Biological father's contact rights balanced against child welfare in Kyrian v Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered its judgement in Kyrian v the Czech Republic (Application no. 15956/23), addressing the complex interplay between a biological father's rights under Article 8 and the paramountcy of a child's best interests. The Court found no violation where Czech courts refused to grant the applicant contact rights or the right to receive information about his biological son.

The applicant, David Kyrian, is the biological father of a child born in December 2013 from an extramarital relationship. Due to legal presumption, the mother's then-husband became the child's legal father. Following DNA confirmation of biological paternity in 2015, the applicant initially enjoyed regular contact with his son, seeing him two to four times monthly until February 2016.

Proceedings commenced in April 2016 when the applicant sought contact rights under Article 927 of the Czech Civil Code. The Příbram District Court initially granted him contact every Wednesday afternoon and alternate Sundays during summer holidays. However, the relationship between the applicant and the legal parents deteriorated significantly, marked by verbal abuse and physical altercations that occurred in the child's presence.

The child, who suffered from developmental delays and anxiety, developed a strongly negative attitude towards the applicant. Expert psychological reports indicated that the family conflict had created traumatic experiences for the child, who demonstrated strong attachment to his legal parents whilst rejecting the applicant. By 2020, Czech courts concluded that granting contact rights would not serve the child's best interests, emphasising the need to stabilise his psychological condition.

In 2021, the applicant renewed his application, seeking not only contact rights but also the right to receive information about his son's development. The domestic courts again refused, noting that neither party had heeded repeated calls to seek professional assistance and modify their behaviour. The courts found that the child's persistent negative response and fragile psychological state provided compelling reasons to deny contact, whilst recognising that arrangements might be revised should circumstances improve.

The ECHR examined whether the refusal constituted unjustified interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8. The Court acknowledged that whilst the relationship potentially amounted to "family life", it certainly engaged the applicant's "private life" as the determination of legal relations with his biological child concerned an important aspect of his identity.

Applying its established principle that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in matters affecting children's welfare, the Court found that Czech authorities had struck a fair balance. The domestic courts had attempted various measures including supervised contact and mediation before concluding that contact would be detrimental. Their decisions were based on comprehensive expert psychological assessments and prioritised the child's best interests, as Article 8 requires.

Regarding the right to information, the Court made significant observations about this being an autonomous form of contact under the Contact Convention, which may be granted independently of personal contact rights. However, examining the specific circumstances, the Court accepted that Czech courts had properly considered whether imposing an obligation on the legal parents to provide information would serve the child's interests, concluding it would not given the ongoing conflict and the child's negative attitude.

The judgement, decided by six votes to one, clarifies that biological fathers' rights under Article 8 must be assessed through individualised examination of particular circumstances, with the child's welfare remaining paramount. Judge Serghides dissented, arguing the domestic approach contained inherent contradictions and that the complete denial of contact and information was disproportionate.