Legal analysis demonstrates the need to prioritize child welfare over procedural finality in support disputes, highlighting the necessity of adaptable judicial interventions during crises.
<ns5:p>The article explores the acute competition between the principle of legal certainty (Res Judicata) and the principle of the best interests of the child in family disputes. Through the analysis of a landmark court case on child support under martial law and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the study examines the problem of excessive procedural formalism, where a “peacetime” court-approved settlement agreement is unjustifiably perceived by courts as an absolute obstacle to protecting a minor’s rights. The study proves that family legal relations are continuous and highly dependent on fundamental changes in factual circumstances (the rebus sic stantibus doctrine). Special emphasis is placed on the consequences of the full-scale war, which creates unforeseeable economic and security challenges that put the child in a vulnerable position, requiring immediate judicial intervention to adapt outdated parental agreements. The article highlights that overcoming the absolutisation of a court decision in favour of flexible protection of children’s rights is not purely a national feature but reflects a pan-European trend and international family law standards. The substantive legal nature of child support as the child’s property is substantiated, as well as the necessity of the court’s active role (ex officio) within the transition to Child-friendly justice and the global paradigm of Human-Centered Justice.</ns5:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bilous et al. (2026) studied this question.