A fresh Supreme Court decision (Pfv.20764/2025/4.) is making waves in family law by clarifying how judges should determine whether parents should share parental rights (after a divorce).

Why this matters

In most divorce cases, both parents want exclusive supervisory rights — the legal authority to make major decisions about a child’s everyday life. But now, Hungary’s top court has outlined when shared parental supervision should remain in place or be ordered, even when parents disagree.

What are parental supervisory rights?

These rights and, for that matter, obligations, cover for example:

  • deciding on the child’s name,
  • day-to-day care,
  • upbringing,
  • management of the child’s assets, and,
  • acting as the child’s legal representative.

Custody schedules (who the child lives with and when) come after supervisory rights, and are thus a secondary legal question.

What do judges look at?

Hungarian courts have been allowed to grant shared supervisory rights even if one parent objects (since 2022).

The Supreme Court confirmed that the guiding principle is always ensuring child’s physical, mental, and moral development. To assess this, the court reviews several factors such as:

  • each parent’s financial and living circumstances,
  • the parents’ ability to cooperate,
  • parenting and educational skills,
  • the emotional bond between parent and child,
  • the child’s own opinion (if mature enough).

But real life is rarely black-and-white — often both parents are equally capable and motivated.

The Court’s message: shared supervision should be the default

According to the ruling, when both parents are generally suitable and at least one of them requests shared supervision, judges should consider shared parental supervision as the main rule, as long as cooperation is realistically possible. Since the amendment of legislation of 2022 that made shared supervisory rights possible upon the request of one party only, there has been a tendency by courts to prioritize shared supervisory rights over individual one – and the latest Supreme Court decision is an affirmation of this approach of the highest level.

Cooperation means, at a minimum level, the ability to communicate about the child’s day-to-day issues and to be able to make mutual decisions on important questions – even if one parent is more active than the other. It doesn’t require perfect harmony — just functional teamwork.

In this particular decision, the Supreme Court found that written communication alone (emails, messages) can meet the minimum standard of cooperation. Even if verbal communication is strained, written messages may help parents stay focused during emotionally-charged situations.