- The contact ruling may be amended if the child's welfare so requires,
- Restricting contact with the child may include prohibiting the child from being taken away from his or her permanent place of residence or allowing contact to be realized only in the presence of the other parent,
- Prohibition of contact with the child is the most far-reaching power of the guardianship court - it will occur in exceptional cases, in particular, if there is a threat to the life, health or safety of the minor.
If the child's best interests require it, the court may change the contact settlement, whether it was included in the divorce judgment, the custody court's order, or worked out as part of a settlement between the parties.
Filing a motion to amend the contact order will be justified if, since the final conclusion of the previous contact case, circumstances have arisen that indicate that the solution adopted by the court turns out to be inappropriate, outdated and thus contrary to the child's welfare. In particular, a change in the contact order may consist in minimizing the restrictions that have hitherto accompanied the contacts. Sometimes, on the other hand, it will be only „organizational” changes, related, for example, to a change in the way the child is driven to and from the meeting with the parent, the child starts attending a new school, or the contact-eligible parent changes his place of residence.
Notwithstanding the above, the court may also restrict contact with the child, for example, by prohibiting the child from being taken away from his or her place of permanent residence. Another way to limit contact is to allow the child to meet only in the presence of the other parent or a guardian, probation officer or other person designated by the court. Contact may also be restricted to certain means of remote communication. As in the case of amending the order on contact, the rationale justifying the restriction will be the welfare of the child. Thus, the court's interference will become justified especially if contacts with the parent threaten the child's sense of security, or its proper development. Limiting contacts may also be justified if the other parent's parenting competence proves to be insufficient, or if he or she is unable, while staying with the child, to provide the child with proper care.
The most far-reaching power of the guardianship court is to completely prohibit contact with the child. This can occur not only in the case of a violation of the child's welfare, but already in the case of a mere threat to the child. Both case law and doctrine, however, agree in this regard that the prohibition of personal contact with the child can be ordered only exceptionally, for example, when the maintenance of personal contacts between parents and the child threatens the child's life, health, safety or has a demoralizing effect on the child (so, for example, the Supreme Court in its decision of November 7, 2000, I CKN 1115/00.
