A Greek court has issued an unusual custody ruling requiring a nine-month-old child to divide its time between Athens and the central Greek city of Volos after the parents separated, in a decision that legal observers say reflects the country’s evolving approach to shared parenting.
The Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance ruled that the infant should spend nine consecutive days each month with its father in Athens, while living with its mother in Volos for the remainder of the month. The arrangement also includes pre-determined periods during holidays and the summer.
The case arose after the mother moved to Volos with the child without first obtaining either the father’s written consent or court approval.
Under Greek law, where parental responsibility remains joint, relocating a child in a way that substantially affects the other parent’s contact rights generally requires either a written agreement between both parents or judicial authorization.
In its ruling, the court stressed that such safeguards exist to protect the child’s relationship with both parents.
Shared Custody Over Distance
While shared parental responsibility has become increasingly common in Greece since reforms introduced in 2021, the decision is unusual because it applies those principles to a very young infant living hundreds of kilometers from the other parent.
Traditionally, Greek courts have tended to designate a primary residence for babies and toddlers while gradually expanding the non-resident parent’s contact as the child grows older.
Instead, the court concluded that maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents outweighed the logistical challenges created by the distance between the two cities.
According to the ruling, beginning in September 2026, the child will stay with the father from the first Friday until the second Sunday of every month before returning to Volos.
Court Rejects Brief Visits
The court also rejected an alternative arrangement under which the father would have seen the child only for a few hours during visits to Volos while staying in short-term rental accommodation.
According to the judgment, such an arrangement “would expose the infant to excessive physical and psychological strain.”
The judge found that repeated short visits, combined with temporary accommodation, would be more disruptive than allowing the child to spend longer periods in each parent’s home, where more stable routines for sleeping, feeding and daily care could be maintained.
Financial Responsibility Falls on the Parent Who Relocated
Another unusual aspect of the decision concerns the allocation of travel costs.
Because the relocation occurred through the mother’s unilateral decision, the court ordered that she travel to Athens to collect the child following visits with the father.
She must also cover the father’s travel expenses when he travels to Volos to collect the child, along with his accommodation costs during one scheduled visit each month.
The ruling also allows the parent not currently with the child to communicate daily through online video applications.
A financial penalty of €200 was imposed for each instance in which either parent refuses to hand over the child on the agreed dates.
Reflecting a Shift in Greek Family Law
The ruling comes against the backdrop of significant reforms to Greek family law introduced in 2021, which strengthened the principle that children should maintain meaningful relationships with both parents following separation.
While courts continue to decide each case according to the child’s best interests, the reforms encouraged judges to move away from arrangements that effectively marginalize one parent and toward greater shared involvement in children’s upbringing.
The Athens ruling illustrates how those principles are beginning to be applied even in complex cases involving relocation and very young children.
At the same time, the decision also reinforces another key principle of Greek family law: one parent cannot unilaterally relocate a child in a way that substantially limits the other parent’s contact rights without either mutual agreement or court approval.
Although each custody case depends on its individual circumstances, the judgment is likely to attract attention because it combines three relatively uncommon elements: dual residence for a nine-month-old infant, substantial parenting time despite a 330-kilometer separation, and the decision to place much of the financial burden created by the relocation on the parent who chose to move.
