Original article (in Serbian) was published on 24/4/2026; Author: Milica Blagojević
If a child does not get expensive sneakers, permission to go out, or receives “a smack,” they will be able to report their parents through an app. This is how daily newspaper Večernje novosti described some of the proposed amendments to Serbia’s Family Law in its latest edition, even though the changes are nowhere near as dramatic. For the newspaper, the biggest issue appears to be the abolition of corporal punishment as a disciplinary method, which is envisaged under the new amendments. The paper’s interpretation of the proposed changes is so exaggerated that it creates the impression that children would be able to report their parents for any disagreement.
Serbia’s Family Law has remained unchanged since July 2005. According to the draft amendments themselves, the changes are needed to improve and update the law and to align it with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Some of the proposed amendments, however, have been presented sensationally in parts of the media, with daily Večernje novosti dedicating extensive coverage to the issue.
The newspaper claimed that parents could be reported to authorities for “a slap, a raised voice, discipline,” or even for seemingly trivial situations such as forbidding a child from going out. None of this, however, is actually stated in the draft law.
The core of the amendments cited by Novosti is the prevention of corporal punishment of children, which Serbia’s General Protocol for the Protection of Children from Violence, adopted in 2022, already defines as “a form of physical violence against a child.” The proposed amendments are intended to bring the law into line with that protocol.
The Ministry for Family Welfare and Demography has also rejected such interpretations. It said the provision banning corporal punishment had been misrepresented as if the state planned to remove children from their families and criminally prosecute parents for, as it put it, “slaps and smacks.”
“A false impression has been created in public that any physical contact between a parent and a child would automatically lead to inspections, sanctions, punishments or the removal of children,” the ministry said.
“Broad conclusions are also being drawn that this law allegedly strips parents of the right to raise their children, gives children excessive freedom and destroys the family.”
The ministry stressed that corporal punishment and child abuse must be distinguished, even though both constitute forms of violence.
It explained that in cases of child abuse, courts can deprive parents of parental rights, while the draft law envisages preventive and corrective supervision measures when corporal punishment is used as a disciplinary method.
“The basic idea behind addressing the consequences of corporal punishment is education, not punishment,” the ministry said.
Another argument used by Novosti and its interviewee, lawyer Nebojša Perović, concerned an application that they claimed would be available 24 hours a day and through which children would supposedly be able to report their parents.
The ministry also denied those claims. It said the purpose of the application had been taken out of context and that, due to what it described as “malicious interpretations,” the proposal had not even remained in the draft law after public consultations.
Večernje novosti further claimed that parents would no longer be allowed to limit their children’s time outside the home, that children would be free to socialize with whomever they wanted, and that “economic discrimination” would include parents refusing to buy expensive sneakers their children desired.
These are not actual parts of the law, but rather free interpretations presented as facts.
Specifically, the draft law mentions a ban on denying children economic resources, but this refers to withholding resources necessary for basic living needs or preventing a family member from engaging in economic activities. It does not refer to the trivialized examples cited by Novosti.
The article also focused on proposed changes to the minimum age at which children may independently address institutions and express their views. In line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the current rule – under which only children aged 10 or older can do so – would be abolished, allowing younger children the same right.
However, this does not mean that a five-year-old child would use an app to accuse parents of violence. Rather, it means a child would have the right, “through a third party or institution,” to address a court, state authority, the Ombudsman or another independent body.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić also weighed in on the debate surrounding the draft law. In a video message posted on Instagram, he said lawmakers should take into account the views of people who “love their children and do not want their families to be endangered,” according to daily Danas.
“I will make the final decision on whether to sign the law, but I urge the government to carefully consider all objections and to reach the best conclusions for the country’s future through an open, public and well-argued debate,” Vučić said.
What Would the Amendments to Serbia’s Family Law Change and What Are Experts Criticizing?
In addition to banning corporal punishment of children, the proposed amendments to Serbia’s Family Law would abolish child marriage, grant children under the age of 10 the right to address institutions directly, and tighten procedures for international adoption.
Changes have also been introduced to provisions concerning the acknowledgment of paternity. In addition to previously established procedures, paternity could now also be acknowledged at Serbian diplomatic and consular missions abroad, as well as in the healthcare institution where the child is born.
Child rights experts, however, have raised a different set of concerns about the draft law – concerns that have received far less public attention in recent days.
The Užice Center for Child Rights, for example, submitted detailed objections, some of which relate to the fact that, in its view, the draft does not provide for specialized training for judges and expert witnesses involved in proceedings concerning children.
Among other things, the organization also pointed out that, despite procedural amendments, the law would still allow marriage before the age of 18, which it says is not in line with United Nations recommendations calling for all such exceptions to be abolished entirely.
