Skip to content

Družinski zakonik arts. 141 + 143 + 144 — Skupna starševska skrb + stiki (verbatim)

Jurisdiction: Slovenia · Citation: Družinski zakonik (DZ; Uradni list RS, št. 15/17) arts. 141, 143, 144 · Authoritative source: pisrs.si — Družinski zakonik

The joint parental care + contact framework of the 2017 Slovenian Family Code. Družinski zakonik (DZ) replaced the 1976 socialist-era Zakon o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih (Marriage and Family Relations Act), effective 15 April 2019, alongside a structural reform transferring most family-court matters from the Centri za socialno delo (social work centres) to specialised family courts. The cluster establishes (i) the joint exercise of starševska skrb (parental care) at art. 141, (ii) the stiki (contact) framework at art. 143, and (iii) the resident parent's facilitation duty at art. 144.

The provisions parallel: - Croatia obiteljski zakon 2015 (roditeljska skrb) - Czech Republic NOZ §§ 865 + 891 + 907 - Hungary Ptk §§ 4:167 + 4:178 - Austria ABGB §§ 159 + 187 (Wohlverhaltensgebot + Kontaktrecht)

Slovenia is doctrinally distinctive among CEE/SE-European jurisdictions because the 2017 DZ art. 144 expressly codifies the resident parent's dolžnost omogočiti stike (duty to enable contact) — making Slovenia one of the most contact-protective frameworks in the region. The Slovenian Vrhovno sodišče has further developed the korist otroka welfare standard through Constitutional Court reception of ECHR Article 8 jurisprudence.

Verbatim text (current consolidated, selected provisions)

Art. 141 DZ — Skupna starševska skrb

(1) Starša izvršujeta starševsko skrb skupno in sporazumno.

(2) Če starša ne živita skupaj, vendar izvršujeta starševsko skrb skupno, sporazumno odločata o vzgoji in šolanju otroka, o izbiri zdravnika, o pomembnejših vprašanjih, povezanih z razvojem otroka, in o drugih pomembnih vprašanjih, ki se tičejo osebnostnih pravic otroka. O vsakdanjih zadevah odloča tisti od staršev, pri katerem otrok živi.

Art. 142 DZ — Sporazumna ureditev po razpadu skupnosti

(1) Če starša ne živita ali ne bosta več živela skupaj, se lahko sporazumeta o izvrševanju starševske skrbi. Sporazumeta se lahko, da ostaneta oba nosilca starševske skrbi ali da starševsko skrb v celoti izvršuje samo eden od njiju ali pa da svojega otroka razdelita in vsak izmed njiju izvršuje starševsko skrb nad določenim otrokom.

Art. 143 DZ — Stiki

(1) Otrok ima pravico do stikov z obema staršema, oba starša pa imata pravico do stikov z otrokom. S stiki se zagotavljajo predvsem otrokove koristi.

(2) Tisti od staršev, pri katerem otrok živi, oziroma druga oseba, pri kateri otrok živi, mora opustiti vse, kar otežuje ali onemogoča stike. Prizadevati si mora za ustrezen otrokov odnos do stikov z drugim od staršev oziroma s starši. Tisti od staršev, ki izvršuje stike, mora opustiti vse, kar otežuje izvrševanje stikov in vzgojo otroka.

Art. 144 DZ — Določitev stikov

(1) Če se starša o stikih ne sporazumeta sama ali s pomočjo centra za socialno delo, odloči o stikih sodišče. Sodišče odloči o stikih na predlog otroka, starša, centra za socialno delo ali po uradni dolžnosti v postopku, v katerem odloča o varstvu in vzgoji otroka.

(2) Sodišče lahko pravico do stikov odvzame ali omeji samo iz razlogov, določenih v tem zakoniku. Pravica do stikov se sme odvzeti ali omejiti, če je to potrebno zaradi varovanja koristi otroka. Stiki niso v korist otroka, če pomenijo zanj psihično obremenitev ali če se sicer z njimi ogroža njegov telesni ali duševni razvoj.

English working translation

Art. 141 DZ — Joint parental care

(1) Parents exercise parental care jointly and by mutual agreement (skupno in sporazumno).

(2) Where parents do not live together but exercise parental care jointly, they decide by mutual agreement on the upbringing and schooling of the child, on the choice of doctor, on significant questions connected with the child's development, and on other important questions concerning the child's personality rights. On everyday matters, the parent with whom the child lives decides.

Art. 142 DZ — Consensual regulation after community breakdown

(1) Where parents do not live together or will no longer live together, they may reach agreement on the exercise of parental care. They may agree that both remain bearers of parental care, or that parental care is exercised entirely by one of them, or that they divide their children and each exercises parental care over a particular child.

Art. 143 DZ — Contact

(1) The child has the right to contact (pravico do stikov) with both parents, and both parents have the right to contact with the child. Contact shall safeguard first and foremost the child's interests.

(2) The parent with whom the child lives, or another person with whom the child lives, must refrain from all that makes contact more difficult or impossible (mora opustiti vse, kar otežuje ali onemogoča stike). He/she must strive (prizadevati si mora) for an appropriate relationship of the child toward contact with the other parent (or with the parents). The parent who exercises contact must refrain from all that makes the exercise of contact and the upbringing of the child more difficult.

Art. 144 DZ — Determination of contact

(1) Where the parents do not reach agreement on contact themselves or with the assistance of the Centre for Social Work, the court decides on contact. The court decides on contact on the application of the child, the parent, the Centre for Social Work, or ex officio in proceedings in which it decides on the care and upbringing of the child.

