Development of Alternating Custody in the Czech Republic

Alternating custody has been practically possible in the Czech Republic since 1998, when it was introduced by the then Family Act. Currently, alternating custody is regulated by Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, which came into effect on January 1, 2014.

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly addressed alternating custody. In its ruling of May 26, 2014 (Ref. No. I. ÚS 2482/13), it established alternating custody as the preferred option in cases of parental separation:

If placing the child in the care of each of the (potential) persons is in the child's best interest, then it is generally in the child's best interest to place the child in the care of all these persons simultaneously, as this is the only way to ensure conditions for the child's comprehensive development and to minimize interference with the child's family life (...) If both parents are capable of raising the child, if both are interested in the child's upbringing (§ 26(2) of the Family Act), and if both have provided proper emotional, intellectual, and moral care (§ 26(5) of the Family Act), then alternating custody should be the rule, while any other solution is an exception that requires justification as to why a different arrangement is in the child's best interest. 

Another ruling from May 30, 2014 (Ref. No. I. ÚS 1506/13) addresses the frequent objection regarding the distance between the residences of both parents: 

From a constitutional law perspective, the complainant's reference to the large distance between the residences of both parents does not hold, as this factor alone is, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, not a reason that would a priori exclude the suitability of alternating custody for a minor child. 

Ruling of September 25, 2014 (Ref. No. I. ÚS 3216/13):

The rights of parents to care for their child are fundamentally equal, and one parent's right is not fully realized by contact amounting to only one-third of the time.

Another ruling from December 30, 2014 (Ref. No. I. ÚS 1554/14) deals in detail with alternating custody and the quality of communication between parents: 

Alternating custody itself can serve as a stimulus for improving communication and cooperation between parents. However, it is undeniable that poor or outright conflictual communication between parents can negatively affect the child's personal development. Therefore, in exceptional cases, where even the courts' efforts to improve communication have had no effect, courts may exclude alternating custody. In doing so, they must determine which parent is responsible for the poor communication, and take this finding into account when assigning custody to only one parent. The child should then be placed in the care of the parent who is willing to communicate with the other parent and does not obstruct contact between the child and the other parent. Finally, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that a court decision denying a parent's request for alternating custody must be thoroughly and convincingly justified, clearly explaining the facts on which the decision was based and what steps were taken to remove the obstacles in the specific case.

At the same time, it remains true that the decisive criterion is always the best interest of the child: 

The criterion for placing a child in alternating custody is not the (often merely subjective) wish of a particular parent, but above all the so-called best interests of the child (cf. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child), which must serve as the primary consideration in court decisions as an objective factor. Ordinary courts must also strive to find a solution that does not restrict the parent's right guaranteed under Article 32(4) of the Charter, in accordance with the principle of proportionality in interfering with fundamental rights. Alternating custody may therefore be preferred over other custody models only if, considering all the circumstances of the case — both positive and negative — it is the most suitable arrangement that respects the child's best interests.