Shared custody law in the Netherlands (co-ouderschap): what the rules say in 2026

Dutch law has no presumption of equal time, and no co-ouderschap statute at all. Joint parental authority — ouderlijk gezag — continues automatically after a divorce, with nothing to apply for, and the child keeps a statutory right to gelijkwaardige verzorging en opvoeding, equivalent care and upbringing, by both parents. The Hoge Raad, the supreme court, has held that this does not oblige an equal (50-50%) division of the time the child spends with each parent.

What the law does require is a document. A divorce petition must contain an ouderschapsplan — a parenting plan — signed by both spouses, and unmarried parents who hold joint authority owe one when they stop living together. The statute prescribes the plan's topics, not a schedule. Where the parents cannot agree, either may put the dispute to the rechtbank (district court), which takes “such decision as appears to it desirable in the interest of the child”.

What Dutch law actually says

Start with the word that is missing. Co-ouderschap appears in neither Book 1 of the Civil Code nor the Code of Civil Procedure; the judiciary's own child-support guideline report calls it “a non-statutory term that is current in practice for various forms of shared care”. There is no chapter to look up. What the Code does say sits in a handful of articles.

• Authority survives the divorce. Parents who hold authority jointly “continue to exercise that authority jointly” after the marriage is dissolved or they are legally separated (art. 1:251 lid 2). A court may give authority to one parent alone only on two grounds: an unacceptable risk that the child would become trapped or lost between the parents with no improvement expected within a foreseeable time, or a change otherwise necessary in the child's interest (art. 1:251a lid 1).
• The child's right is to equivalent care, not to half the days. Parental authority includes an obligation to promote the child's ties with the other parent (art. 1:247 lid 3), and a child whose parents jointly exercise authority retains the right to equivalent care and upbringing by both (art. 1:247 lid 4) — framed as care, not as a quantity of time.
• Practical obstacles may be taken into account in an agreement or parenting plan, but only for as long as those obstacles exist (art. 1:247 lid 5).

The leading authority reads that principle narrowly. In 2010 the Hoge Raad held that the equal standing of the parents laid down in art. 1:247 “does not oblige an equal (50-50%) division of the time the child spends with each parent”, and that a court need not always start from an equal division of main residence or of care tasks. Since 1 January 2023 joint authority also arises by law when an unmarried partner acknowledges the child.

Sources: [1], [4], [6]

How a Dutch court decides

The statute gives a standard, not a schedule. Where both parents hold authority and disagree, either may put the dispute to the rechtbank under art. 1:253a, and the court “takes such decision as appears to it desirable in the interest of the child”. The arrangement it sets can allocate the care and upbringing tasks, decide with which parent the child has its hoofdverblijfplaats (main residence), and settle how each parent informs and consults the other.

• Equal standing is an input, not an outcome. The child's right to equivalent care is weighed; neither an equal division of time nor of main residence is presumed.
• The plan comes first. Where the parents owed a parenting plan and did not produce one, the court stays its decision of its own motion until they do, unless the child's interest requires otherwise.
• Settlement first, then a deadline. The court must attempt a settlement between the parents before deciding, and must deal with the application within six weeks.
• The child is heard. A minor of 12 or over must be given the opportunity to make their view known; the court may give younger children that opportunity in a manner it determines.
• Where only one parent holds authority the frame is omgang (contact) under art. 1:377a. The child has a right of contact, the parent without authority has both a right and a duty of contact, and a court may refuse contact only on four listed grounds: serious harm to the child's development; the person being manifestly unsuitable or unable; serious objections from a child of 12 or over; or contact otherwise conflicting with weighty interests of the child.

Sources: [1], [2], [4]

What this looks like in practice

Because there is no co-ouderschap statute, the parenting plan is the mechanism. It must contain agreements on how the parents divide the care and upbringing tasks (or give shape to contact), on how they inform and consult each other, and on the costs of the children's care and upbringing; the petition must also say how the children were involved. Parents may write it themselves or with a mediator, but the petition has to be signed by an advocaat. If a plan cannot reasonably be produced, other documents may be filed instead, at the court's assessment. Unmarried parents with joint authority owe a plan too.

