by Redaktor | Jan 8, 2026 | news-en
NOTE: translated from English
On 8 October 2025, the Act amending the Act of 25 February 1964 – Family and Guardianship Code and the Act of 17 October 2008 on the change of name and surname (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1528) entered into force, with regard to the deadline for submitting a declaration of return to the surname used before marriage.
Pursuant to the amendment, the deadline for submitting a declaration of restitution to the name from before the marriage has been extended from three months to one year from the date on which the divorce decision becomes final. This statement, in accordance with the applicable law, must be submitted in person before the head of the Registry Office or
, in the case of staying abroad, before the consul, respectively.
The previous three-month deadline was a mandatory deadline, which meant that exceeding it resulted in the definitive loss of the possibility of using the simplified procedure of returning to the surname without the need to conduct administrative proceedings under the Act on the Change of Name and Surname.
The justification to the bill indicates that the short, three-month deadline in practice made it impossible for many divorced people to effectively exercise their right. The reasons were, among m.in, lack of knowledge about the date, emotional state related to
the termination of the marriage, illness, random situations, as well as delays in the transmission of divorce decisions by the courts to the Registry Office.
In accordance with Article 2 of the Amending Act, the transitional provision provides that in the case of persons for whom the three-month deadline has not expired before the date of entry into force of the amendment, a new, one-year deadline will apply. This means that in a situation where the divorce decree became final after 8 July 2025, the interested person may benefit
from an extended period of 12 months.
To submit the declaration, you will need: an identity document, proof of payment of stamp duty, information about the place where the marriage certificate was drawn up and the date on which the divorce decree became final. If you are making a statement abroad before a consul, you must additionally submit a copy of the final divorce judgment.
The aim of the amendment is to provide divorced spouses with a real opportunity to make a well-thought-out and informed decision regarding their name, without the need to engage
in more formalized administrative proceedings.
by Redaktor | Dec 2, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION from Polish
Pursuant to Article 5, Section 2a of the Act of February 11, 2016, on State Aid in Raising Children (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1576, as amended), if a child, pursuant to a court ruling, is under the alternating care of both divorced parents, and this care is provided in comparable and repeated periods, each parent is entitled to a childcare benefit in the amount of half of the amount due for a given month.
The concept of alternating care refers to care provided pursuant to a court ruling, which is provided by both parents alternately, for subsequent, comparable periods.
Standardly, alternating care involves the child periodically living with each parent. However, the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań, in its judgment of August 21, 2025 (ref. IV SA/Po 478/25), indicated that there is also a special variant of alternating care, known as "nest" care, which is characterized by the child not changing their place of residence, but rather the parents alternately providing care in the same place.
Therefore, since the family court's judgment required the parents to share half of the costs of maintaining and raising children, the institution specified in Article 5, paragraph 2a of the Child Welfare Act appears to fully achieve this goal by awarding half of the benefit to each parent.
As follows, in the case of nest care, the childcare benefit is awarded to the parent (or legal or actual guardian) who actually currently cares for the child. However, if care is provided alternately by both parents, even in a nest care arrangement, the childcare benefit is awarded to each of them half of the amount due for a given month.
by Redaktor | Nov 5, 2025 | news-en
NOTE: translated from Polish!
On 21 August 2025, the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań issued a non-final judgment with reference number IV SA/Po 478/25, which refers to the legitimacy of the payment of childcare allowance to parents, especially in the context of alternating custody of a child. This judgment is of significant importance for families in which custody of the child is shared between both parents, which raises the question of how the concept of "shared custody" should be understood and how childcare benefits should be granted in such cases.
In the judgment in question, the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań drew particular attention to the fact that the concept of "alternating custody" should be understood as a situation in which a child resides with both parents for an equal or almost equal part of the time. In such a case, both the mother and the father may have the right to apply for the childcare benefit, but with some reservations. The court emphasized that the decision to grant the benefit must depend on the actual provision of care, which means that the administrative authorities may make an individual assessment of the situation, taking into account documentation and evidence indicating the duration of actual care.
In the case of shared custody, one of the key issues is to determine which parent actually takes care of the child most of the time, because according to the law, the parent who has permanent or majority custody of the child is entitled to the childcare allowance. The court indicated that it is necessary for the parents to provide appropriate documentation confirming their involvement in the care of the child. This may include certificates from institutions such as schools, kindergartens, doctors, which indicate which of the parents the child has been with most of the time.
