BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Kamińska Katarzyna (University of Silesia in Katowice)
Joint Physical Custody After Parental Separation: a Polish Perspective
Eastern European Journal of Transnational Relations, 2020, vol. 4, nr 2, s. 87-106, rys., bibliogr. 45 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Pandemia, Opieka nad dzieckiem, Rodzicielstwo, COVID-19
Pandemic, Childcare, Parenthood, COVID-19
The aim of this paper was to present the characteristics of joint physical custody in Polish family law. For this purpose the relevant regulations of the Polish law were analysed. In the paper, the substantive as well as the procedural provisions were compared. The Family Court may award joint physical custody if the parties have made an agreement, consistent with the welfare of the child, or in the absence of such a parenting agreement, having regard to a child's right to both parents. One hypothesis assumes that joint physical custody does not mean only symmetric child custody arrangements, and its proper application by courts is determined by taking into account many different factors. In the paper, the results of the examination referred to joint custody in child custody law in Germany and the Swedish experience of joint physical custody, were presented. The main advantage of joint physical custody is to provide both parents equal control over decision regarding a child's upbringing and to split the time that a child spends living with each of them. This paper contains a reflection on joint physical custody in the face of COVID-19. The current pandemic is having an enormous impact on families. During this particular time, it is time to become more cooperative and more fluid, not less. (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka SGH im. Profesora Andrzeja Grodka
Pełny tekst
  1. Act of 25 February 1964 - Family and Guardianship Code. Journal of Laws of 2019, item 2086.
  2. Act of 23 April 1964 - Civil Code. Journal of Laws of 2020, item 875.
  3. Act of 17 November 1964 - Code of Civil Procedure. Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1017.
  4. Act of the 11 February of 2016 on state assistance in upbringing of the children. Journal of Laws of 2019, item 2407.
  5. European Commission (2017). European Semester Thematic Factsheet. Tertiary Education Attainment. Retrieved July 7, 2020, from
  6. Andrzejewski, M. (2018). Piecza naprzemienna - między formalną dopuszczalnością a merytoryczną zasadnością jej orzekania [Joint physical custody - between formal admissibility and substantive validity of its adjudication]. In. A. Czerederecka (Ed.), Rodzina w sytuacji okołorozwodowej. Współczesne dylematy psychologiczne i prawne (pp. 85-118). Kraków: Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych.
  7. Andrzejewski, M. (2019). Wokół Projektu Kodeksu Rodzinnego przedłożonego w lipcu 2018 r. przez Rzecznika Praw Dziecka [On the Family Code Bill Submitted by the Ombudsman for Children in July 2018]. Prawo w działaniu. Sprawy cywilne, 40, 9-42. Retrieved from
  8. Berg-Cross, L. (2000). Basic Concepts in Family Therapy. An Introductory Text. New York, London,Oxford: Routledge.
  9. Bergström, M., Fransson, E., Modin, B., Berlin, M., Gustafsson, P.A., & Hjern, A. (2015). Fifty moves a year: is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 69, 769-774.
  10. Bieszczad, M. (2019). Piecza naprzemienna w przypadku braku pisemnego porozumienia o sposobie wykonywania władzy rodzicielskiej i utrzymywaniu kontaktu [Joint physical custody in the absence of a written agreement between parents on the method of exercising parental authority and maintaining contact with the child]. In D. Jaroszewska-Choraś, A. Kilińska-Pękacz & A. Wedeł-Domaradzka (Eds.), Prawa dziecka. Perspektywa prywatnoprawna i społeczna (pp. 115-128). Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra.
  11. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (1986). BGBl. I S. 42, 2909; 2003 I S. 738; BGBl. I S. 607.
  12. Coates, B.A. (2004). Divorce with Decency. The Complete How-To Handbook and Survivor's Guide to the Legal, Emotional, Economic, and Social Issues. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  13. Colman, G. (2020). Covid-19 and how to navigate parenting schedules in the crisis. Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from
  14. Johns Hopkins University (n.d.). COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from
  15. CustodyxChange (n.d.). 50/50 Custody & Visitation Schedules: 6 Examples. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from
  16. Danilewicz-Prokorym, W. (2016). Władza rodzicielska a kontakty z małoletnim dzieckiem. Instytucja pieczy naprzemiennej na mocy ustawy z dnia 25 czerwca 2015 r. o zmianie ustawy - Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy oraz ustawy - Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Dz. U. 2015, poz. 1062) [Parental authority and contacts with the child. Alternate care institution under the Act of 25 June 2015. "On Amendments to the Acts - Family and Guardianship Code and Code of Civil Procedure" (O.J. 2015, item 1062)]. Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica, 15(1), 371-380.
