The Court may exclude or restrict the child’s right to communicate with the parent with whom they do not reside, if this serves the best interest of the child.
According to Article 1520 of the Greek Civil Code, the parent with whom the child does not reside has the right and obligation to maintain, as much as possible, broad communication with the child. This communication includes both physical presence and contact with the child, as well as the child’s residence at that parent’s home. The parent with whom the child resides must facilitate and promote the child’s communication with the other parent on a regular basis.
Exclusion or restriction of communication is only possible for exceptionally serious reasons, especially when the parent with whom the child does not reside is deemed unfit to exercise the right of communication. Parents do not have the right to prevent the child’s communication with their ascendants (e.g., grandparents) or siblings, unless there is a compelling reason. Similarly, parents cannot obstruct communication between the child and third parties who have developed a socio-emotional family-type relationship with the child, provided that such communication serves the child’s best interest.
In cases of abusive or improper exercise of the right of communication, the other parent—or either parent, if the communication concerns a third party—may request the court to modify the communication arrangements.
This provision establishes a minimum presumption of communication time between the child and the parent with whom they do not reside, aimed at the psychological and personal development of the child. When parents disagree on regulating the right of communication, the Court resolves the issue based on the child’s best interest, taking into account the specific facts of the case, common experience, and child psychiatry principles.
The Court may exclude or restrict communication with one parent if that parent is deemed unfit. It has been held that offensive expressions and statements made toward the child about the other parent and their family, or addressing the child by a name different from their own, indicate an unstable environment and possibly unfitness of that parent. The child must be in daily contact with an environment where they feel safe and protected.
The child’s right to free and healthy personality development must be safeguarded, which inherently includes smooth communication and the formation of strong bonds with their father, in a healthy, calm, emotionally balanced, and safe environment.
The Supreme Court (Areios Pagos), in decision no. 156/2021, ruled that the child’s communication with the parent with whom they do not reside must be arranged so as not to disrupt their daily life and to ensure their healthy personality development in an environment free from manipulative or stressful behavior against the child. Protection from repeated manipulative behaviors must last until the child is mature enough to express their feelings.
