Maria Podlodowska: Parental Alienation – household hell

1. Introduction

The courtroom is frequently a place where human dramas take place. household affairs are a game of emotions, constantly straightening out reality, fighting for the right to a kid and proving their welfare and educational skills. Recording the course of contacts with the kid by 1 parent with another, common questioning of authority and discredit in the eyes of the child, rivalry of conflicted parents, kid manipulation, long-term waiting for opinion of the Judicial Specialists' Group (OZSS), is an almost classical image of the case of contact with the child. Additionally, there is simply a chronicity of court proceedings and a deficiency of real protection against the exclusion from the life of 1 parent's kid by another. In practice, parenting affects fathers more often. However, there are situations where the parent is unlawfully isolated from a child.

The court proceedings, which frequently take years and end in establishing an alienated parent’s contact with a kid only a fewer hours a month, give emergence to an even greater sense of harm and helplessness. In addition, a judgement which does not respect the parent's right to contact the kid in any way promotes parental alienation, as it were, ‘legalising’ the various types of treatments taken by the parent whose kid is permanently resident in order to destruct another parent's child. Procedure for establishing and securing contacts with the kid shall be transformed de facto in proceedings to limit those rights which are not granted to parents by court, but by the fact that the kid is from them. This situation requires systemic changes and, above all, amendments to the provisions of the household and Care Code and the Criminal Code.

In the case of persons neglecting their parental responsibilities, addicts, punished or mentally ill, it is sometimes essential to limit contact with the kid in order to supply the insignificant with adequate conditions for appropriate growth and development. It is hard to consider it justified to subject strict orders and prohibitions to the right of contact with the kid of parents duly fulfilling their parental obligations and guaranteeing the appropriate care of minors, frequently in combination with the regulation or deprivation of their parental rights only due to the fact that their parents are separated. It is the model parents who frequently fall victim to parental alienation. A kid and a full household are besides suffering from parental alienation. Social awareness in this area remains low, which translates into a deficiency of support for the alienated parent and, in fact, stigmatisation.

2. Parents' rights

Parents' rights to contact and decide on their most crucial matters are natural rights which each parent has for the very fact that he is simply a child. These rights apply equally to each parent. Furthermore, these rights are protected at constitutional and global level. engagement in parental rights should be guided by circumstantial aspects specified as the hazard of the child's welfare and, as in any case, must be proportionate and appropriate to the degree of danger.

In accordance with Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland Marriage as a relation between a female and a man, family, motherhood and parenthood are protected and supervised by the Republic of Poland.

Similarly, Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland provides: Everyone has the right to legal protection Life private, Family, honor and good name and to decide about your individual life.

Moreover, according to Article 33 of the Constitution of Poland Women and men in the Republic of Poland have equal rights in household life, political, social and economic.

In turn, in accordance with Article 113 k.r.o:

§ 1 Regardless of parental authority, parents and their children have the law and the work to keep contact with each other.

§ 2 Contacts with a kid include, in particular, being with a kid (visitation, meetings, taking the kid outside his permanent residence) and direct communication, maintaining correspondence, utilizing another means of communication at a distance, including electronic communication.

3. Rights of the child

The rights of the kid correspond to the rights of the parents, i.e. the kid has the right to contact each parent. Above all, a kid has the right to love, to love and to be loved, to be raised in a safe household environment.

A crucial passage of the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the kid is:

‘Expressing the conviction that family as a basic cell of society and the natural environment of improvement and the welfare of all its members, in peculiar children, should be surrounded by the essential protection and support to full fulfil its obligations in society,

recognising that a kid for the full and harmonious improvement of his personality should be raised in a household environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”[...].

The Convention on the Rights of the kid guarantees a number of rights and freedoms for children, including the right to know their parents (Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child), the right to retain: identity, surnames and household relations excluding unlawful interference with these goods (Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child).

4. Parental Alliance

In accordance with Article 113¹ k.r.o. If the kid is permanently present with 1 parent, the way in which the kid is contacted by the another parent shall find jointly, in the interests of the kid and taking into account his reasonable wishes; in the absence of agreement, the guardian's court shall decide.

While it is possible in the case of matrimony to dismiss a divorce application if the common welfare of minors is to be affected as a consequence of a divorce, there are no akin solutions in the case of concubent unions and, in the case of divorce cases, it is practically an institution which is different and its application does not warrant the protection of the interests of minors. On the contrary, the chances that the spouses will run a common household together after the divorce application has been dismissed due to the common welfare of minors are negligible.

Few people realize that if the substance of contact with the child, the establishment of his/her whereabouts, parental authority and another issues related to this will be examined before the court, then not only the educational competence of each parent, or their knowing of the needs of the child, but besides the housing conditions, the equipment of the area for the child, the anticipation of access to school, the anticipation of earning parents etc. In addition, the assessment of specialists (most frequently OZSS) will be subject to the degree of bond between each parent and the kid and the child's susceptibility to manipulation and confabulation.

The guiding rule of the Code of household and Care, as well as its procedures, is child welfare principle, which has no legal definition but is based on the achievements of jurisprudence and legal doctrine. To put parents' interests in opposition to the rule of the child's welfare frequently leads to its full distortion. Providing a child's right to reside with each parent is, after all, an action in the child's widely understood interest, unless peculiar consideration is given to this problem (alcoholism, parent drug abuse, etc.).

The judicial procedure for determining the right to contact a kid can last respective years. During this period, the kid frequently sees the another parent to a very limited extent, or these contacts are carried out under the supervision of a probation officer, which does not foster the building of household ties.

If parents break up just after the baby is born, the kid is usually taken care of by a parent who breast - fed them. In specified a situation, during early childhood the father may see the kid to a limited extent, and the kid is accustomed to the existing model of household functioning. In the following years, attention is paid to the request for a kid to feel stable, to be harmonious, etc., which further restricts contact with the another parent. Then, after the court experts issued their opinion, it frequently turns out that the relation between the second parent (most frequently the father) and the kid did not make adequate to regulation a changeable seal, and consequently a vicious ellipse is formed. The kid is not in a position to get utilized to a parent with whom he is not permanently present, and the occasional contacts established by the court can be embarrassing and origin stress in minors, which is later utilized in court as an argument for further limiting them. This situation is not better erstwhile a parent’s separation takes place later in the child’s life, erstwhile it is utilized to the presence of both parents, and abruptly it is faced with a fact made erstwhile 1 parent takes care of them and isolates the kid from the another parent.

A parent whose kid is not permanently present frequently lacks the rhythm of the day, eating habits, nap hours, or medication. Naturally, parents learn the needs of the kid by observing them and taking care of them daily. However, in a court of law, a parent whose kid is not permanently resident must show his or her cognition of the substance and prove that erstwhile the kid is placed under his or her care he or she will be able to meet these requirements. Almost on the agenda, there are situations where a parent whose kid is permanently obstructed or prevented from contacting another kid from his/her parents does not respond to questions about the child's wellness and another issues related to this, leading to utmost marginalisation of the second parent in the child's life, who is not aware of it and cannot object.

Depreciating the function of the another parent frequently involves giving a number of false information about him, and simplifying these claims requires evidence, which, in the current number of court cases, is very time-consuming and has negative consequences for the "innocent" parent. With age, the kid is induced by negative content regarding the second parent, and the kid is active in the parents' loyalty conflict, which may origin him to fear meetings with a parent who is not permanently present. This is undoubtedly undesirable for the child’s welfare.

Often, if a second parent refuses to go home to meet a child, police are called upon, which only exposes the kid to stress and does not lead to a resolution of the situation, but to escalation of the conflict. Even more brutal is the procedure for the probation officer to collect the kid in the police ace to hand it over to the parent under whose care it remains in the event of refusal of voluntary transfer of the insignificant by the another parent or another household members.

Parental alienation has no legal definition. This is the word commonly utilized to specify a number of actions and behaviours aimed at obstructing contact with the another parent, inducing the child's negative content about it, aiming to destruct the second parent from the child's life. These effects can be characterized by varying degrees of strength and discomfort. They are most frequently accompanied by the desire to tease their second parent, play a function in protecting their own interests. Sometimes these actions are accompanied by the intention to replace the biological parent with a fresh life partner, which is gradually implemented into the life of the kid and is intended to replace the kid of the alienated parent. In utmost cases, a parent in charge of a insignificant can apply to the court for a replacement consent to change the name of the child, or even decision with the kid to the another end of Poland to destruct the insignificant of the second parent.

For these reasons, parenting alienation is not only a syndrome of behaviour that reconciles the individual welfare of the parent, but, above all, an action aimed at the welfare of the child. Parental alienation violates a number of rights and freedoms of a kid specified as the right to contact and keep ties with another parent, the right to be raised by parents, the right to know household members, the right to identity and to hold a surname, the right to be raised in a safe household environment. A kid is frequently not aware of the harm that a parent who commits parental alienation does to him, and does not have the postponing ability to object to specified behaviour.

In the doctrine of trying to specify parental alienation, they boil down to an example calculation of behaviour leading to parental alienation and to presenting negative consequences associated with it.

According to J. Helios and W. Jedlecka “Although it is widely accepted that parental alienation is reduced to obstruction or regulation of contact with another parent, it can in fact take another forms. In addition to obstructing or limiting contact, these include: negative attitudes towards the another parent, offering the kid benefits, for example, material benefits, in exchange for dislike and negative attitude towards the another parent, forcing the declaration of affection from the child, presenting the another parent in a bad light or speaking about it in a contemptible way. As experts indicate, and as we have already signaled, parental alienation can have serious consequences for the child’s improvement and psyche. This alienation may affect the lower number of intelligences of the kid experienced, its lower self-esteem, impaired sexual identification, increased aggression and self-aggression.” — J. Helios, W. Jedlecka, Parental Alliance, Wrocław 2023).

However, to present all the negative consequences, or to approximate the statistic related to the phenomenon of parental alienation, requires quite a few investigation and goes far beyond the issues covered by this analysis.

When a parent's contact with a kid is limited in the majesty of the law (e.g. by securing a parent's relation with a kid to an insufficient degree or in a manner that reproaches that parent by unduly establishing the guardian's supervision of these contacts – oversecurity), then the criminal court has a hard task in carrying out the legal qualifications of that act and attributing blame to the parent who has caused the situation. In addition, the Criminal Code applies the rule nullum crime sine lege i.e. There is no crime without the bill, which involves another rules requiring precise determination of the terms of the prohibited act in the Act nullum crimen sine lege certa.

The deficiency of clear parental alienation characteristics causes that criminal law assessment can only be subject to fragmentary, individual behaviours, which, as a substance of fact, exhaust another crimes, taking the form of, for example, abuse, insult or defamation, threats of unlawful, extortion, etc. However, proving the above is difficult, especially in cases where an alien parent is not able to have frequent regular meetings with a kid and does not know precisely what happens to him.

In practice, parenting usually affects fathers. However, there are situations where mothers, grandparents, or siblings apply for access to children.

5. Parental authority and alimony and parental alienation

In an effort to explain the phenomenon of parental alienation, it is impossible not to mention the frequently associated requests for deprivation or limitation of parental power, while demanding the cost of surviving and raising a kid of a parent who does not take care of the kid all day. The reason for this kind of claims is that a parent who exercises regular care for a insignificant (most frequently a mother) fulfils his/her maintenance work towards a insignificant through individual efforts to keep and rise a child. The second parent should so bear the cost of surviving and raising the child. On the another hand, parental authority is frequently limited to the most crucial matters concerning the child, specified as the choice of doctor, school or decision to go abroad, since conflicting parents are incapable to communicate in current cases concerning minors, and pragmatic considerations find this.

Thus, the second parent, whose kid is not permanently injured, is burdened with a maintenance work to a greater degree than the parent who has a kid with him, which does not translate into more frequent contact with the child, but limits his parental rights to the most crucial ones. The function of a second parent whose kid is not permanently marginalised on all level, and the unequal division of the rights and obligations of parents leads to a sense of harm in the majesty of the law.

Moreover, a parent who has been restricted to parental power experiences stigmatisation in society. frequently there is simply a situation that a parent who has limited parental power cannot take a kid from a nursery, kindergarten, or school, take the kid to a doctor, or even get basic information about the assessments, vaccinations of the child, etc. Although this parent is unpunished, without addictions and integrity, he experiences discrimination and injustice at all turn.

It should be stressed that the deprivation of parental power does not stay indifferent to the image of a individual in the legal sphere. For example, according to Regulation of the Prime Minister of 28 December 2016 on the cooperation of entities in the execution of penalties, criminal measures, compensatory measures, safeguarding, preventive and forfeiture, and social control over their execution ‘trustworthy person’ means a individual who, inter alia, has not been deprived of parental or parental rights’ under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of paragraph 3 of the Regulation. Furthermore, in the case of public trust professions, it is essential to have a "indiscriminate character". The regulation or deprivation of parental rights may lead to the designation that a individual does not have an immaculate character, for the word is out of focus, has no statutory definition. Doubtless, matters relating to parental authority are not indifferent to the functioning of the parent in society, his image and good name, or even his professional path.

In accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland:

1. Parents have the right to rise their children according to their own beliefs. This upbringing should take into account the maturity of the child, as well as the freedom of his conscience and religion and his beliefs.

2. The limitation or deprivation of parental rights may only take place in the cases laid down in the Act and only on the basis of a final judgement of the court.

In practice, adequate reason for limiting (or even depriving) parental power is the fact that the parents of the kid live apart.

6. Legal protection against parental alienation

Although there are regulations that supply legal safeguards for parental and kid contact, this protection is incomplete and does not produce the desired results. First of all, a parent whose second parent makes it hard or impossible to interact with a kid may apply to establish and safe those contacts. However, it may be a fewer months of waiting time for the protection of contacts alone, even though the request should be acknowledged immediately. The process of establishing contacts can last for respective years. The biggest disappointment, however, is to establish or safe these contacts in a way or in a dimension that does not meet the emotional needs of the alien parent (establishing contacts under the supervision of the probation officer or in the presence of another parent, not being able to prohibit the kid for the full weekend with the anticipation of overnight accommodation, setting contacts only a fewer hours a month, etc.).

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 598¹⁵ § 1 k.p.c.

If the individual under whose custody the kid is staying does not perform, or improperly perform, the duties arising from the judgement or from the settlement concluded before the court or the mediator in relation to contacts with the child, the guardian's court, taking into account the person's financial situation, threatens to order payment to the individual entitled to contact the child the amount of money marked for each infringement.

In turn in accordance with Article 598¹⁶ § 1 k.p.c. If a individual whose custody court has threatened to order the payment of a marked monetary sum does not proceed to fulfil his obligation, the guardian court shall order him payment of the monetary sum due, fixing its amount according to the number of infringements. The court may, in exceptional cases, alter the amount of the monetary sum referred to in Article 598¹⁵Because of the changed circumstances.

This protection is, however, makeshift on the ground that it requires a settlement before a mediator or a court ruling to respect the right of a second parent where the insignificant has no fixed place of residence to contact his own child. Moreover, a parent whose kid is not permanently required to pay kid support to the kid straight to the hands of the parent who is in charge of him. The intent is so to order the parent liable for the kid to pay a certain amount of money to the another parent entitled to contact and obliged to bear the cost of surviving and raising the child. In addition, any failure to comply with the agreement, whether the court's decision to contact the kid needs to be documented and subsequently informed of the fact of the court, which in turn is time-consuming and imposes further obligations on the parent and so on the "grieved".

Where it is found that the welfare of a kid is in danger of being in danger under the provision of Article 109 k.r.o. may:

1) require parents and minors to take circumstantial measures, in peculiar to work with household assistants, to carry out another forms of work with their family, to mention the insignificant to the day support facility, as defined in the rules on supporting the household and the foster care system, or to mention the parents to an institution or specialist in household therapy, counselling or providing appropriate assistance to the family, while at the same time indicating how to control the performance of the orders issued;

2. find which activities cannot be carried out by parents without the approval of the court or subject to another restrictions by the guardian;

3. subject the exercise of parental authority to permanent supervision by the probation officer;

4. mention the insignificant to an organisation or institution designated for professional preparation or to another establishment with partial custody of children;

5. order the placement of a insignificant in a foster family, a household home or in an organization foster care or to temporarily delegate the function of a foster household to spouses or persons who do not fulfil the conditions relating to foster families, as regards the essential training provided for in the provisions on supporting the household and the foster care system, or order the insignificant to be placed in a nursing and nursing establishment, in a nursing and nursing establishment or in a rehabilitation facility.

Moreover, if it is found that parental authority is abused by 1 parent, for example, to alienate another parent, the guardian's court may deprive the parental authority of the provision of Article 111(1) of the General Court of the parent who abuses that power.

There has long been a dispute in the case law whether a household bond constitutes a individual good and is protected under Article 24 k.c. any courts consider that a household bond is simply a individual good and grant compensation under Article 448 k.c. for preventing or obstructing contact. However, there are differences in the case law leading to the dismissal of the action in its entirety. Even the ultimate Court, with its increased membership of 7 judges, issued 2 conflicting resolutions in this respect.

On 27 March 2018, III CZP 36/17 The ultimate Court found that a household bond was a individual asset. On the another hand, in the resolution of 22 October 2019, I NSNZP 2/19 the ultimate Court denied this thesis. no of the above resolutions have the legal rule and so does not bind all the ultimate Court configurations. By decision of 25 June 2024, II CSKP 2419/22 The ultimate Court has one more time deferred the examination of the case and submitted to the composition of 7 ultimate Court judges a legal issue: Is a child’s household member’s emotional bond a individual good and enjoys protection under Article 24(1) in Article 23?

In the above-mentioned order, the ultimate Court pointed out the dilemmas that have long been sparking disputes in doctrine and jurisprudence, stating:

‘The settled view is that household relations mostly service the welfare of the child. household contacts service both educational purposes (socialisation) and the future of the child, as household members can support in entering adulthood and later, throughout their lives. The problem arises erstwhile a caregiver, most frequently a parent who takes care of the child, does not realize what is long-term good for the child, or puts his own negative emotions towards another parent or another household associate over the welfare of the child.

In the event of setting a kid against household members who do not exercise regular care over a child, self-execution of contact with a kid may undermine the child's welfare. In caring for the father’s plaintiff’s relation with the child, it was established that the child’s mother’s incorrect attitude caused her to become reluctant to meet her father and that the meetings caused stress and a conflict of loyalty. The welfare court is then faced with a very hard task of assessing whether the continued enforcement of the father's relation with the kid does not origin besides much burden for the kid and whether the benefits of the future relation with the father outweigh this immense burden.’

However, by order of 20 November 2024, II CSKP 2419/22, the ultimate Court repealed its decision of 25 June 2024, II CSKP 2419/22.

The welfare court is each time obliged to weigh both the welfare of the kid and the individual welfare of his household members. However, it should be pointed out that, above all, this kid has the right to contact each parent. It is so critical to measure the dilemmas of the ultimate Court which have been the basis for the transmission of the legal issue to be settled in an enlarged composition of 7 judges. From this passage emerges a image of the parent – the mother, who in her behaviour led to a situation where the kid does not want to see the father, and these contacts origin stress for the child. However, a fundamental question should be raised for each test method – where cause, and where effect? The kid is not even aware that he has fallen victim to parental alienation, and in the future he may resent his parent and the judiciary for breaking his relation with his father. Leaving the kid under the care of the parent alienated objectively endangers his welfare. In addition, this conduct undoubtedly violates the individual welfare of another parent – his honour, image and household bond, and in utmost cases leads to wellness disorder due to tense breakdown, depression, etc.

Undoubtedly, giving the ultimate Court the power of the regulation of law to adopt a household bond as a individual good would settle the existing judicial differences in this area, but it would surely not put an end to parental alienation.

7. Postulate changes

It is recommended that family matters (and, above all, care matters relating to contacts with the child, parental authority, alternate care, the whereabouts of the child, or alimony) were settled in a jury, i.e. 1 justice and 2 jurors, as is the case in divorce cases. The divorce proceedings shall be settled by a territory court of 1 professional justice and 2 jurors. The social origin in household matters is vital due to the fact that the household is the basic social cell in which the kid undergoes the process of socialization and prepares for life in society. Furthermore, the specificity of household matters requires that all decisions given in these cases be dictated not so much by the letter of law, but by the experience of life and mostly accepted standards and assessments in society, as well as by the social sense of justice.

Currently, cases before a custody court (family court) are settled in territory courts of 1 judge, which importantly increases the hazard of error. The proposal in this respect is – Let's give the household back to society.. The first step to get fair rulings that reconcile the parents’ interests and respect the child’s superior welfare may be a proposal to change the composition of the custody court to the jury.

It should besides promote the usage of alternate care, which should be a targeted means of protection against parental alienation if the child's welfare does not hinder it. In addition, clarify the grounds for regulation or deprivation of parental power in specified a way as to defend parents from arbitrariness of courts in this regard. The limitation of parental rights cannot be decided solely by pragmatic considerations in relation to the separation of parents. Courts should search equal distribution of the rights and obligations of each parent towards the child. It should be considered unacceptable to restrict parental authority and contact with the kid of 1 parent while at the same time imposing a greater maintenance obligation. If parents are incapable to agree on the most crucial matters concerning a insignificant child, then each of them should be limited to the same extent, until specified a condition ceases or is entrusted with the exercise of parental authority to both parents so that they have the chance to decide on the matters of the kid during the period erstwhile the kid is with each of them. The rulings of the welfare court should regulate issues relating to the care of the kid comprehensively, i.e. in a way that minimises the feeling of harm to a parent whose kid is not permanently present, taking into account the overriding interest and well-being of the child.