  17. Domański, M. (2016). Orzekanie o pieczy naprzemiennej w wyrokach rozwodowych [Adjudicating alternating custody in judgments of divorce]. Prawo w działaniu. Sprawy cywilne, 25, 97-148. Retrieved from
  18. Elkin, M. (1991). Joint Custody: In the Best Interest of the Family. In J. Folberg (Ed.), Joint Custody & Shared Parenting (2nd ed., pp. 11-15). New York: Guilford Press.
  19. Elkin, M. (1982). The Missing Links in Divorce Law: A Redefinition of Process and Practice. Journal of Divorce, 6(1-2), 37-63.
  20. Family Court of Australia (2020, March 26). Media Release - Statement from the Hon Will Alstergren - Parenting Orders and COVID-19. Retrieved from
  21. Gajda, J. (2020). Komentarz do art. 58 [Commentary for Article 58 of the Family and Guardianship Code]. In J. Gajda & K. Pietrzykowski (Eds.), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
  22. Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A.J. (1973). Beyond the Best Interests of the Child. New York: The Free Press (MacMillan Publishing Co.).
  23. Hill, D., & Blackstone, J. (2020, May 6). Co-Parenting Through COVID-19: Putting Your Children First. American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved from
  24. Judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court for the Federal Republic of Germany (2014, November 19). Application no. BvR 1178/14.
  25. Huston v. Huston - Judgement of the Supreme Court of Iowa (1963, July 16). Application no. 122 N.W.2d 892.
  26. Burham v. Burham - Judgement of the Supreme Court of Iowa (1979, September 19). Application no. 283 N.W.2d 269.
  27. Judgement of the Supreme Court of Poland (1952, April 22). Application no. C414/52. OSN 1953, item 47.
  28. Justyński, T. (2011). W sprawie tzw. opieki naprzemiennej [In the case of so-called joint physical custody]. Rodzina i Prawo, 19, 5-11. Retrieved from
  29. Kosińska-Wiercińska, J. (2011). Władza rodzicielska nad małoletnim dzieckiem w razie rozwodu rodziców na tle prawa amerykańskiego [Parental authority over a minor in case of divorce in the context of American law]. Rodzina i Prawo, 19, 12-32. Retrieved from
  30. Kubalski, M., Gołembiewski, T., & Gee-Milan, E. (2019, March 2). Opieka naprzemienna - po zmianach w prawie szansa na dobrą praktyka [Joint physical custody after amendments - a chance for a good practice]. Retrieved from,378441.html.
  31. Lemon, N.K. (1981). Joint Custody as a Statutory Presumption: California's New Civil Code Sections 4600 and 4600.5. Golden Gate University Law Review, 11(2), 485-531. Retrieved from
  32. Łukasiewicz, J.M. (2018). Problemy praktyczne związane z instytucją pieczy naprzemiennej [Practical problems Related to the Institution of Alternate Custody]. Forum prawnicze, 46(2), 53-64. Retrieved from
  33. Moore, C. (2020, May 28). Coronavirus - related legal tips on handling shared custody. Lawyer shares advice for parents navigating custody battles during COVID-19. Fox Business. Retrieved from
  34. Nielsen, L. (2015). Shared Physical Custody: Does It Benefit Most Children? Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 28(1), 79-138. Retrieved from
  35. Nielsen, L. (2017, June 20). '10 Surprising Findings on Shared Parenting After Divorce or Separation'. Institute for Family Studies. Retrieved from
  36. Otterstrom, K. (n.d.). Joint Child Custody: Do the Advantages Outweigh the Disadvantages? DivorceNet. Retrieved December 5, 2020, from
  37. Paulbeck, R.D. (2020). Research on Shared Parenting and Joint Custody. Robert D. Paulbeck, Attorney al Law. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from
  38. Ravin, K.A. & Ben-Joseph, E.P. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19). Retrieved July 13, 2020, from
  39. Schepard, A.I. (2004). Children, Courts, and Custody. Interdisciplinary Models for Divorcing Families. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Schoolman, A. (n.d.). Co-parenting hits separated families hard during coronavirus: 'It feels like we're missing huge life events'. USA Today. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from
  41. Stahl, P.M. (1994). Conducting Child Custody Evaluations. A Comprehensive Guide. Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from
  42. GUS (2019). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland, table 50 (74) Divorces by Court Decision on Care for Minor Children in 2018. Retrieved from
  43. Stojanowska, W. (2019). Prawo dziecka do wychowywania się w środowisku rodzinnym przewidziane w Konwencji o prawach dziecka (artykuł recenzyjny) [A child's right to grow up in a family environment provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (a review)]. Państwo i Prawo, 875(1), 117-130. Retrieved from
  44. UC Health (2020, April 4). Effects of COVID-19 on Families. Retrieved from
  45. Zajączkowska, J. (2017). Legal aspects of parent - child contact problems in Poland. Prawo w działaniu, 32, 98-112. Retrieved from
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu