Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the procedure for the father’s participation in the upbringing of and communication with a minor child who resides separately with the mother, due to the obstacles existing between the parents.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that a father’s right to communicate with his child is fundamental and does not terminate upon the dissolution of marriage or separate residence. The Court emphasized that hostile relations between former spouses cannot serve as grounds for restricting a child’s right to contact with the father, provided it does not harm the child’s development. An important aspect was that the courts of lower instances conducted a comprehensive analysis of the family situation, taking into account the interests of the child, their age, and health status. The Supreme Court emphasized that the child’s opinion is important, but it should not be unconditional, especially if it may have been formed under external influence. The Court also noted that the absence of evidence of the father’s unlawful conduct makes it impossible to restrict his right to participate in the child’s upbringing. In this case, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, in its resolution of March 25, 2024 (case No. 742\/1716\/23), departed from the conclusion set forth in the resolution of December 5, 2018 (case No. 175\/5360\/13-ts), which was cited by the respondent; therefore, the appellant’s arguments in this regard were rejected.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legality of the established schedule for the father’s communication with the child.<\/p>\n