Child's best interests as the standard in shared custody
Alternating custody is not automatic in Switzerland and is not the privilege of one parent. The child's best interests are decisive. If a parent or the child requests shared care in cases of joint parental custody, the court must examine its feasibility on the basis of the specific circumstances.
Among the recurring criteria in the Federal Supreme Court's case law are the parental capacity of both parents, their ability to communicate and cooperate on matters concerning the child, the geographical situation, the previous care, stability, the child's age, sibling relationships and the social environment. Communication can also take place in writing; mediation through third parties does not preclude alternating custody.
Particularly important: the mere resistance of one parent to shared custody does not by itself prove a lack of ability to cooperate. What matters is whether a serious parental conflict also encompasses other matters concerning the child to such an extent that the custody arrangement obviously burdens the child. Therefore, a court should not only determine that a conflict exists, but examine its concrete manifestations, causes and effects on the child.
That a parent impedes communication, withholds information or obstructs childcare arrangements must be assessed in a gender-neutral manner. Such behaviours may be relevant for the prognosis, but must not be attributed categorically to the mother or the father. Statements must be connected to concrete, verifiable incidents.
For a balanced decision, it is therefore necessary to compare what caregiving each parent can actually provide, how handovers are organised, how school and medical matters are coordinated, and which solution will enable the child to have long-term stability and sustainable relationships with both parents.
Case law: BGE 142 III 612; BGE 142 III 617; Federal Supreme Court 5A_748/2022 of 9. Februar 2023; 5A_195/2024 of 9. Oktober 2024; 5A_102/2025 of 20. März 2026.
Further contributions
Editorial specialist article. Not individual legal advice. Prior to publication, the state of legislation and case law and the sources must be checked again.