzicielska i kontakty z dzieckiem [Parental Authority and Contacts with the Child] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck , 53 – 88 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ignaczewski J. ( 2010b ) Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ignaczewski J. ( 2014 ) ‘Komentarz do spraw o określenie sposobu wykonywania władzy rodzicielskiej [Commentary on determining the manner of exercising parental authority]’ in Ignaczewski J. (ed), Komentarz do spraw rodzinnych [A Commentary on Family Cases] , Warszawa : Lexis Nexis , 222 – 70 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ignatowicz J. ( 1985 ) ‘Władza rodzicielska [Parental authority]’ in St. Piątowski J. (ed), System Prawa Rodzinnego i Opiekuńczego [The System of Family and Guardianship Law] , Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk : PAN , 785 – 907 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ignatowicz J. , Nazar M. ( 2016 ) Prawo rodzinne [Family Law] , Warszawa : Wolters Kluwer . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jeske J. ( 2011 ) ‘ Issues in joint custody and shared parenting. Lessons from Australia’, Bench & Bar of Minnesota , 68 , 20 – 3 . WorldCat Justyński T. ( 2011 ), ‘W sprawie tzw. opieki naprzemiennej [On the issue of joint physical custody]’ , Rodzina i Prawo 19 , 5 – 11 . WorldCat Kalus S. , Habdas M. ( 2016 ) Family and Succession Law in Poland , Alphen aan den Rijn : Wolters Kluwer ). Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kaspiew R. , Gray M. , Qu L. , Weston R. ( 2011 ) ‘ Legislative aspirations and social realities: empirical reflections on Australia’s 2006 family law reforms’, Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 33 , 397 – 418 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Keogh E. , Smyth B. , Masardo A. ( 2018 ) ‘Law reform for shared-time parenting after separation’ , Singapore Academy of Law Journal 30 , 518 – 44 . WorldCat Kosińska-Wiercińska J. ( 2011 ) ‘Władza rodzicielska nad małoletnim dzieckiem w razie rozwodu rodziców na tle prawa amerykańskiego [Parental authority over a minor child in the context of American law]’ , Rodzina i Prawo 19 , 12 – 32 . WorldCat Kitterød R. H. , Wiik A. ( 2017 ) ‘ Shared residence among parents living apart in Norway’, Family Court Review 55 , 556 – 71 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Makar A. , Maniara E. ( 2017 ) ‘Orzekanie o władzy rodzicielskiej w postępowaniu rozwodowym po 2008 roku [Rulings on parental authority in divorce proceedings after 2008]’ in Andryszczak M. , Badowiec R. , Gęsicka D. (eds), Prawo – rodzina – praca , Toruń : WN UMK , 107 – 15 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Manowska M. ( 2014 ) ‘Art. 58 commentary’ in Wierciński J. (ed), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary] , Warszawa : Lexis Nexis , 528 – 59 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Meyer D. R. , Cancian M. , Cook S. T. ( 2017 ) ‘ The growth in shared custody in the United States: patterns and implications’, Family Court Review 55 , 500 – 12 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Mnookin R. , Kornhauser L. ( 1979 ) ‘ Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce’, Yale Law Journal 88 , 950 – 97 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Mostowik P. ( 2013 ) ‘Kontakty dziecka z rodzicami, krewnymi i bliskimi a władza rodzicielska [Contacts of children with parents, grandparents, relatives and close persons in the context of parental authority]’ , Przegląd Sądowy 3 , 7 – 36 . WorldCat Nielsen L. ( 2013 ) ‘ Shared residential custody: review of the research (Part I of II )’, American Journal of Family Law 27 , 61 – 72 ; and Part II of II, American Journal of Family Law 27, 123–37. WorldCat Nielsen L. ( 2014 ) ‘ Shared physical custody: summary of 40 studies on outcomes for children’, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 55 , 614 – 36 . WorldCat Nikolina N. ( 2012 ) ‘ The influence of international law on the issue of co-parenting. Emerging trends in international and european instruments’, Utrecht Law Review 1 , 122 – 44 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Parkinson P. ( 2014 ) ‘The payoffs and pitfalls of laws that encourage shared parenting: lessons from the Australian experience’ , Dalhousie Law Journal 37 , 301 – 43 . WorldCat Post D. ( 1989 ) ‘Arguments against joint custody’ , Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 4 , 316 – 25 . WorldCat Robb A. ( 2012 ) ‘ Zero to three: parenting issues and parenting plans for young children’, American Journal of Family Law 26 , 15 – 22 . WorldCat Singer J. B. ( 2014 ) ‘Bargaining in the shadow of the best-interests standard: the close connection between substance and process in resolving divorce-related parenting disputes’ , Law and Contemporary Problems 77 , 177 – 94 . WorldCat Smyczyński T. ( 2005 ) Prawo rodzinne i opiekuńcze [Family and Guardianship Law] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Smyczyński T. ( 2016 ) Prawo rodzinne i opiekuńcze [Family and Guardianship Law] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Smyth B. M. ( 2017 ) ‘ Special issue on shared-time parenting after separation’, Family Court Review 55 , 494 – 99 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Smyth B. M. , Chisholm R. ( 2017 ) ‘ Shared-time parenting after separation in Australia: precursors, prevalence, and postreform patterns’, Family Court Review 55 , 586 – 603 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Smyth B. , Chisholm R. , Rodgers B. , Son V. ( 2014 ) ‘Legislating for shared-time parenting after parental separation: insights from Australia?’ , Law and Contemporary Problems 77 , 109 – 49 . WorldCat Sokołowski T ( 1996 ) Skutki prawne rozwodu [The Legal Effects of Divorce] , Poznań : Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sokołowski T. ( 2013a ), ‘Art. 58 commentary’ in Dolecki H. , Sokołowski T. (eds), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary] , Warszawa : Wolters Kluwer , 447 – 81 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sokołowski T. ( 2013b ), Prawo rodzinne. Zarys wykładu [An Outline of Family law] , Poznań : Ars Boni et aequi . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stecki L. ( 1992 ) ‘Władza rodzicielska po rozwodzie [Parental authority after divorce]’ , Państwo i Prawo 5 , 46 – 50 . WorldCat Stojanowska W. ( 1977 ) Problematyka rozwodów w świetle badań [Divorces in the Light of Research] , Warszawa : Wydawnictwo Prawnicze . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stojanowska W. ( 1979 ) Rozwód a dobro dziecka [Divorce and the Child’s Welfare] , Warszawa : Wydawnictwo Prawnicze . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stojanowska W. ( 1983 ) Rozwód…, a co z dzieckiem [Divorce…, What about the Child?] , Warszawa : Wydawnictwo Prawnicze . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stojanowska W. ( 2000 ) Władza rodzicielska pozamałżeńskiego i rozwiedzionego ojca. Studium socjologiczno-prawne [Parental Authority of an Unmarried or Divorced Father. A Sociological and Legal Study] , Warszawa : Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stojanowska W. ( 2001 ) ‘Dowód z opinii Rodzinnego Ośrodka Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjnego w sprawach o rozwód i jego wpływ na treść wyroku w świetle wyników badań aktowych [Evidence in the form of the opinion of the Family Diagnosing and Consulting Center and its influence on the divorce judgment in the light of case studies]’ , Zeszyty Prawnicze UKSW 2 ( 1 ), 7 – 56 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Stojanowska W. ( 2014a ) ‘Porozumienie rodziców jako przesłanka pozostawienia im obojgu władzy rodzicielskiej po rozwodzie [The parents’ agreement as a premise of retaining parental authority by both parents after divorce]’ , Acta Iuris Stetinensis 6 , 301 – 12 . WorldCat Stojanowska W. ( 2014b ) ‘Skutki rozwodu [The effects of divorce]’ in Smyczyński T. (ed), System Prawa Prywatnego. Tom 11. Prawo rodzinne i opiekuńcze [The System of Private Law. Vol. 11. Family and Guardianship Law] , Warszawa : C.H. Beck, PAN , 735 – 872 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Strzebinczyk J. ( 2016 ) Prawo rodzinne [Family Law] , Warszawa : Wolters Kluwer . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sylwestrzak A. ( 2007 ) Skutki prawne separacji małżonków [Legal Effects of the Separation of Spouses] , Warszawa : Wolters Kluwer . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Szczekała A. ( 2015 ) ‘Sposoby kształtowania władzy rodzicielskiej nad wspólnym dzieckiem [Possibilities of shaping parental authority over a child]’ in Nazar M. (ed), Prawo cywilne – stanowienie, wykładnia i stosowanie. Księga pamiątkowa dla uczczenia setnej rocznicy urodzin Profesora Jerzego Ignatowicza , Lublin : Wydawnictwo UMCK , 427 – 38 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Trinder L. ( 2014 ) ‘Climate change? The multiple trajectories of shared care law, policy and social practices’ , Child and Family Law Quarterly 26 , 30 – 50 . WorldCat Turnbull Ch. ( 2009 ) ‘Rosa: Reasonable Practicability and a Child’s Best Interests’ , Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal 10 , 147 – 163 . WorldCat Vanassche S. , Sodermans A. K. , Declerck Ch. , Matthijs K. ( 2017 ) ‘ Alternating residence for children after parental separation: recent findings from Belgium’, Family Court Review 55 , 545 – 55 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Walaszek B. ( 1971 ) Zarys prawa rodzinnego i opiekuńczego [An Outline of Family and Guardianship Law] , Warszawa : PWN . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wierciński J. ( 2012 ) ‘Kilka uwag o władzy rodzicielskiej nad małoletnim dzieckiem w razie rozwodu rodziców w ujęciu prawno-porównawczym [A few remarks about parental authority over a minor child after the divorce of parents in a comparative context]’ , Studia Prawa Prywatnego 1 , 19 – 26 . WorldCat Winiarz J. ( 1985 ) ‘Rozwód [Divorce]’ in St. Piątowski J. (ed), System Prawa Rodzinnego i Opiekuńczego [The System of Family and Guardianship Law] , Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk : PAN , 544 – 610 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Winiarz J. ( 1987 ) Prawo rodzinne [Family law] , Warszawa : PWN . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Zegadło R. ( 2011 ) ‘Miejsce zamieszkania, miejsce pobytu, miejsce zwykłego (stałego) pobytu dziecka oraz piecza naprzemienna [Domicile, place of residence and place of habitual residence of the child in the context of joint physical custody]’ , Rodzina i prawo 17–18, 5 – 18 . WorldCat © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - The Evolution of Joint Parenting in Poland: The Legal Perspective on Lessons Learned and Still to Be Learned
JO - International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
DO - 10.1093/lawfam/ebz010
DA - 2019-12-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-evolution-of-joint-parenting-in-poland-the-legal-perspective-on-TSGHIizoPi
SP - 337
VL - 33
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -