In practice, this principle translates into highly diverse decisions: from setting the child’s domicile at one of the parents, to detailed contact schedules (weekends, holidays, celebrations, online communication), sometimes with special measures (supervised contact, progressive schedules, temporary limitations). The court does not look only at who earns more or who has the bigger home; it analyses a whole set of criteria: the child’s needs, emotional ties, stability of the environment, care history, each parent’s willingness to cooperate and to respect the child’s rights.
This article aims to explain, in accessible language for parents, how courts think about the best interests of the child when determining the minor’s domicile and contact schedule, which legal provisions are relevant, what evidence matters and what role social services (the public social assistance service / DGASPC) play in these proceedings.
1. Legal framework: best interests of the child, parental authority and the child’s domicile
1.1. The principle of the best interests of the child
The Civil Code states in Article 263 that any measure regarding the child, regardless of the decision-maker (court, administrative authority, parents), must be taken with respect for the child’s best interests. Law no. 272/2004 reiterates this principle in Article 2 and clarifies that it prevails in all actions and decisions concerning children.
In practice, this means that in conflicts between parents’ interests (who remains in the family home, who spends more time with the child, who can move to another city or country), the court is obliged to choose the solution that best serves the child’s development, not the adult’s comfort. Useful analyses of the concrete content of the best interests principle can be found, for example, in articles on LegalBadger and in commentaries on Legal-Land.
1.2. Parental authority and equality of parents
According to Article 483 of the Civil Code, parental authority is the set of rights and duties concerning the person and property of the child, belonging equally to both parents. The rule after divorce is joint parental authority, as follows from Article 397: both parents jointly make major decisions regarding the child (education, health, religion, extracurricular activities), even if the child lives permanently with one of them.
Only in exceptional situations (abuse, serious neglect, addictions, domestic violence, total absence from the child’s life) may the court decide that parental authority is exercised exclusively by one parent. Practice and legal writing show that this is an exception, not the rule, as discussed, for example, in materials such as “Parental authority after divorce and how it is exercised” or in case commentaries on avocatstoean.ro.
1.3. The child’s residence and domicile in the Civil Code
Article 496 of the Civil Code starts from a natural premise: the minor child lives with their parents. If parents no longer live together, they must jointly agree on the child’s residence; if they fail to agree, the court decides. For divorce situations, Article 400 provides that, in the absence of an agreement or where the agreement is contrary to the child’s interests, the court determines, together with the divorce, the child’s residence at the parent with whom they live permanently.
In everyday language, the term “child’s domicile” is frequently used (for identity documents, school registration, etc.), but from a legal standpoint, the Civil Code works with the concept of the child’s “residence” with one of the parents. Detailed guidance for parents can be found, for instance, in articles such as “Establishing the minor child’s residence – what parents should know” and “The minor’s residence after parents’ divorce”.
1.4. The right to personal relations with the child
Article 401 of the Civil Code provides that where the child does not live with both parents, the parent or parents separated from the child have the right to maintain personal relations with the child. In case of disagreement, the court determines how this right will be exercised (contact schedule). Law no. 272/2004 develops this right in Article 14, stating that the child has the right to maintain personal relationships and direct contacts with both parents and with other persons to whom the child has become attached.
Therefore, the fact that the child’s residence (domicile) is set at one parent does not mean the other “loses the child”. The scope of parental responsibilities and of the actual time spent with the child is built, in a complementary way, through the contact schedule.
2. Criteria used by courts when determining the child’s domicile
2.1. Legal criteria and doctrinal guidance
The law does not provide a numbered “tick-box” list of criteria, but from the correlation of Article 263, Article 400, the provisions of Law no. 272/2004 and case law, a common core of elements emerges, which courts examine in practice:
- the child’s physical, emotional and psychological needs (routine, safety, attachment);
- the child’s age and stage of development;
- stability of the living environment (home, community, school/kindergarten, support network);
- emotional relationship with each parent and extended family (siblings, grandparents, etc.);
- care history: who has actually looked after the child (feeding, caring, taking to the doctor and to school);
- each parent’s capacity to meet the child’s needs (time, health, parenting skills);
- each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent (avoidance of parental alienation);
- risk factors: domestic violence, abuse, addictions, unstable behaviour.
These elements appear explicitly or implicitly in the reasoning of many courts of appeal decisions, which stress that the child’s interests are not limited to material conditions but include a “complex of circumstances” aimed at ensuring harmonious development, socio-emotional balance and continuity of family relationships. Examples of such decisions are presented on portals such as jurisprudenta.com and in the case “Setting the minor’s domicile with one parent” published on LegeAZ.
2.2. The child’s age and environmental continuity
For very young children, courts often focus on continuity of the primary attachment figure and on daily rhythm (sleep, feeding, constant presence). At school age, continuity of the educational environment and the peer group become important: a sudden move to another city may be considered contrary to the child’s interests, in the absence of clear benefits.
As a rule, courts avoid “sudden breaks”: if the child has lived for a long period with one parent in a stable environment, there is a strong likelihood that the domicile will be maintained there, with the other parent having a consistent contact schedule. This idea appears frequently in practice-oriented articles such as “Determining the minor’s domicile in case of parents’ divorce”.
2.3. Emotional relationships and willingness to cooperate
The court examines how the child interacts with each parent: who plays with the child, who helps with homework, who attends parent–teacher meetings, who knows the doctors and teachers. At the same time, willingness to cooperate is crucial: a parent who constantly speaks negatively about the other, obstructs contact or uses the child as leverage in the conflict may be seen as undermining the child’s interests.
The phenomenon of “parental alienation” is explicitly mentioned in Law no. 272/2004 (in the definitions of Article 2, following amendments by Law no. 191/2022) as a form of psychological violence. In practice, courts are concerned not only with aggressive speech but also with concrete behaviours that restrict the child’s contact with the other parent.
2.4. Alternating residence: pros and cons
In recent years, discussions about “alternating residence” have become more frequent: a situation where the child’s legal residence is set with one parent, but the contact schedule effectively allows the child to spend roughly equal time (for example, alternating weeks) with each parent. Analyses of pros and cons can be found, for example, in the article “The child’s residence after divorce/separation. Alternating residence – arguments for and against”.
The Civil Code does not expressly regulate alternating residence, but courts can set very generous contact schedules, approximating equal time, where this is realistic (parents live relatively close to each other, the child is not exhausted by commuting, there is a minimum level of communication between parents). There is no “automatic right” to 50/50 time, but also no blanket ban: courts assess each case individually, based on the child’s interests and the specific context.
3. The contact schedule: content, forms, restrictions
3.1. What “personal relations” mean
By “personal relations”, the law primarily means direct and regular contact between the child and the parent with whom they do not permanently live: face-to-face meetings, visits, time spent together, holidays. Law no. 272/2004 also mentions other forms of personal relations: correspondence, phone calls, video calls, online communication etc. (see Article 14 and the consolidated version).
Article 401 of the Civil Code expressly regulates the right of the parent separated from the child to maintain personal relations with them. Case law has often emphasised that this right must be exercised in line with the child’s interests and that courts must ensure a proportionate relationship between any limitations (for example, supervision, reduced duration) and the reasons for protecting the child. Such cases are presented on portals like LegeAZ or consultantavocat.ro.
3.2. Typical examples of contact schedules
In practice, courts design contact schedules taking into account the child’s age, the distance between parents’ homes, the school timetable and other concrete factors. Common patterns include:
- alternate weekends (from Friday evening to Sunday evening, or from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon);
- one or two afternoons per week (for younger children or where the distance is small);
- half of the school holidays (summer, winter, spring), either alternated or split equally;
- alternation of major holidays (Christmas, Easter, New Year) from one year to the next;
- the right to maintain phone/video contact at reasonable times.
In some cases, courts have set progressive schedules: at first, short meetings, possibly in the presence of a trusted adult or in neutral spaces, followed by extension to overnight stays on weekends or holidays as the relationship consolidates and it becomes clear that there are no risks. Such schedules appear, for example, in decisions commented on jurisprudenta.com.
3.3. Restrictions, supervision, suspension
In serious cases (violence, heavy alcohol or drug use, abusive behaviour towards the child), courts may limit or even temporarily suspend the right to personal relations, establishing, for example:
- meetings only in the presence of the other parent or another trusted person;
- meetings in neutral venues (contact centres, public spaces, DGASPC premises) under supervision;
- in extreme situations, suspension of contact until the situation is remedied (therapy, detoxification, protective interventions).
Even then, however, the basic principle remains: any limitation must be proportionate to the risk to the child and must aim to protect the child, not “punish” the parent. When circumstances improve, the schedule can be extended or normalised at the parent’s request, through an action for modification of measures.
4. Evidence in cases concerning domicile and contact schedule
4.1. The psychosocial assessment – key role
In almost all cases involving the minor’s domicile and contact schedule, courts order a psychosocial assessment at each parent’s residence. This assessment is usually carried out by the public social assistance service within the municipality or by the DGASPC, depending on local organisation.
The purpose of the assessment is to evaluate the child’s situation and the environment each parent offers: housing conditions, relationship with the child, support network (grandparents, other relatives), any health or behavioural problems. The structure of such assessments is described, for example, on official websites like DGASPC Sector 5 and in explanatory materials such as “Psychosocial assessment and child custody”.
The report is not decisive in itself, but it carries significant weight: it offers the court a professional picture of the child’s living environment, supplementing the parents’ and witnesses’ statements.
4.2. Hearing the child
Article 264 of the Civil Code states that in judicial or administrative proceedings concerning the child, hearing the child who has turned 10 is mandatory. Younger children may also be heard where the authority considers it necessary. The hearing takes place in a setting adapted to the child’s age, usually without the parents in the room, to reduce emotional pressure.
The court does not simply ask “who do you want to live with?”, but explores how the child feels in each environment, what relationships with each parent look like, what worries the child, what they wish for. The child’s opinion is an important element, but not the only criterion: the judge corroborates it with other evidence and may, in certain situations, depart from the child’s expressed wishes (for example, where there are signs of manipulation or loyalty conflicts).
4.3. Other relevant evidence
In addition to the psychosocial assessment and the child’s hearing, the following evidence may be produced:
- documents: income certificates, employment contracts, school records, medical certificates, psychological or psychiatric reports, previous judgments;
- witnesses: relatives, friends, neighbours, teachers, anyone who can describe how the parents care for the child;
- photos, messages, recordings: with caution, as the court will also assess them in light of privacy and the need to avoid exposing the child to conflict;
- psychological or psychiatric expert reports in complex cases (suspected abuse, attachment issues, parental alienation, etc.).
The key for a parent is not to turn the case into a “hunt for the other’s mistakes”, but to show the court, with concrete evidence, that they can provide a stable, safe and loving environment and that they are willing to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.
5. Relationship with “the guardianship authority”: court and social services
5.1. Who is the “guardianship court” today?
The Civil Code uses the concept of “guardianship court” for the court competent in matters relating to parents and children (setting residence, parental authority, contact schedule). Until specialised courts are established, this function is fulfilled, in practice, by the district courts (judecătorii) at the child’s residence or at the place where the divorce case is heard, under the Civil Procedure Code rules.
The guardianship court cooperates with public social services and DGASPC, but is not “subordinate” to them: it assesses the evidence independently and makes the final decision.
5.2. Role of the public social assistance service / DGASPC
Law no. 272/2004 assigns various responsibilities to public social assistance services and to general directorates for social assistance and child protection (DGASPC), including psychosocial assessments, counselling for children and parents, monitoring risk situations and issuing opinions to courts.
In short, social services:
- conduct psychosocial assessments at the court’s request;
- may recommend certain measures (for example, maintaining the child in the current environment, psychological counselling, parenting education programmes);
- may notify the court or other authorities if they detect abuse or neglect;
- may supervise contact programmes in their own premises.
From the parent’s perspective, it is very important to treat these services as partners, not “enemies”: a cooperative attitude, keeping appointments and being open to counselling are aspects that the court will notice.
6. Special situations in court practice
6.1. Moving to another city or abroad
When one parent wants to relocate with the child to another city or another country, the problem is not only about “domicile”; it is also about maintaining personal relations. The court will assess whether the move is truly in the child’s interests (genuine educational opportunities, better living conditions, support network) or mainly in the parent’s interests, to the detriment of the child’s relationship with the other parent.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Law no. 18/1990, underlines the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contacts on a regular basis with both parents (Articles 9–10). Romanian courts rely on these principles when assessing whether a relocation is compatible with the child’s best interests.
6.2. High-conflict situations and risk of alienation
In highly conflictual families, the child risks becoming a “battleground” between parents. In such cases, the court may:
- recommend or require mediation or parenting counselling;
- set detailed schedules, with drop-offs and pick-ups in neutral locations;
- prohibit denigration of the other parent in the child’s presence (even if this is difficult to control in practice);
- take into account, over time, the consequences of parental alienation when reassessing domicile or contact schedule.
Law no. 272/2004, in its updated form, defines parental alienation and classifies it as psychological violence, which reinforces courts’ and social services’ duty to intervene when such patterns are identified.
7. Practical recommendations for parents
7.1. Separating emotional and legal planes
From the court’s standpoint, grievances about the romantic relationship (infidelity, lack of household contribution, reasons for the breakup) have limited relevance, except where they translate into behaviours that directly affect the child (violence, substance abuse, chronic lack of supervision). Therefore, it is essential for parents to focus, as much as possible, on the child’s concrete needs, not on “scoring points” against each other.
7.2. Preparation and transparency
A well-prepared parent in court is one who has:
- updated documents on their housing situation (title or lease, utility payments, photos of the child’s room);
- evidence of involvement in the child’s life (school notes, letters from teachers, certificates from courses, doctors, coaches);
- a realistic childcare plan (work schedule, who picks the child up from school, who looks after them when the parent is working);
- clear and honest communication with social services and the court.
7.3. A cooperative attitude towards the child’s relationship with the other parent
Judges closely observe each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. In general, a parent who:
- respects the contact schedule;
- encourages the child to talk to and spend time with the other parent;
- avoids discussing the adult conflict in the child’s presence;
- tries, as far as possible, to cooperate on major decisions (school, health, activities),
will, in the long term, be seen more favourably than a parent who “wins” a case but constantly blocks the child’s relationship with the other parent.
7.4. Using counselling and mediation
In many situations, mediation or parent counselling can help avoid a long and costly lawsuit. Family mediators and psychologists specialising in parenting can help parents find compromise solutions: balanced time-sharing, keeping the child in the same school, adapting the schedule to the child’s needs rather than to the adults’ egos.
8. FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions about the Child’s Domicile and Contact Schedule
1. Is the court obliged to set the child’s domicile with the mother?
No. The law does not contain any legal presumption in favour of the mother or the father. The court analyses, case by case, where it is in the child’s best interests to live permanently, considering criteria such as age, each parent’s availability, environmental stability, emotional relationships and care history. In practice, young children sometimes live with the mother, sometimes with the father, depending on the circumstances.
2. If we have joint parental authority, must the child’s time be split 50/50 between us?
No. Joint parental authority means that both parents jointly make major decisions for the child, but the child still has a permanent residence with one of them. Time spent with the other parent is regulated through the contact schedule, which can be modest or very generous (including arrangements approaching equal time), depending on the child’s interests and the concrete context.
3. Can the child decide alone which parent to live with?
The child does not decide in a legal sense, but their opinion is taken into account. A child over 10 must be heard, and younger children may also be heard if the court or authority considers it necessary. The judge listens to the child’s wishes but corroborates them with other evidence and may, in some situations, adopt a different solution if this better serves the child’s interests.
4. Can I request a change of domicile after a judgment has been issued?
Yes. If significant changes occur (one parent relocates, working hours change, health issues arise, the relationship between the child and the parent with whom they live severely deteriorates), you can bring an action to modify the measures concerning parental authority, domicile and contact schedule. The court will reassess the current situation, again in light of the child’s best interests.
5. What does a “normal” contact schedule look like in practice for the parent the child does not live with?
There is no single model. Courts often grant a schedule that includes at least two weekends per month, part of the school holidays (usually half) and the possibility of free communication by phone or online. For very young children, the schedule may start with shorter, more frequent meetings, to be extended as the child grows and becomes accustomed to the routine.
6. Can a parent’s right to contact be completely refused?
Complete refusal is exceptional and usually occurs in cases of severe abuse, violence or genuine danger to the child. Even then, courts examine whether minimal contact forms are possible (correspondence, phone calls, supervised meetings). In the absence of very serious reasons, mere parental conflict does not justify total suppression of personal relations.
7. What happens if the other parent does not respect the contact schedule?
If a parent does not comply with the court-ordered schedule (refuses to hand over the child, systematically sabotages contact or, conversely, repeatedly fails to show up), the other parent can request enforcement of the judgment, notify social services or DGASPC and, in serious and persistent cases, seek modification of the schedule or even the child’s domicile. Courts will also take into account the behaviour of a parent who consistently breaches their obligations.
8. What role does the “guardianship authority” (DGASPC/social services) play in the final decision?
The public social assistance service and DGASPC do not make the final decision; they provide the court with psychosocial assessment reports and, where appropriate, recommendations. The judge assesses all evidence, including these reports, and decides on the child’s domicile and contact schedule. That said, a well-founded assessment can have a significant influence on the outcome.
9. Sources and useful resources
- Civil Code – Law no. 287/2009 (consolidated)
- Law no. 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child (consolidated)
- Article 263 Civil Code – Best interests of the child
- Article 400 Civil Code – Child’s residence after divorce (Legal-Land)
- Article 401 Civil Code – Rights of the parent separated from the child (Legal-Land)
- Article 496 Civil Code – Child’s residence (LegeAZ)
- Article 14 Law no. 272/2004 – Child’s right to personal relations
- Case law portals (jurisprudenta.com, avocatstoean.ro, LegeAZ – relevant cases on minors)
- Practice articles: setting the child’s residence (family law firms)
- Materials on psychosocial assessments and DGASPC’s role