The Right of Children To Spend Time With Their Grandparents: A Forgotten but Legally Protected Right

Unfortunately, I’ve seen far too often that parents use their children as leverage. Or, even worse, treat time spent with grandparents as if it were a favor – almost a benevolent concession. It isn’t.

Portuguese law takes this issue far more seriously than many assume. Since 1995, with the addition of Article 1887-A to the Civil Code, it has been clear: parents may not deny their children contact with their ancestors without a valid reason. And this is not merely a formality to fill out legal texts.

This sets a limit to the exercise of parental responsibility. It is based on an idea that is uncomfortable for some, but simple: children are not the exclusive property of their parents.

Limits of parental responsibility – and that’s a good thing.

The legal precedent is consistent. Article 1887-A protects the child’s independent right to a relationship with grandparents and siblings. There is even a legal presumption that this interaction is beneficial.

As the Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled (judgment of February 8, 2018), the burden of proof lies with the parent seeking to prevent contact with the child. This parent must prove that contact is detrimental to the child. It is not sufficient that contact is inconvenient for the adult; it must also be harmful to the child.

This distinction is essential.

Conflicts between adults – no matter how intense, bitter or protracted – must not be used as a reason to break off important family relationships for the child.

Biological grandparents, adoptive grandparents, and new family realities.

The legal ruling also reflects reality. In the same judgment of February 8, 2018, the Lisbon Court of Appeal clarified: The cohabitation of biological grandparents and adoptive grandparents is not in itself traumatic for the child.

It is simply a normal reflection of the blended families that characterize today’s society. A new relationship, a new partner, even a later adoption – none of this erases the child’s emotional past. Nor does it justify excluding the grandparents of the other parent.

Family law does not protect artificial emotional separations or forced rewritings of a minor’s personal history.

But beware: There are no absolute rights.

It is important to clarify this – and intellectual honesty is essential here. Visitation rights are not absolute. Blood ties, past affection, or even memories of afternoons spent with grandparents are not sufficient. As soon as the visit leads to tension, emotional insecurity, loyalty conflicts, or suffering for the child, legal protection ceases.

The courts have clarified: Legal protection only exists as long as the interaction actually benefits the child. And when does that end?

If the child shows genuine resistance – and not resistance induced by the parents – then the child’s interests should be restricted or even disregarded if the family environment is hostile and conflicts between adults strain the relationship. This disappoints the legitimate expectations of the grandparents.

Conclusion: Legal maturity and emotional responsibility

Article 1887-A of the Civil Code is neither a weapon against parents nor a carte blanche for grandparents to do as they please.

It is primarily a call for maturity, for self-control, for the emotional responsibility of adults.

Fewer power struggles.

Less instrumentalization of children.

More respect for the emotional bonds a child develops throughout their life.

Because at the heart of this debate are neither resentments nor personal goals nor the desire to be right.

Here is a child – and their right to grow up with memories, a sense of belonging and affection.

Opinion piece written by:

HELENA PALHOTA SIMÕES

Lawyer/Partner

Professional license no. 55350F

Santa Eulália Road, coral building,

Shop 13, 8200-381 Albufeira

T: +351 966 922 457 – TLF: +351 289 585 037