Although this is in most cases not the most reasonable solution also from economic criteria, then it must be stated nevertheless that the partner, which operates the separation is usually in the long run that, which takes off from the marriage dwelling. As managing in the judicial decision stated, it was the intention of the legislator to arrange the first step as heavy for separation as possible in order to prevent knee-jerk reactions. Here however the iurisdiction changed itself in the last years much and it became generally accepted increasingly the opinion, starting from 1.7.98 law is that the exclusive parental concern becomes the exception, the common parental concern also after the separation is the rule. For this reason the law designates an attendance right, whose details regulate the courts in co-operation with the youth welfare offices, if the partners can agree not concerning this. Such a law case is however usually unnecessary, since the courts adhere here to fixed principles, which developed the iurisdiction and experience in the course of the years.
Some courts award besides half of other holidays also.
If the partners agree up, then they can be situated and not avoid falsely a law case, which can be connected with substantial costs and then to this result leads nevertheless. To mark it is that regarding the practice of the attendance right the other partner the entitled one can talk little. For the courts is relevant excluding the well-being and interest of the child. Alimony I can state this problems here only in quite rough courses, since the iurisdiction fills whole libraries to the specifics question. It applies principle that the children of the spouse, with who they live will maintain by so-called care performances, while the other spouse has to furnish its contribution financially.