Official state after Teplice: When OSPOD and the municipality cough up the court's decision

There are times when one has to ask oneself an uncomfortable question. What is the social and legal protection of children actually used for? To protect children and families, or to protect their own official procedures? To actively help solve problems, or to produce more and more letters explaining why someone else has to solve the problem?

The case of OSPOD Teplice opens this question with extraordinary urgency. It is not just a dispute between parents. This is not just one family law case. It's about much more. It is about the functioning of public power in a democratic legal state. It is about whether officials paid with public money respect the law and court decisions, or whether the public service becomes a closed system that protects itself above all.

The public rightly expects OSPOD to stand by the law. That he will protect the interests of the child. That he will carefully examine all the circumstances of the case. That he will be impartial. That he will act actively where family relationships are threatened. Above all, however, citizens expect that the public authority will respect the decisions of the courts. If even the state itself does not have to respect court decisions, why should citizens respect them?

This is where the problem that is becoming more and more apparent in Teplice begins.

In a specific matter, there is a judgment of the district court, which rejected the proposal to replace the father's consent to the relocation of minor children and to the change of school. There is also a decision of a higher court that talks about the illegal relocation of a child without the consent of the other parent. There are other subsequent court proceedings, administrative proceedings and decisions. One would therefore expect that these facts will form the basis of OSPOD's considerations. That they will be the starting point of every investigation and every opinion.

Instead, however, one gets the impression that court decisions in Teplice are considered some kind of unpleasant documents that are best mentioned as little as possible or not at all. Instead of examining how the current state came about, only the state itself is evaluated. Instead of the question of whether the court's conclusions were respected, it is resolved that the child got used to the new environment. Instead of asking whether ties to both parents have been maintained, it is stated that the child has new friends and is happy.

However, such an argument is dangerous. If it were accepted as a general rule, it would mean that it does not matter how a certain condition arose. It would not matter whether it was made in accordance with or contrary to law. The only thing that would be decisive would be that it lasts long enough. In other words, it would be enough to create a new reality and wait for everyone to get used to it.

This is the exact opposite of the principles of the rule of law.

The rule of law is not based on the force of a factual situation. It is based on the force of law. It is not based on who can create a new reality. It is based on whether this reality is in accordance with the law and court decisions.

However, another aspect of the whole matter is even more serious. OSPOD Teplice gives the impression of an institution that systematically shirks responsibility. A citizen draws attention to a problem. The answer is: go to court. A citizen will draw attention to non-respect of a court decision. The answer is: go to court. The citizen draws attention to problems in the relationship between the parent and the child. The answer is: go to court.

After a certain period of time, one inevitably begins to wonder why OSPOD actually exists. If every serious question has to be solved by the court, if every problem has to end up before a judge, then what is the real role of the social-legal protection of children?

At the same time, the law speaks clearly. OSPOD is supposed to protect the child. It should monitor adverse effects. He is supposed to help his parents. It is intended to influence parents to fulfill their obligations. It is supposed to contribute to the protection of family ties. Nowhere in the law is it written that OSPOD's main task is to produce formal answers and explain why someone else should solve everything.

It is here that the disease of the current public administration is fully manifested - bureaucratic formalism. It is a state where everything seems to be fine. Each letter has a transaction number. Every submission is registered. Every reply is sent on time. Each document is filed. But the real problem remains untouched.

Officials often confuse process with outcome. They believe that their job is to get the file done. In fact, their job is to solve the problem. A citizen does not come to the office to receive another business number. He comes because he expects help from a public institution that he pays for through his taxes.

And it is precisely the issue of public administration financing that is extremely important in Teplice. OSPOD is not a private company. It is not a volunteer organization. It is a public authority funded by citizens' money. Each OSPOD employee receives a salary from public funds. Every office, every computer, every business phone and every business trip is paid for out of taxpayers' pockets.

Therefore, citizens have every right to demand professionalism, expertise and respect for the law. They have the right to expect that officials will respect court decisions. They have a right to expect that officials will not selectively choose which parts of court decisions to take seriously and which to ignore. They have the right to expect that public power will not place itself above the courts.

In Teplice, however, the opposite impression is more and more often created. The impression is that the problem is not the violation of rights, but the one who draws attention to it. I get the impression that the complaint is harassment of the office. The impression that the citizen is an unpleasant element that disrupts official comfort. And above all, the impression that the main goal is not the search for truth, but the defense of a position already taken.

The most dangerous moment occurs when the institution stops protecting the child and starts protecting itself. When he stops asking what is in the best interest of the child and starts thinking about how to explain his own inaction. When self-reflection is replaced by self-defense. When service to the public is replaced by service to one's own office.

It is in such situations that the true state of public administration is revealed. Not at press conferences. Not in promotional materials. Not in official statements. But in concrete human stories where decisions are made about the rights of parents and children.

The case of OSPOD Teplice is therefore not only a local problem. It is a symbol of a much wider phenomenon. The phenomenon of authorities that have forgotten whom they are supposed to serve. The phenomenon of institutions that began to confuse the performance of public service with the exercise of power. The phenomenon of a bureaucracy that is sometimes more interested in its own comfort than justice.

And that is precisely why this case should not be kept silent. Because every public institution must know that its authority is not given by a stamp or an official card. It is given by the trust of citizens. And citizens' trust is lost the moment the office ceases to be a service and starts to be a problem.

Today, Teplice faces a simple question. Will their authorities really serve the citizens and respect the law? Or will they continue down the path of formalism, excuses and alibis?

The answers don't just matter to the parents who got into a fight. It matters to every citizen. Because a state that cannot make its own officials respect the law and court decisions gradually loses the moral right to demand respect for the law from others.

Resources:

1. Czech Republic. 1999.Act No. 359/1999 Coll., on social and legal protection of children, as amended.Prague: Parliament of the Czech Republic. Available from:https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1999-359

2. European Court of Human Rights. 2026.Novák v. the Czech Republic, Application No. 6656/24, Judgment of 9 April 2026.Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. Available from:https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-249531

3. Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic. 2026.The Strasbourg court on the exercise of parental rights: today the Czech Republic succeeded once and failed once.Prague: Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, 9 April 2026. Available from:https://msp.gov.cz

4. Office of the Government Plenipotentiary for the Representation of the Czech Republic before the ECtHR. 2026.The Strasbourg court on the exercise of parental rights: today the Czech Republic succeeded once and failed once. Mezi-soudy.cz, 9/4/2026. Available from:https://mezisoudy.cz

5. Kopecký, T. 2026.New limits of guardianship decision-making in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the Constitutional Court. epravo.cz, 1/6/2026. Available from:https://www.epravo.cz/top/clanky/nove-limity-opatrovnickeho-rozhodovani-v-judikature-eslp-a-ustavniho-soudu-121221.html