In her post—made, according to information, on her own initiative but in coordination with the Prime Minister’s Office in order “to put the issue in its proper perspective”—Ms. Kefalogianni says she is facing a difficult situation, describing the consequences of joint custody:

“I am facing a particularly difficult reality. My underage children, four years old, are forced to change homes every two days, experiencing intense pressure and serious strain on their daily life and psychological balance, at an age when stability and security are absolutely crucial.”

At the same time, the Minister of Tourism argues that, as a mother and as a minister, she does not have fewer rights than any other citizen because of her position. She concludes by stressing that “family matters, especially when they concern underage children, are not suitable for blackmail or political exploitation.”

In her post she states:

Regarding the uproar that has been created, I want to be absolutely clear:
The law gives every parent the possibility to seek judicial modification of issues concerning parental responsibility when a child’s living conditions change.
This is a regulation proposed by the Ministry of Justice, which I voted for together with 179 colleagues, because I consider it right and fair, with the best interests of the children in mind.
I do not hide the fact that I made use of it, as I am facing a particularly difficult reality.
My underage children, four years old, are forced to change homes every two days, experiencing intense pressure and serious strain on their daily life and psychological balance, at an age when stability and security are absolutely crucial.
As a mother, but also as a member of the Government, I believe that I do not have fewer rights than any other citizen because of my position.
Respect, protection, and the psychological safety of my children are my highest priority, before and above any other role I am called upon to serve.
Family matters, especially when they concern underage children, are not suitable for blackmail or political exploitation.

What the regulation provides

It is recalled that the controversial regulation was passed on December 19 as part of the law concerning OPEKEPE.
The amendment, which falls under family law, provides that if a first-instance court decision regarding parental responsibility of underage children of two former spouses is unsatisfactory to one parent, that parent may—rather than waiting for the appeal court—file a new lawsuit so that the case is retried again at first instance. The amendment also obliges courts to hear such requests as a priority.

Ms. Kefalogianni made use of this specific regulation, as shortly beforehand she had lost, through a court decision, exclusive custody of the children she has with Mr. Minos Matsas.

More specifically, the amendment adds a new paragraph to Article 1536 of the Civil Code, covering a significant gap regarding communication and custody—key aspects of parental responsibility that often give rise to intense disputes and daily difficulties. When a final decision is issued and an appeal has been filed against it, there is often a need to modify the decision until the appeal ruling is issued, especially if the original decision misjudged the children’s living conditions or their best interests, or if its implementation proved unsuccessful or impossible from the outset.

A prerequisite is that an appeal has been filed citing errors in the first-instance decision, and any modification applies only until the appellate decision is issued. The power to modify lies with the first-instance court that issued the original decision, and modification is permitted exclusively when required by the best interests of the child.

Floridis: Any parent who disagrees with a custody decision can request suspension until the appeal

Earlier, Justice Minister Giorgos Floridis provided clarifications regarding the regulation. Speaking to OPEN TV, he said that until now a parent who disagreed with a decision could only file an appeal. Now, the law grants the right—once an appeal has been filed—to request that the execution of the decision be suspended until the appeal court issues its ruling, as is the case in other areas of law.

He stressed that children’s status is usually regulated by interim measures before a regular decision is issued, and that this regulation brings family law in line with procedures that have applied for decades in other courts.

According to Mr. Floridis, the provision was long overdue and applies to all citizens. The court will hear both parents and decide sovereignly, guided exclusively by the best interests of the child.

He also noted that the provision was approved by 180 MPs, with broad parliamentary support or tolerance, adding that attempts to personalize the regulation by linking it to a single politician “do injustice to a regulation that is in favor of citizens, because it concerns a fundamental right.”