Článek
In practice, this opinion did not stand up and even caused significant harm to thousands of children.
The president of the Constitutional Court, Pavel Rychetský, who has been out of office since August 2023, has spoken several times in the past about the issue of shared custody. In an interview with Czech Television on June 5, 2014, he stated:
‚Parents must be in an equal position. The disagreement of one parent must not be a reason why courts do not use the institute of shared custody.‘
He further emphasized that there is still a prevalent belief in judicial practice that the mother is fundamentally the more suitable and better parent for raising young children. However, the law and international conventions state otherwise. Both parents have equal parental rights, and they are equal. It is not possible to prefer one of them just because of gender.
Mr. Rychetský refers to equality between parents, the law, international conventions, and especially the best interest of the child. In his opinion, shared custody is in the best interest of the child.
The term shared custody is set to disappear from legislation. Instead of the term ‚shared custody,‘ the term ‚joint custody‘ will be used. However, the essence of shared custody remains unchanged. For children, the removal of the term ‚shared custody‘ will not change anything. It is equally valid whether we call the reality joint custody or shared custody.
The reality abroad is different from what has been presented to the Czech public for years. For example, in Italy, Spain, England, and other civilized, democratic Western countries, shared custody is not explicitly applied in the same way as in the Czech Republic. In the case of parent conflicts, domestic violence, any kind of abuse, or when shared custody would not be in the child's best interest, shared custody is not applied, and court decisions are guided by the child's best interest, often leaning towards the care of one primary caregiver, usually the mother. In Spain, domestic violence is considered a serious crime that is an obstacle to contact between the perpetrator and the child, and in England, violence against a parent is considered in custody proceedings just as if it were violence against the child. Generally, in cases of parent conflict, children are not ‚drawn into‘ the conflict between parents by the application of shared custody.
The former president of the Constitutional Court, in numerous interviews, consistently speaks with confidence and enthusiasm, yet the information he presents is not supported by the agreement of experts, especially child psychologists. He speaks about care almost exclusively as the equal right of both parents to care for the child. He rarely mentions the child, the child's benefit, or the best interest of the child. He does not address situations involving parent conflict, parental abuse, domestic violence, or situations where shared custody cannot be suitable for the child. His statements about the absolute unsuitability of shared custody for young children, newborns, infants, or toddlers are completely misguided. This is likely due to ignorance or a desire to communicate ‚simple‘ information with ineffective, ‚universally applicable rules.‘
Even the president of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Pavel Rychetský, makes mistakes in understanding equality and the best interest of the child. This misunderstanding permeates every corner of family law proceedings – and when this ideology is seized by psychopaths, the consequences are tragic. It is evident from the comments of more than 2,000 signatories to the petition for the protection of the rights and mental health of Czech children that this misinterpreted equality and the violation of the basic principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in practice leads to crimes against humanity, systemic child abuse, systemic abuse of mothers, and lifelong trauma for children whose mental health will never fully recover.
The former president of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Pavel Rychetský, apparently did not realize how the FANATICAL application of his concept of shared custody would harm children.
I often think about the publicly known one-year-old daughter of Agáta Hanychová, who at her age necessarily needs her mother ‚on demand‘ (i.e., always available, ‚on call,‘ constantly by her side). Agáta must hand over the child to her partner as if it were just an object, without regard to the child's real needs. Mr. Jeroným Klimeš, a psychologist, clearly stated: ‚Up to kindergarten age (3 to 3.5 years), shared parenting is completely unsuitable because toddlers have no concept of time and perceive the alternation as abandonment. The phenomenon that marks children into adulthood is separation reaction (the child's response to being separated from the mother or primary caregiver). This is one of the two basic reactions of a child to abandonment. You cannot explain to a toddler that they will see their mother again in three days, because children only begin to understand what „afternoon“ is around five years old. Once you rip a toddler away from their mother, you make them a psychological orphan.‘ … ‚When this is repeated fifty times a year within shared custody, it is very likely that the child will grow up to be a pathological jealous person. Because the jealous reaction is the adult form of the child's separation reaction.‘
Prof. Lenka Šulová commented: 'This is a period when the so-called attachment is formed, in professional terminology a secure bond. Disrupting this process can have significant consequences for the child's further development, which we can trace only in the long-term horizon, such as problems in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships, addictive behaviors, disturbed sexuality, etc. That is why, for example, sociological studies that rely on immediately collected data are not sufficiently valid when examining the impact on the long-term psychological development of a child. At two years old, specifically a rotating care system may not seem to have an immediate effect on the child, but that does not mean that the consequences from that time will not manifest in the future, for example, during puberty, in early or late adulthood.
Not only experts consistently express very negative views regarding shared custody for very young children. Mothers of children who are ‚affected‘ by unnatural shared custody for newborns, infants, and toddlers criticize shared custody. The reason for this is the strong, natural need of a child to have a mother with whom they form a maternal bond from conception, during the prenatal developmental stage. Shared custody for very young children (under 3 years old) is considered unsuitable due to the strong biological and psychological need of the child to develop a stable bond with a primary caregiver (ideally the mother), which is essential for their emotional and social development. This natural attachment process is supported by evolutionary mechanisms that promote the survival and healthy development of the child. Stability, safety, and continuity of relationships are key to a child's healthy development at this age.
It is also important to emphasize that the child's brain, the nervous system, continues to develop up to about the age of one. If the child is under stress, which is caused by the absence of the mother, the ‚on-demand‘ mother, the failure to provide breastfeeding, and the proximity of the mother according to the child's needs, it has severe consequences not only on the psychological but also on the neurological development of the child.
Court decisions in favor of shared custody for very young children up to the age of 4 are completely contrary to all scientific knowledge, leading to the complex endangerment and harm to children's health, the denial of the maternal bond, so-called attachment, the denial of children's natural needs, and extreme discrimination against children and their rights. The natural need of the child is to have the mother nearby. The natural instinct of the mother is to carry, give birth to, and keep the child close. If the natural instincts of both the mother and child are being suppressed, practically criminalized today, it constitutes a crime against humanity. This crime against humanity is being perpetrated and supported directly by judges whose education and competence are even questioned on Czech Television in prime time. A documentary is being prepared about the mistakes of judges in family law proceedings, and volunteers and activists in their spare time are drawing attention to the errors in judicial practices and the harm done to children. The poor decision-making practices of courts in family law cases are becoming a topic of conversation not only for those directly affected but also for Czech general public.
Mr. Pavel Rychetský, former President of the Constitutional Court, is therefore not right in saying that a mother is not more suitable for raising very young children in particular. Due to these incompetent, misleading and scientifically unjustified statements, thousands of newborns, infants and toddlers have been harmed in the Czech Republic to date.
Alternate care is not only inappropriate for very young children who need stability, security and a mother who is always available - so-called „on demand“. Alternate care is also completely inappropriate in the event of a conflict between parents. It does not matter what kind of conflict it is. You cannot drag a child into a conflict between parents by applying alternate care. OSPODs (Czech Social and Legal Protection of Children) routinely try to do this. Such behavior is another example of widespread systemic abuse, which is caused and supported by the decisions of uneducated and incompetent judges, who again disregard common sense, scientific knowledge and the best interests of the child. In Czech families, as elsewhere, the primary caregiver for children is the woman, the mother. Mothers usually take care of their children without any problems, they are exemplary in their approach to children, they support children in terms of education, they devote time to them, they have the patience, tenderness, love typical of mothers and they mutually draw on the so-called maternal bond, „attachment“. They therefore have a healthy relationship that is beneficial for children (especially for children). The children are mentally sound, cared for, prosperous, healthy. The court decides in favor of alternating custody or sole custody of the father, usually completely unjustified, or the judgment contains a scientifically unfounded assumption based on an unprofessional, often purposefully more or less distorted statement from the OSPOD. Children literally experience hell in their lives because the parents start escalating the conflict - one because it can „harm“ - supported by the „system“, the other (usually the mother) because they have to defend themselves and try to save the children who are being harmed by the situation and return them home to stability and safety. Children are therefore drawn into a conflict in which they have to live for years, instead of a carefree childhood they have to travel hundreds of kilometers every week, they may even have two schools, they have to limit clubs, language studies or, for example, studies at a primary school, which they normally managed until then with the support of their mothers, they end (for example, due to the psychological demands of the family situation, which may not have been burdensome at all). Problems arise that instead of their own prosperity and development, satisfaction, children are drawn into the conflict and traumatized. The case of Ivana Jirešová and her daughter is well-known in the media. Thousands of children in the Czech Republic experience similar things. Print, radio, and television media are already beginning to notice these serious errors and inform the public.
