The Child’s Refusal to Have Contact with a Parent – Legal Analysis & What You Need to Know
A child’s contact with the parent with whom they do not reside constitutes a fundamental right both of that parent and, primarily, of the minor. Greek law considers that maintaining a stable and substantive relationship with both parents is necessary for the healthy psycho-emotional development of the child.
However, there are cases where the child refuses to have contact with one parent. This phenomenon may be due to a multitude of factors, ranging from normal reactions related to age, to more serious situations such as parental alienation or dysfunctional family relationships.
The legal treatment of such cases is delicate, complex, and requires an individualised approach under the prism of the child’s best interests, as defined in the Civil Code.
The Legal Framework on Contact
Contact is regulated by Articles 1520 and 1511 of the Civil Code (CC), which provide that:
- The child has the right to have contact with the parent with whom it does not reside.
- The parent who has custody is obliged to facilitate contact.
- The refusal of contact is contrary to the child’s best interests, unless there are serious reasons.
The court examines each case individually. The child’s refusal to have contact does not automatically mean that the parent is unsuitable; often an assessment by experts is required.
According to Article 1520 CC, as amended by Law 4800/2021, contact between the parent and their minor child constitutes a fundamental, strictly personal right, which includes:
- the parent’s physical presence and involvement in the child’s life
- the child’s stay at the parent’s residence
- every form of substantive relationship and communication
This right does not protect only the parent. Primarily, it serves the child’s healthy psycho-emotional development, as it is based on the natural parent–child bond and the feeling of affection that contributes to shaping the minor’s personality.
The Role of the Court – When and How Contact is Regulated
The court must determine the manner, frequency, and conditions of contact, with the exclusive criterion being the child’s best interests.
Contact falls within the broader framework of parental responsibility (Articles 1511 and 1512 CC), which constitutes both a right and a duty of both parents.
When reaching its decision, the court:
- examines all conditions of the child’s living environment
- assesses each parent’s behaviour
- weighs the overall family environment
- is obliged to take into account the child’s views (Article 1511 para. 4 CC), depending on the child’s age and maturity
The child does not “decide”, but its opinion is considered as an element of its best interests.
When Contact is Obstructed – Civil and Criminal Measures
The obstruction of contact is considered a serious violation of parental obligations. For this reason, the law provides strong protective measures, both of a civil and of a criminal nature.
1. Civil Sanctions – Article 950 para. 2 CCP
If the parent who has custody obstructs contact:
The court may impose:
- a monetary penalty of up to €10,000 for each violation
- personal detention of up to 1 year
These measures aim at compelling the parent who violates the court decision to comply.
2. Criminal Consequences for Violation of a Contact Order
Where there is a court decision that specifically regulates contact:
- complete obstruction
- deliberate misinterpretation of the decision
- or even systematic deviation from its terms
constitute a criminal offence, and the parent who obstructs contact is subject to criminal prosecution.
When is it Considered that Contact is Being Obstructed?
Obstruction of contact may be:
- Direct: refusal to hand over the child, cancelling contact without justification
- Indirect: creating a negative climate, psychological pressure, instilling fear or guilt in the child
- Silent: “indifference” or passive acceptance of the child’s refusal
In each of these cases, the parent who makes contact difficult is breaching the court decision and the child’s best interests.
The Child’s Best Interests at the Centre
Case law is consistent: contact serves the child, not the parent.
The court intervenes when:
- the child’s refusal is not justified by actual facts
- there is an indication of parental alienation
- the parent does not facilitate contact
- the child’s environment is shaped in a manner hostile towards the other parent
If it is found that one parent systematically undermines the child’s relationship with the other, the court may order:
- compliance measures
- a change of custody
- supervised contact
- family counselling
Why Might a Child Refuse Contact?
The refusal may be due to:
1.Emotional Strain After Divorce
Children often feel insecurity, confusion, and even anger towards a parent, without there being an objective reason.
2. Dysfunctional Relationship with the Parent
Conflicts, strict behaviour, emotional distance, or lack of involvement may lead to withdrawal.
3. Parental Alienation
The parent with whom the child resides may, unintentionally or deliberately, create a negative climate towards the other parent.
Case law now recognises the term “parental alienation” as a serious ground for limiting or modifying custody.
4. Fear or Traumatic Experience
In serious situations (e.g. abusive behaviour), the child may justifiably refuse contact.
5. Family Conflicts
Constant disputes between the parents create a negative psychological environment, and the child distances itself in order to “protect” itself.
6. Adolescence
During adolescence, greater autonomy and a desire to limit parental presence often emerge.
When is the Refusal Taken into Account by the Court?
Courts take the child’s views into account (Article 1511 CC), mainly when:
- The child has sufficient maturity and can express reasons.
- The reasons are associated with actual circumstances (e.g. conflict of personalities, inappropriate behaviour).