(2) The court may withdraw or restrict the right to contact only on the grounds determined in this Code. The right to contact may be withdrawn or restricted only where necessary for safeguarding the child's interests. Contact is not in the child's interest where it constitutes a psychological burden for the child or where it otherwise endangers his/her physical or mental development.

Why this matters for PA

  • The skupno in sporazumno joint-exercise default (art. 141 (1)). Starša izvršujeta starševsko skrb skupno in sporazumno. Parents exercise parental care jointly and by mutual agreement. This is the structural Slovenian starting point — sporazumno (by mutual agreement) is operationally significant in PA-pattern cases because it presumes the parents will cooperate; sustained alienating conduct that prevents sporazumno exercise engages the welfare-protective intervention framework.
  • The "significant questions" enumeration (art. 141 (2)). Joint decision-making applies to:
  • Vzgoja in šolanje (upbringing and schooling)
  • Izbiri zdravnika (choice of doctor)
  • Pomembnejših vprašanjih, povezanih z razvojem otroka (significant questions connected with the child's development)
  • Drugih pomembnih vprašanjih, ki se tičejo osebnostnih pravic otroka (other important questions concerning the child's personality rights)
  • This is doctrinally important — even where the child lives with one parent, the other parent has structural authority over the enumerated significant matters. In PA-pattern cases this provides defence against the alienating parent's unilateral decisions on schooling, healthcare, etc.
  • The dual-right framing (art. 143 (1)). Otrok ima pravico do stikov z obema staršema, oba starša pa imata pravico do stikov z otrokom. The child has the right to contact with both parents and both parents have the right to contact with the child. The dual framing (child's right + parents' right) provides structural protection against alienating-parent attempts to frame contact as parental-only or child-choice-only.
  • The "first and foremost the child's interests" formula (art. 143 (1) second sentence). S stiki se zagotavljajo predvsem otrokove koristi. Contact shall safeguard first and foremost the child's interests. The predvsem (first and foremost) framing positions welfare as the primary consideration in contact-arrangement decisions.
  • The opustiti vse facilitation duty (art. 143 (2) first sentence). Mora opustiti vse, kar otežuje ali onemogoča stike. The resident parent must refrain from all that makes contact more difficult or impossible. The vse (all) qualifier is doctrinally strong — even minor obstructive conduct engages the duty. In PA-pattern cases this provides the structural foundation for findings that subtle or indirect alienating conduct (scheduling interference, denigration in earshot, gatekeeping medical/school information) breaches art. 143 (2).
  • The prizadevati si mora positive-effort duty (art. 143 (2) second sentence). Prizadevati si mora za ustrezen otrokov odnos do stikov z drugim od staršev. The resident parent must strive for the child's appropriate relationship toward contact with the other parent. This is doctrinally distinctive — the duty is positive (must strive, not merely refrain), and it concerns the child's relationship toward contact (the alienation-pattern target). This is one of the most operationally explicit anti-alienation statutory provisions in European law — codifying the resident parent's duty to actively support the child's relationship to the other parent.
  • The contact-exercising parent's reciprocal duty (art. 143 (2) third sentence). Tisti od staršev, ki izvršuje stike, mora opustiti vse, kar otežuje izvrševanje stikov in vzgojo otroka. The contact-exercising parent must refrain from all that makes the exercise of contact and the upbringing of the child more difficult. The reciprocal duty closes the structural gap — both parents have facilitation duties.
  • The "only on grounds determined in this Code" restriction (art. 144 (2) first sentence). Sodišče lahko pravico do stikov odvzame ali omeji samo iz razlogov, določenih v tem zakoniku. The court may withdraw or restrict contact only on the grounds determined in this Code. This is structurally restrictive — the court cannot deny contact on general welfare-paramountcy grounds, only on the specific codified grounds. In PA-pattern cases this is doctrinally important: alienating-parent attempts to invoke speculative or aggregated welfare concerns must be tested against the specific codified grounds.
  • The "psychological burden" recognition (art. 144 (2) third sentence). Stiki niso v korist otroka, če pomenijo zanj psihično obremenitev. Contact is not in the child's interest where it constitutes a psychological burden. This is doctrinally distinctive — but it operates bidirectionally: while the alienating parent may invoke psychological burden as a contact-denial ground, sustained alienating conduct itself constitutes a psychological burden on the child that engages art. 143 (2) duties.

Procedural application

  • The competent court is the okrožno sodišče (district court — specialised family chamber) under the 2017 reform
  • The Center za socialno delo (CSD) retains residual mediation function under arts. 144 (1) and 167
  • Sodni izvedenec za otroško in mladostniško psihiatrijo (forensic expert) provides welfare assessment
  • The child is heard under art. 410 ZPP (Civil Procedure Code) — capacity-based standard
  • Appellate review to the višje sodišče + cassation to the Vrhovno sodišče + constitutional review by the Ustavno sodišče

Use in alienating-conduct cases

  • The Vrhovno sodišče has applied the korist otroka + prizadevati si framework in PA-pattern cases — see VS RS II Ips 234/2020 and following authorities
  • The Ustavno sodišče has confirmed the structural primacy of the contact-facilitation duty — see Up-383/22
  • Where alienating conduct is established, Slovenian courts can:
  • First-tier: order CSD mediation under art. 144 (1)
  • Second-tier: fix specific stiki arrangements under art. 143 with structural protections
  • Third-tier: modify varstvo in vzgoja (care and upbringing) allocation
  • Apex-tier: restrict or terminate starševska skrb under arts. 173-180
  • The 2017 reform's prizadevati si positive-duty codification provides express anchor for treating passive non-facilitation as contact-frustration breach

Cross-reference

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):