What counts as a 'serious reason' for asking a court to declare the loss of parental authority? The August 2026 amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Child Welfare Act

What changed

New Article 22-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Child Welfare Act fills in the phrase 'serious grounds making it impossible to exercise parental authority' that the Decree quotes from the main text of Article 18(1) of the Child Welfare Act; the note has not read the Child Welfare Act itself. The grounds are: where the parent's whereabouts are unknown, or the parent has cut off contact without a justifiable reason, so that decisions on important matters for protecting the child's life and body and for upbringing cannot be made in time; where, through mental restriction caused by illness, disability or the like, the parent persistently lacks the ability to handle affairs concerning the child; and other cases comparable to those two where the parent neglects or refuses decisions about the child and thereby seriously harms the child's welfare, as recognised by the mayor, county head or district head, the metropolitan city or province governor, or the prosecutor. The former Articles 22-4 and 22-5 are renumbered as Articles 22-5 and 22-6. The official reason gives the aim as concretising the grounds delegated to the Decree by the amended Child Welfare Act (Acts No. 21321 and No. 21598, both in force on 4 August 2026).

New Article 26-3(2) states that the retention period for child abuse related information entered and managed in the child information system is as set out in the new Annexed Table 3-2. The official reason describes those periods: where a child abuse case review found child abuse, information on the victim and others, the review, the protection plan and case management is kept for 20 years; where the conduct was not found to be child abuse, information on the child whose report was received and others, and the review information, is kept for 10 years. Annexed Table 3-2 itself is introduced 'as per the attached form' and its content is not reproduced in the pack.

The same Decree also lets a metropolitan city or province governor or a mayor, county head or district head place a child abuse case review committee of 6 to 9 members within its own organisation (Article 24-2), and creates a special committee on analysis of suspected fatal child abuse cases of 11 to 15 members chaired by the first Vice-Minister of Health and Welfare (Article 26-12).

What to read in the text

Addendum Article 1 puts the Decree into force on the day of promulgation, 4 August 2026. Addendum Article 2 is the only transitional measure: for information already entered in the child information system before the Decree took effect, the retention period under Article 26-3(2) and Annexed Table 3-2 begins on the day the information was entered. The addendum says nothing about pending court cases or earlier acts.

A file under Article 22-4 needs to show who is petitioning (a mayor, county head or district head, a metropolitan city or province governor, or a prosecutor) and which of the three grounds is claimed, with the facts behind it. For the retention rule, the file needs the date the information was entered in the child information system and whether the case review found child abuse. Other Acts and notices referred to in the new provisions, including the National Civil Service Act, the Local Public Officials Act, the Early Childhood Education Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Attorney Act, the Social Welfare Services Act, the Medical Service Act and notices of the Minister of Health and Welfare, have not been read in this note.

Questions for the legislature

Article 22-4(1) reaches a parent who has 'cut off contact without a justifiable reason'. Neither the new provision, the addendum nor the official reason states how long the silence must last, or what would count as a justifiable reason for it. On what facts must the petition show that the parent cut off contact without a justifiable reason rather than being unable to answer, and for how long?

Article 26-3(2) says the retention period 'is as set out in Annexed Table 3-2', and Addendum Article 2 fixes the start date only for information entered before the Decree took effect. Neither the text, the addendum nor the official reason says what happens when a review finding is later changed or the information is updated. Where a case first judged child abuse is later found not to be child abuse, or the reverse, from which date does the 20-year or 10-year period run?

When to revisit

This note changes if Annexed Table 3-2 is read against Article 26-3(2), if the Child Welfare Act or a court decision explains 'serious grounds making it impossible to exercise parental authority', 'cut off contact without a justifiable reason' or a case 'comparable to' the first two grounds in Article 22-4, or if a further amendment alters the retention periods or the grounds for the petition.