- There is no indication of manipulation by the other parent.
However, when the child’s refusal cannot be reasonably explained or stems from suggestion, the court may:
- regulate custody differently,
- impose specific contact arrangements,
- order counselling support,
- examine the possibility of removing custody where the parent systematically obstructs contact.
Responsibility of the Parent with Whom the Child Resides
The court examines whether:
- the parent facilitates contact;
- the parent encourages the child to see the other parent;
- the parent creates fear or feelings of guilt;
- the parent undermines the relationship with negative comments.
If it is found that the parent actively or passively obstructs contact, strict measures may be ordered, including a change of custody (see Patras Single-Member Court of First Instance 122/2020, 102/2020).
Rights and Obligations of the Parent Facing the Child’s Refusal
The parent who sees the child refusing contact must:
- Not react with intensity, pressure, or coercion.
- Immediately seek counselling support (child psychologist).
- Record incidents of obstruction of contact.
- Request judicial intervention if the problem continues.
Through interim measures, they may request:
- temporary regulation of contact,
- psychological support for the child,
- investigation of possible parental alienation,
- sanctions against the other parent.
How Do the Courts Deal with Refusal?
Courts usually adopt a gradual approach:
1.Assessment by a specialist child psychologist
2.Gradual reintegration of the parent into the child’s life
3.Parental counselling
4.Change of custody if necessary
The objective is not “punishment” but the restoration of the parent–child relationship.
The Child’s Refusal to Have Contact with the Parent – How Greek Courts View It
In practice, Greek courts recognise that the child’s attitude and wishes play a decisive role in matters of contact. When a child expresses in a clear, stable, and unequivocal manner that it does not want to see or have contact with the parent who does not have custody, and this refusal is not due to pressure or manipulation, then its opinion must be taken seriously into account.
Case law accepts that in such cases the minor’s refusal should not simply be respected, but often must be upheld, because imposing contact against the child’s will may cause:
- intense psychological pressure
- emotional disturbance
- a sense of insecurity or fear
- harm to the child’s mental balance
Conversely, strict enforcement of contact in respect of a child who reacts strongly may lead to even greater problems and deeply harm the child’s best interests.
The Legislator’s Position – Protection of the Child’s Personality
The modern rules on enforcement, especially after the amendment of Article 950 CCP (by Law 2721/1999), further strengthen this approach.
The older procedure, whereby the bailiff could “remove” the child from its environment and immediately and coercively deliver it to the other parent, is no longer applied.
The reason is that such practices:
- are incompatible with the value and personality of the child
- do not respect the child’s emotional state
- may cause serious psychological harm
Today, the enforcement of contact orders must be carried out in a manner that protects the minor’s well-being and dignity, not through methods that traumatise the child.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
- The child cannot be “dragged” into contact which it refuses.
- The child’s wish is examined seriously and considered as part of its best interests.
- The judge will investigate whether the refusal is autonomous or the result of influence.
- If the refusal is stable and genuine, contact may be restricted, modified, or even temporarily suspended.
- Enforcement proceedings cannot be carried out by means of coercion that infringe the child’s personality.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. Can the child decide on its own that it does not want contact?
No. The child’s views are taken into account, but they are not binding, especially if the child is a minor or influenced.
2. If the child refuses, am I obliged to pressure it?
The parent must encourage, not impose. However, if the parent simply accepts the refusal, they may be considered to be obstructing contact.
3. Can refusal lead to removal of custody?
Yes, when the parent fosters or causes the refusal. There is extensive case law confirming this.
4. What if the parent was violent?
In such cases contact may be restricted or excluded, and supervised contact may also be ordered.
5. Is parental alienation recognised by the courts?
Yes, and it is regarded as a particularly serious factor, capable of leading to a complete change of custody.
Conclusion
For it to be considered that the parent who has custody is unlawfully obstructing the other parent’s contact with the minor child, it must be proven that the obstruction is intentional. In other words, it must appear that the parent acts with the purpose of making contact difficult or impossible, and not that a merely occasional or justified impediment occurred.
Such intent is demonstrated, for example, when the parent with custody encourages, influences, or pressures the child to refuse contact with the other parent, or when they create conditions that make contact practically impossible. In these cases, we are dealing with actual and conscious obstruction, which may entail consequences both in civil and in criminal law.
Conversely, if the child itself expresses refusal and that refusal is not the result of manipulation but stems from its spontaneous judgement, then the parent’s conduct is not regarded as obstruction, but as a matter to be evaluated based on the child’s best interests.
The child’s refusal to have contact with a parent is a complex situation requiring a combination of legal and psychological handling. The court examines all circumstances, places the child’s best interests at the centre, and intervenes when a parent–child relationship is disrupted.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case requires individual assessment, based on its specific facts and the applicable legal framework. For tailored advice, please contact our firm directly.
No comment