Alternating custody alone does not automatically prevent conflicts
Alternating custody is not automatic in Switzerland and is not a privilege of one parent. The child’s best interests are decisive. If a parent or the child requests shared custody in the case of joint parental authority, the court must examine its feasibility in light of the specific circumstances.
Recurring criteria in the Federal Supreme Court’s case law include the parenting capacity of both parents, their ability to communicate and cooperate on matters concerning the child, the geographical situation, previous caregiving, stability, the child’s age, sibling relationships and the social environment. Communication may also take place in writing; mediation through third parties does not exclude shared custody.
Particularly important: A parent's mere resistance to joint custody does not by itself prove a lack of cooperative ability. What is decisive is whether a serious parental conflict also affects other child-related matters in such a way that the custody arrangement obviously burdens the child. Therefore, a court should not merely establish that a conflict exists, but should examine its concrete manifestations, causes and effects on the child.
That a parent impedes communication, withholds information or blocks caregiving arrangements must be assessed in a gender-neutral manner. Such behaviors may be relevant to the prognosis, but must not be attributed categorically to the mother or the father. Statements must be tied to concrete, verifiable events.
For a balanced decision, it is therefore necessary to compare what childcare each parent can actually provide, how handovers are organized, how school and medical issues are coordinated, and which solution will provide the child with long-term stability and viable relationships with both parents.
Case law: BGE 142 III 612; BGE 142 III 617; Bundesgericht 5A_748/2022 vom 9. Februar 2023; 5A_195/2024 vom 9. Oktober 2024; 5A_102/2025 vom 20. März 2026.
Further contributions
Editorial specialist article. Not individual legal advice. Prior to publication, the status of laws and case law and the sources must be checked again.