Skip to content

UN CRC General Comment No. 14 (2013) — Best interests of the child as a primary consideration

TL;DR. General Comment No. 14 is the authoritative international interpretation of Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — the "best interests as a primary consideration" principle. Adopted 29 May 2013 by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The document elaborates the principle as a threefold concept (paragraph 6): a substantive right, a fundamental interpretive principle, and a procedural rule. For PA-context analysis the most important passages are paragraphs 58-66 (preservation of the family environment + non-separation principle + both-parents-contact maintenance) and paragraphs 67+ (shared parental responsibilities). The ECtHR and national constitutional courts (including the UK Supreme Court, the Italian Cassazione, and the German BVerfG) routinely cite GC14 in family-court reasoning, particularly on the bigenitorialità / both-parents-contact dimension.

Source: OHCHR canonical PDF — UN document, public. · Fetched: 2026-06-14 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Key verbatim passages

Paragraph 6 — The threefold concept of "best interests"

The Committee underlines that the child's best interests is a threefold concept:

(a) A substantive right: The right of the child to have his or her best interests assessed and taken as a primary consideration when different interests are being considered in order to reach a decision on the issue at stake, and the guarantee that this right will be implemented whenever a decision is to be made concerning a child, a group of identified or unidentified children or children in general. Article 3, paragraph 1, creates an intrinsic obligation for States, is directly applicable (self-executing) and can be invoked before a court.

(b) A fundamental, interpretative legal principle: If a legal provision is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation which most effectively serves the child's best interests should be chosen. The rights enshrined in the Convention and its Optional Protocols provide the framework for interpretation.

© A rule of procedure: Whenever a decision is to be made that will affect a specific child, an identified group of children or children in general, the decision-making process must include an evaluation of the possible impact (positive or negative) of the decision on the child or children concerned. Assessing and determining the best interests of the child require procedural guarantees. Furthermore, the justification of a decision must show that the right has been explicitly taken into account. In this regard, States parties shall explain how the right has been respected in the decision, that is, what has been considered to be in the child's best interests; what criteria it is based on; and how the child's interests have been weighed against other considerations, be they broad issues of policy or individual cases.

Paragraph 7

In the present general comment, the expression "the child's best interests" or "the best interests of the child" covers the three dimensions developed above.

Paragraphs 58-66 — Preservation of the family environment + maintaining contact

58. The Committee recalls that it is indispensable to carry out the assessment and determination of the child's best interests in the context of potential separation of a child from his or her parents (arts. 9, 18 and 20). It also underscores that the elements mentioned above are concrete rights and not only elements in the determination of the best interests of the child.

59. The family is the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of its members, particularly children (preamble of the Convention). The right of the child to family life is protected under the Convention (art. 16). The term "family" must be interpreted in a broad sense to include biological, adoptive or foster parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom (art. 5).

60. Preventing family separation and preserving family unity are important components of the child protection system, and are based on the right provided for in article 9, paragraph 1, which requires "that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when [...] such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child". Furthermore, the child who is separated from one or both parents is entitled "to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests" (art. 9, para. 3). This also extends to any person holding custody rights, legal or customary primary caregivers, foster parents and persons with whom the child has a strong personal relationship.

61. Given the gravity of the impact on the child of separation from his or her parents, such separation should only occur as a last resort measure, as when the child is in danger of experiencing imminent harm or when otherwise necessary; separation should not take place if less intrusive measures could protect the child. Before resorting to separation, the State should provide support to the parents in assuming their parental responsibilities, and restore or enhance the family's capacity to take care of the child, unless separation is necessary to protect the child. Economic reasons cannot be a justification for separating a child from his or her parents.

62. The Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children aims to ensure that children are not placed in alternative care unnecessarily; and that where alternative care is provided, it is delivered under appropriate conditions responding to the rights and best interests of the child. In particular, "financial and material poverty, or conditions directly and uniquely imputable to such poverty, should never be the only justification for the removal of a child from parental care [...] but should be seen as a signal for the need to provide appropriate support to the family" (para. 15).

63. Likewise, a child may not be separated from his or her parents on the grounds of a disability of either the child or his or her parents. Separation may be considered only in cases where the necessary assistance to the family to preserve the family unit is not effective enough to avoid a risk of neglect or abandonment of the child or a risk to the child's safety.

64. In case of separation, the State must guarantee that the situation of the child and his or her family has been assessed, where possible, by a multidisciplinary team of well-trained professionals with appropriate judicial involvement, in conformity with article 9 of the Convention, ensuring that no other option can fulfil the child's best interests.

65. When separation becomes necessary, the decision-makers shall ensure that the child maintains the linkages and relations with his or her parents and family (siblings, relatives and persons with whom the child has had strong personal relationships) unless this is contrary to the child's best interests. The quality of the relationships and the need to retain them must be taken into consideration in decisions on the frequency and length of visits and other contact when a child is placed outside the family.

66. When the child's relations with his or her parents are interrupted by migration (of the parents without the child, or of the child without his or her parents), preservation of the family unit should be taken into account when assessing the best interests of the child in decisions on family reunification.

67. [Opening] The Committee is of the view that shared parental responsibilities are generally in the child's best interests if the law automatically gives parental responsibilities to either or both parents. In assessing the child's best interests, the judge must take into consideration the right of the child to preserve his or her relationship with both parents, together with the other elements [...]

Why General Comment 14 matters for parental-alienation analysis

The threefold framework operationalises PA-case analysis

The substantive right + interpretive principle + procedural rule framing of paragraph 6 maps directly onto PA-context litigation:

  • Substantive right: the child's relationship with both parents is a substantive right of the child (not merely an interest of the target parent or a default arrangement). PA-pattern conduct that systematically undermines this right violates the child's substantive entitlement under Article 3 + Article 9(3).

  • Interpretive principle: where a national family-court statute is open to multiple interpretations, the interpretation that most effectively serves the child's best interests must be chosen. In PA-context cases this means: where statutory ambiguity exists in how to weigh the child's expressed wishes vs. the child's substantive relational interest, the interpretation that protects the substantive relational interest must be chosen.

  • Procedural rule: every decision must include explicit evaluation of impact on the child + written justification of how the child's best interests have been weighed against other considerations. This procedural requirement undergirds reform measures like California Family Code § 3011(a)(5)(A) (written-reasons requirement on safety-implicated custody orders) and Australian FLA equivalent provisions.

Family-preservation + both-parents-contact (paragraphs 58-66)

The "last resort separation" principle of paragraph 61 — "separation should not take place if less intrusive measures could protect the child" — has direct PA-relevance:

  • Where one parent obstructs the child's contact with the other parent, the most "intrusive" interventions (e.g., transfer of residence, supervised contact, contact suspension) should be deployed only as a last resort. Less intrusive measures (Cafcass/FAO support, parenting orders, contact-rebuilding programmes, conditional CAOs) should be exhausted first.

  • Paragraph 60's restatement of Article 9(3) — the child's entitlement to "maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests" — is the universal treaty-level basis for the both-parents-contact baseline that virtually every national family-law framework embeds. PA-context obstruction violates this entitlement directly.

  • Paragraph 65's "quality of relationships" rule — "The quality of the relationships and the need to retain them must be taken into consideration in decisions on the frequency and length of visits" — links to Washington RCW 26.09.187(3)(a)(i) ("relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent" — given greatest weight). Both reflect the principle that documented relationship quality (not litigation positions) is the substantive welfare interest.

Shared parental responsibilities default (paragraph 67)

Paragraph 67 captures the shared-parental-responsibilities default: the Committee's view is that shared parental responsibilities are generally in the child's best interests, with the judge required to consider "the right of the child to preserve his or her relationship with both parents." This is the international-treaty-level analogue to the Italian art. 337-ter bigenitorialità principle, the German § 1626(3) codification, and the Children Act 1989 s.1(2A) presumption of parental involvement.

How national courts use GC14

The European Court of Human Rights has cited General Comment No. 14 substantively in Article 8 family-life cases — e.g., Strand Lobben v Norway [GC] (2019) on Article 8 positive obligations and best-interests proceduralisation. National constitutional courts (Italian Corte Costituzionale, German BVerfG, UK Supreme Court) cite GC14 in interpreting their domestic best-interests doctrines. PA-aware advocacy makes substantial use of GC14 to anchor procedural-protection arguments (written-reasons requirements, multidisciplinary assessment, last-resort separation) in international treaty-interpretive authority.

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

Primary source

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):