It follows that in a situation where the time of care is divided equally, it is possible that the childcare allowance will be granted to both parents, but in a proportionate amount. This means that if both parents have equal custody of the child, the childcare benefit may be divided between them, which in practice means the need to present appropriate evidence and certificates.
The judgment IV SA/Po 478/25 prompts reflection on the social realities of modern families, in which, after divorce or separation, parents decide to alternate custody of their children. On the one hand, such a situation is an expression of parents' care for equal participation in the upbringing of the child, on the other hand, it is associated with the need to take into account administrative issues, such as the granting of childcare benefits.
The judgment IV SA/Po 478/25 emphasizes that in the case of shared custody, the granting of the childcare allowance should be dependent on the actual division of care between the parents, which requires the provision of appropriate evidence. At the same time, this judgment points to the need for precise legal regulations that will allow for a more flexible and fair approach to the granting of benefits in such cases. Contemporary family realities, characterized by frequent divorces and separations, require the legal system to keep pace with social changes, providing support to both parents and children.
by Redaktor | Oct 15, 2025 | news-en
Note: translated from Polish.
Divorce is one of the most important institutions of family law, consisting in the formal termination of marriage by the court at the request of one or both spouses.
Undoubtedly, divorce between citizens of different countries, in this case between citizens of Polish and Turkey, can be a challenge, but once you are familiar with the basic procedures, the process can go smoothly and smoothly.
The termination of a marriage with a Turkish citizen is regulated by the Turkish Civil Code, as well as the Law on International Private
and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) and the Law – Private International Law.
It is worth noting that divorce can be carried out by agreement of the party or in an adversarial procedure.
An agreement between the parties in the context of divorce is feasible if the parties meet certain conditions:
- The parties must file for divorce or one of the parties agree to the divorce from the other party,
- The court must confirm that the parties' decision is conscious and voluntary,
- The marriage must last at least 1 year,
- An agreement between the parties must be reached at the level of property matters and matters related to their children.
The situation becomes a bit more complicated when one of the parties does not agree to the divorce or there are disputes about the terms of the divorce, you should file a petition for divorce in the adversarial procedure. The petition should be filed with the competent court due to the place of residence of one of the spouses or the last joint one before filing the lawsuit.
The issue of the law applicable to the divorce of spouses of different citizenship is regulated both by the provisions of the private international law of Turkey (MÖHUK) and by the Polish law – Private International Law. Fundamentally:
- If the spouses have a common residence, the law of that country applies.
- In the absence of a common residence, it is possible to apply the law of the native common citizenship, and if this is not possible, it is usually referred to the laws of the country with which the marriage is most closely connected.
In this context, there may be a proposal to apply Turkish law (in accordance with MÖHUK), however, Article 54 of the Polish Private International Law provides that: If the divorce or separation of the spouses cannot be decreed on the basis of the applicable law in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Polish law shall apply. This means that if the application of Turkish law would lead to the impossibility of divorce, excessive formalities or violation of the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland, the court may depart from its application and rely on Polish law.
In practice, in many divorce cases with a Turkish element, heard by Polish courts, Polish law applies – especially when the action was brought by a Polish citizen and both spouses live in Poland.
In the light of Article 54 of the PPM, it is possible to defend the view that in the absence of a common place of residence, but when there are significant links with Poland (e.g. organized life in Poland), the court can and should apply Polish law, even if the normal conflict of law rules would point to Turkish law.
by Redaktor | Sep 1, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION
The Act of June 4, 2025, signed by the President on July 3, 2025 (effective from October 8, 2025), introduces a favorable change for divorced persons in the Family and Guardianship Code (Journal of Laws 2023, item 2809, hereinafter: FGC). The amendment concerns Article 59 FGC and extends the deadline for a divorced person to revert to their surname used before marriage.
According to the new wording of Article 59, within one year from the finalization of the divorce decree, a divorced spouse who changed their surname as a result of marriage may return to the surname used prior to marriage. To do this, an appropriate statement must be made before the head of the civil registry office or before a consul.
Previously, divorced persons had only three months to submit such a statement, and the deadline was strictly binding. Extending this period to one year gives divorced individuals more time to make a well-considered decision.
It is important to note that a statement to return to the surname used before marriage can only be made before the head of the civil registry office or before a consul, who will forward it to the relevant civil registry office. No other authority is authorized to accept such a statement, and the court cannot include such a provision in the divorce judgment.
This position was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of September 23, 1974, case no. III CRN 188/74: “A statement on this matter may, however, be made only before the head of the civil registry office (…) No other authority is authorized to accept such a statement. The court also cannot include such a provision in the divorce judgment itself.”