In addition, the behaviour of the parent whose kid is permanently resident in order to destruct another parent from the life of the kid should be punished, and, in particular, by refusing to give a kid to another parent in order to have a gathering with him or to make it look like a different situation (e.g. baby naps, trips, appointments to a doctor in the absence of any medical indication, simultaneous enrollment of the kid for additional classes during the appointment with the second parent, etc.), inducing the child's negative content on the second parent (often combined with kid intimidation or defamation of the second parent), rewarding the kid for all refusal to contact the second parent, etc. The determination of parental alienation should let for a legal assessment of the perpetrator's full behaviour aimed at eliminating from the life of the kid the parent or another close individual entitled to contact, e.g. the grandparents.

The social harm of specified acts is high, for example, due to the degree of suffering and humiliation of the alienated parent and their duration, and the irreparability of the effects of this phenomenon. These actions are characterised by tenacity, planning, long-termity, premeditation with low motives and aimed at harming another parent. A parent who is allowed to do this is allowed to harm a kid who, as a consequence of his actions, is deprived of his right to see another parent and consequently acts with the intention of harming your child. specified actions do not benefit from the protection of the law and deserve the highest condemnation.

Hence the request to amend the penal code, which will accurately find the characteristics of parental alienation and defend the kid and the alienated parent from the unlawful action of the parent whose kid is permanently resident to destruct the second parent from the child's life. The legislator should besides effort to introduce definition of legal parental alienation by placing an open catalogue of behaviours that lead to this phenomenon. It's besides crucial raising public awareness of parental alienation, equal parental rights, the importance of the family, the well-being of the kid and the function of each parent in the life of minors.

In fresh years respective draft government and civilian laws have been drawn up to regulate the issue of parental alienation. Petitions in this area besides influenced the parliament. There have been many organisations that argue parental alienation, which aid to accomplish equal treatment for parents and draw attention to the negative effects of parental alienation in the life of the kid and the full society. These circumstances should prompt the legislator to take immediate legislative action in this area.

8. Conclusion

Parental alienation is an unlawful coup against a number of legal property. This is due to a number of treatments and behaviors, more or little sophisticated, with varying degrees of strength and ailment, undertaken by the child-career and resulting in the elimination from the life of the kid of the individual entitled to keep a relation with the child. Parental alienation is simply a denial of the child's welfare and is detrimental to the rights of a parent whose kid is not permanently present. Parental alienation has a number of negative effects both in the life of a kid who is exposed to stress, interior tear, or a sense of helplessness, and in the life of an alienated parent, whose function in the life of a kid is frequently brought to the realization of a maintenance work and who experiences stigmatisation in society due to the regulation or deprivation of his parental rights.

Although common laws give parents equal rights and obligations towards the child, there is simply a tendency in the judiciary to favour the function of parent in the life of the child. Parental alienation besides affects another household members entitled to keep contact and individual contact with the child, including mothers, grandparents, siblings.

Today, the existing legal solutions do not warrant that parents and children have their widely understood interests secured, but they sometimes advance the improvement of parental alienation. For these reasons, it is essential for the legislator to take systemic action to guarantee the real protection of the child's welfare and equal rights and obligations of parents towards the child.

Maria Podlodowska

Source:

1. the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 (OJ 1997.78.483 of 1997.07.16);
2. Convention on the Rights of the kid adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989. (OJ 1991.120.526 of 1991.12.23)
3. Law of 25 February 1964. Code of household and Care (OJ 2023.2809 Vol. of 2023.12.29);
4. Law of 6 June 1997. Criminal Code (OJ 2025.383 Vol. of 2025.03.26);
5. Regulation of the Prime Minister of 28 December 2016 on the cooperation of entities in the implementation of penalties, criminal measures, compensatory measures, safeguarding, preventive and forfeiture, and social control over their implementation (OJ 2016 2305 of 2016.12.30);
6. Resolution of the ultimate Court of 7 judges of 27 March 2018, III CZP 36/17 (OSNC 2018/11/103);
7. Decision of the ultimate Court of 7 Judges of 22 October 2019, I NSNZP 2/19 (OSNKN 2020/2/11);
8. Order of the ultimate Court of 25 June 2024, II CSKP 2419/22 (LEX No 3729281);
9. Order of the ultimate Court of 20 November 2024, II CSKP 2419/22 (LEX No 3782927);
10. J. Helios, W. Jedlecka, Parental Alliance, Wrocław 2023;
11. M. Pomarańska-Bielecka, Criminalization of the phenomenon of parental alienation – the current legal state and proposals for changes [in:] Baby's hurt. Theory, Research, Practice Vol. 20 No. 1 (2021).