Alternating custody in the event of parental conflict is completely inappropriate. It should not be supported, and certainly not the frauds that are committed by OSPODs in the interest of establishing alternating custody or exclusive custody of fathers. You can read about court-supported frauds by OSPODs, for example, here, here or here.
Alternating custody is also completely inappropriate in the case of abuse (inappropriate behavior that can disrupt and threaten the upbringing and development of a child), domestic violence committed by one of the parents (usually the father). This message seems completely understandable and self-evident to the average reader as well as to experts in the field of psychology. It goes without saying that we do not entrust our daughter to a rapist, that we do not entrust our son to the care of a father who commits domestic violence against his mother (and it does not matter whether in front of the children or behind closed doors) or is unstable in such a way that he punishes the children inappropriately and the children do not feel safe with him. But this is not self-evident to our Czech judiciary. Courts routinely entrust children to the care of these criminals. Quite routinely. Intuitive and empathetic mothers, of course, defend their children, the children they gave birth to, and go to trial. But trials take a long time, sometimes even years. The decision-making practice of the courts is geared towards these abusive individuals, about whom they skillfully conceal facts and evidence, call women „manipulators, hysterics, labile, hypersensitive“ and similar demeaning labels, mock women, mothers, even those who have been completely exemplary caregivers up until that point, and even claim, for example, that they are to blame for the attacks themselves (this is nonsense to claim even for children) or that the child's red anus or vagina is just a rash every time the father returns from his home, that the child's statements cannot be trusted, and they despise reports from experts. All in favor of the father's alternate or exclusive care, whatever it may be. Yes - that's reality - you can read it in the comments of more than 2,000 signatories of the Petition for the Protection of the Rights and Mental Health of Czech Children.
Alternate care is not suitable in the case of abuse (inappropriate behavior, behavior that may jeopardize the upbringing and development of the child, domestic violence) of one of the parents. If it is applied, the child is endangered, the state fails, which is unable to ensure that the best interests of the child are acted upon and the child is protected from any abuse (inappropriate behavior, domestic violence).
I would like to know whether Mr. Rychetský, the former President of the Constitutional Court, also refers to international conventions in these cases. I ask which international convention states that children should be entrusted to abusers? Which of the experts recommended him to promote alternate care at all costs and thereby allow abusive individuals to continue to commit crimes, harm children - often even with the support of OSPODs, to allow abusers, together with OSPODs, to systematically abuse mothers?
Placing a child in the care of a parent who is a rapist, sexual deviant or narcissist can have devastating long-term consequences for the child, both psychological and physical. The child is vulnerable in its development, „absorbing patterns of behavior“, which any abuser has, but pathological. The courts therefore contribute to the fact that this pathological behavior is transmitted to subsequent generations.
These gaps in the system are exploited by stubborn advocates of alternate care who do not look at the best interests of the child. One of the most stubborn, about whom Jiří X. Doležal also writes in his article in the magazine Reflex, Mr. Ing. Aleš Hodina, even declares that „women are pigs“ or that it is intended that raped women allow those who raped them to have contact with the children born of rape. He is a man who dragged both his wives through the courts, and even for many years. The companies of Ing. Aleše Hodina received millions in subsidies (allegedly up to 200 million) for training OSPODs, students of psychology faculties confirm that they worked there and continue to train. Mr. Ing. Aleš Hodina published a post on October 10, 2024 at 4:40 PM in which he states that it is okay for rapists to have contact with children who are the result of rape, and immediately below the post he has a picture of a group of women in Muslim burqas, women whose eyes are only visible. These views absolutely do not respect the best interests of the child and his healthy development, they do not respect women, mothers, as human beings, to whom pregnancy, motherhood, maternal bond, empathy and maternal intuition inherently belong. This naturalness must not be disturbed in the same way as the right of gays and lesbians to love and live together is not disturbed. It is necessary to respect and support the humanity and naturalness of women, not to force women and mothers to wear burqas and eliminate their relationship with their child, a relationship that children desperately need.
Mr. Ing. Aleš Hodina is also of the opinion that single mothers should not be supported. On the contrary. In the Czech Republic, women should be supported as much as possible so that they can fulfill their role as mothers to more than one hundred percent. Maternity benefits are pitifully low up to the age of three, women deserve three to four times more. In the event of any crisis, the state separates children from their mothers and „pats“ itself on the back for how it solved the situation by placing the children with foster parents and institutional care. The right solution is to ensure that the mother and children stay together, that the mother is professionally helped, that she is supported, that she is provided with asylum housing. Mothers and children need to be supported sensibly, professionally and to the maximum extent possible, and extremist opinions such as those of Mr. Ing. Aleš Hodina and his followers, who, for example, claim that a woman without men would only chew her skin and give birth to children in a cave, should be passed over with a smile. The magazine Flowee states that men do not mature emotionally until they are forty. It is possible that the opinions of Mr. Ing. Aleš Hodina may originate precisely from male immaturity. In his case, however, these pathological ideas have roots elsewhere.
Alternating care and equality between parents is completely misunderstood in the Czech Republic. Equality is in respect for difference. The needs of children cannot be discriminated against and their interests humiliated below all other interests, the nature of mothers cannot be discriminated against or concealed.
Under the pretext of the best interests of the child, siblings are separated during custody proceedings, children are placed in institutional care (with the blessing of OSPODs) to change their minds, OSPODs are manipulated, mothers are criminally and unreasonably prevented from having contact with their children, so that a situation does not arise where the child will only want to be with their mother, children are forced to travel long distances, attend multiple schools, are often entrusted to criminals, children lose their home, stability, and security, and despite expressing their opinion, it is not listened to and decisions are made to the complete detriment of the child.
Inspired by Cimrman's correspondence with Ladislav Stroupežnický, I would like to advise women: „Don't give birth, if possible don't give birth at all“, because it could very easily happen that, based on a photo of your older children playing with Lego, they will take your newborn directly from the maternity hospital because the foster mother has free capacity and is unemployed, or you will have to commute to breastfeed at the father's residence, who will gain exclusive care of the child with the applause of the OSPOD and you will simply have no choice but to trot over to him every three hours, lick a few humiliating insults, breastfeed and then come back to your senses. Or you will be banned from having contact with the child because it is desirable that children be in the exclusive care of their fathers and you are starting to establish a suspiciously strong maternal bond with the child and it could happen that the child will want or have an unwanted need to live with you and have you within reach! No, this is no longer humor. The advice is meant completely seriously. Historian Howard Zinn said that „Historically, the most terrible things such as war, genocide or slavery were not the result of disobedience, but of obedience.“ Psychologist Stanley Milgram also speaks similarly. Let us also be disobedient, express our opinion, not cooperate in harming, traumatizing our children, discriminating against children, preventing these crimes against humanity.
As a result of the misunderstood idea of alternating care and equality, the fierce, blanket application of alternating care, the number of children in the Czech Republic who are complexly, lifelong but completely unnecessarily traumatized is growing. The current decision-making practice of courts in guardianship proceedings significantly undermines the credibility of the Czech justice system.
CALL:
If you were harmed as a child by the guardianship court, the course of the proceedings or the approach of the OSPOD, speak out! Your experiences are key to changing this dysfunctional system. Share them in the comments to this petition (Are you or were you harmed as a child by a guardianship court decision? SPEAK UP!) and join our effort for justice for all children in the Czech Republic.
CALL II:
We ask those who were injured by OSPOD Černošice who would like to join the criminal complaint against OSPOD Černošice to call 774848814.
REQUEST FOR SUPPORT:
The authors of the Petition for the Protection of the Rights and Mental Health of Czech Children ask for your attention and, if necessary, for your opinion by signing this petition, to which you can add a comment with your experience with guardianship proceedings.
REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT (filming a documentary about systemically abused children, publishing cases):
Transparent account: 5512612003/0800