Money is calculated separately, and equal time does not settle it. The only statutory rule is that parents provide for their children's care and upbringing naar draagkracht, according to capacity to pay; the amounts come from the judiciary's Rapport alimentatienormen, which is expressly not law. Its zorgkorting cuts the non-resident parent's payment on a four-step scale keyed to average days per week — 5 %, 15 %, 25 % and 35 % of the parents' own share of the costs of the child — and draws no distinction between a wide care arrangement and co-ouderschap. Where joint capacity falls short, each parent bears half the shortfall, set off against that discount. The Hoge Raad held in 2022 that no special circumstances are needed before the resident parent can be ordered to contribute to the other parent's care costs.

How often roughly equal arrangements are used is not known. A person can be registered at only one address, so CBS says arrangements in which children live alternately with both parents “are not observed in these figures”. What it publishes are registration shares: in 2025, 82 % of 15-year-olds with separated parents were registered at their mother's address and 16 % at their father's. Those are addresses, not care splits.

So the detail lives in the plan: handover weekday, holiday blocks, who has the children when.

• Parenting plan template — what a plan has to cover.
• 50/50 custody schedules — what equal time costs in handovers.
• Alternating weeks — week on, week off, and the New Year trap.
• Custody schedule examples — unequal and balanced patterns.
• Shared custody terms around the world — the local phrase elsewhere.

Sources: [1], [2], [5], [6], [7], [10], [11]

The Dutch terms you will meet

Term	What it means
gezag / ouderlijk gezag	Parental authority: the duty and right to care for and bring up the child. It continues jointly after divorce, and is separate from where the child lives.
gelijkwaardige verzorging en opvoeding	“Equivalent care and upbringing” — the child's right under art. 1:247 lid 4. The Hoge Raad has held it is not a right to equal time.
co-ouderschap	“Co-parenthood”: the everyday word for care divided roughly equally, with no statutory definition behind it.
hoofdverblijfplaats	“Main residence”: the parent at whose address the child is registered, agreed or decided by the court. A child can be registered at only one address.
ouderschapsplan	The parenting plan required with a divorce petition, and of unmarried parents with joint authority who separate. It covers the care division or contact, information, and costs.

Sources: [1], [2], [4], [6], [10]

Recent changes

• 1 January 2026 In force

  Maintenance amounts indexed by 4.6 %, and a new guideline report

  Maintenance amounts fixed by court order or agreement change every 1 January by operation of law, by a percentage the minister publishes in the Staatscourant; for 2026 it was set at 4.6 %, after 6.5 % for 2025. The judiciary's Rapport alimentatienormen, versie januari 2026 was published on 31 December 2025 — recommendations, not law, which courts and parties may depart from.

  Official source: Beschikking wijzigingspercentage levensonderhoud 2026 (Stcrt. 2025, 39488)

• 2 December 2025 Bill pending — awaiting plenary debate

  Bill 36390, Wet kind, draagmoederschap en afstamming

  The one pending bill that touches these articles is listed against art. 1:247 BW in the statute database. Submitted in July 2023 and tabled for plenary debate on 2 December 2025, it had not been debated when this page was last reviewed. Its only change to art. 1:247 is to lid 3, adding a duty to inform the child about their descent. It proposes no shared-care presumption.

  Official source: Bill 36390 as submitted (Tweede Kamer)

• 5 July 2025 In force — no custody change

  Two collective amendments to Book 1 of the Civil Code

  The consolidated text of Book 1 carries a July 2025 version date, which is easy to misread as a custody reform. It is not one: the two acts behind it are collective technical statutes, and neither appears in the amendment history of art. 1:247, 1:247a, 1:251, 1:251a, 1:253a or 1:377a. The most recent change to art. 1:247 was on 1 January 2023.

  Official source: Amendment history of art. 1:247 BW (wetten.overheid.nl)

Frequently asked questions

Sources