Joint parental authority does not disappear with the separation of a couple. Under French law, each parent retains the same rights and duties towards the child, including the obligation to communicate with the other parent regarding any decisions affecting the child’s life. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code establishes this principle unequivocally: separation has no impact on the rules governing the exercise of parental authority.
Usual act and non-usual act: the dividing line that conditions everything
Understanding the obligation of communication between separated parents according to the law first requires distinguishing two categories of acts. This distinction determines the degree of communication required by law.
Related reading : Managing the Unexpected: How to Justify an Absence from Work?
A usual act is a common decision, without particular seriousness, that does not permanently alter the child’s situation. Enrolling the child in a one-time sports activity, authorizing a school trip, or making a routine medical appointment are classic examples. The parent performing a usual act is presumed to act with the consent of the other: the third party (doctor, school) does not have to verify this consent.
A non-usual act affects the child’s future or breaks with their usual way of life. Changing schools, scheduling a surgical intervention, choosing a religious orientation, opening a bank account in the child’s name: these decisions require the explicit agreement of both parents. Acting alone on a non-usual act exposes the offending parent to a judicial challenge of the decision, or even to a modification of custody arrangements.
Related reading : How to Easily Track Your Child's Grades and Assignments Online
The boundary between the two is not set in stone. The family court judge assesses each case individually, based on the child’s age, the nature of the decision, and its foreseeable consequences. For example, psychological follow-up may be classified as either usual or non-usual depending on the context.
Notification obligation for relocation: a special case in the Civil Code
Among all the information a parent must convey, changing residence is subject to specific regulations. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code requires the parent who is moving to inform the other “in advance and in a timely manner.”
This is not a mere formality. Failure to notify a change of residence constitutes a criminal offense, punishable by six months of imprisonment and a fine of 7,500 euros. The deadline for informing the other parent is set at one month after the change of address. The family court judge may, in the case of an unreported move, revise the child’s habitual residence or the terms of visitation rights.
This strict regime is explained by the direct impact of relocation on the parent-child relationship. An unanticipated geographical distance can jeopardize the exercise of visitation and accommodation rights, alter school routes, and disrupt medical follow-up.
Sanctions and recourse before the family court judge
The refusal to communicate is not just a minor inconvenience. The parent facing a blockage has several legal avenues available.
- Bringing the matter before the family court judge (JAF) to resolve a disagreement over a non-usual decision. The JAF rules based on the child’s best interest, not parental preferences.
- Requesting a modification of the custody order when the lack of communication adversely affects the child. The judge can reassign residence or expand the visitation rights of the parent excluded from decisions.
- Filing a complaint in cases of non-representation of the child or a serious violation of parental obligations, such as concealing a move.
The child’s best interest remains the central criterion for any judicial decision. The judge does not seek to punish a parent for the principle, but to restore a functional coparenting framework.
Mediate communication in the context of domestic violence
Communication between separated parents becomes more complicated when violence is reported. Since the law of March 9, 2024, strengthening the fight against domestic violence, several French jurisdictions, particularly in Paris and Lyon, impose in their rulings a strictly mediated communication via secure platforms.
These digital coparenting spaces allow for the exchange of information related to the child (calendar, school documents, medical reports) without direct contact between the parents. The judge can order this arrangement as soon as a report of violence is added to the case file, even in the absence of a final criminal conviction.
This framework protects both the victim parent and the child. Research in child psychology shows that repeated exposure to parental conflicts, including via phone or message, generates chronic stress. Structuring communication reduces the child’s exposure to parental conflict.
Using a family mediator is another option. The judge can impose it before any substantive hearing, except in cases of proven violence. Mediation aims to restore a minimum dialogue channel regarding decisions related to the child, not to reconcile the parents.
Written parenting plan: a practice that is becoming widespread before the JAF
Several French jurisdictions now require separated parents to include a written “parenting plan” in the proceedings. This document details the concrete modalities of communication: frequency of exchanges, channels used, expected response times for non-usual decisions.
The parenting plan does not have binding value in itself, but it serves as a reference for the judge in case of future disputes. A parent who deviates from it without justification exposes themselves to the court drawing consequences regarding custody arrangements.
- The plan sets the accepted communication channels (email, dedicated platform, liaison notebook).
- It specifies the types of decisions that require joint validation and the reasonable response time.
- It may include a periodic review clause to adapt to the evolving needs of the child.
French law does not prescribe a unique form for communication between separated parents. What it requires is that the child does not suffer from an adult conflict. Every decision made without the other parent on a non-usual act legally weakens the one who made it, and it is often the child who bears the practical consequences before the judge is seized.