Skip to content

BGB § 1666a — Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit; Vorrang öffentlicher Hilfen (verbatim)

Jurisdiction: Germany · Citation: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch § 1666a · Authoritative source: gesetze-im-internet.de — § 1666a BGB

The proportionality + subsidiarity provision in German family law. § 1666a BGB establishes two structural constraints on measures under § 1666 Kindeswohlgefährdung: (a) the Trennungsschwelle (separation threshold) — measures involving separation of the child from the family are admissible only where the danger cannot be averted by other means, including public assistance; and (b) the Vorrang öffentlicher Hilfen (precedence of public assistance) — public assistance is structurally prioritised over more intrusive measures.

§ 1666a is doctrinally significant in PA litigation because it operates as a structural protection against premature escalation to family-separation remedies. Even where the welfare-jeopardy threshold under § 1666 is met, the court cannot impose separation measures (foster care, residence reallocation, contact prohibition between parent and child) unless less-invasive measures including public-assistance support have been tried and demonstrated inadequate.

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

§ 1666a BGB — Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit; Vorrang öffentlicher Hilfen

(1) Maßnahmen, mit denen eine Trennung des Kindes von der elterlichen Familie verbunden ist, sind nur zulässig, wenn der Gefahr nicht auf andere Weise, auch nicht durch öffentliche Hilfen, begegnet werden kann. Dies gilt auch, wenn einem Elternteil vorübergehend oder auf unbestimmte Zeit die Nutzung der Familienwohnung untersagt werden soll.

(Satz 3 sets out the further considerations for the duration of family-home use restrictions, including the property-rights status of the affected parent.)

(2) Die gesamte Personensorge darf nur entzogen werden, wenn andere Maßnahmen erfolglos geblieben sind oder wenn anzunehmen ist, dass sie zur Abwendung der Gefahr nicht ausreichen.

English working translation

§ 1666a BGB — Principle of proportionality; precedence of public assistance

(1) Measures involving a separation of the child from the parental family are admissible only where the danger cannot be averted by other means, including by public assistance. This also applies where a parent is to be prohibited, temporarily or for an indefinite period, from using the family residence.

(Sentence 3 sets out further considerations for the duration of family-home use restrictions, including the property-rights status of the affected parent.)

(2) Entire personal-care responsibility may be withdrawn only where other measures have remained unsuccessful or where it is to be presumed that they will not suffice to avert the danger.

Why this matters for PA

  • Subsection (1) — the Trennungsschwelle (separation threshold). Maßnahmen, mit denen eine Trennung des Kindes von der elterlichen Familie verbunden ist, sind nur zulässig, wenn der Gefahr nicht auf andere Weise … begegnet werden kann. Measures involving separation of the child from the family are admissible only where the danger cannot be averted by other means. This is the structural proportionality constraint on § 1666 measures.
  • The Vorrang öffentlicher Hilfen (precedence of public assistance). Auch nicht durch öffentliche Hilfen — including public assistance. The court must consider whether public-assistance frameworks (Jugendamt support, Erziehungsberatung, sozialpädagogische Familienhilfe) can avert the danger before turning to separation-involving measures. This codifies the German subsidiarity principle: state intervention escalates only where less-intrusive support is inadequate.
  • Subsection (1) Satz 2 — Wohnungsverbot. Dies gilt auch, wenn einem Elternteil … die Nutzung der Familienwohnung untersagt werden soll. The principle applies to family-residence-exclusion orders. This is doctrinally distinctive: the German framework requires Verhältnismäßigkeit analysis even for orders excluding a parent from the family home, not just for child-removal orders.
  • Subsection (2) — the absolute cap on total Personensorge withdrawal. Die gesamte Personensorge darf nur entzogen werden, wenn andere Maßnahmen erfolglos geblieben sind. Entire personal-care responsibility may be withdrawn only where other measures have remained unsuccessful or are presumed insufficient. This is the highest threshold in German family law — it operates as a near-prohibition on full-Personensorge withdrawal absent demonstrated failure of less-invasive measures.
  • The structural relationship with § 1666. Where the § 1666 Kindeswohlgefährdung threshold is met, § 1666a operates as the constraint:
  • The court considers the full spectrum of § 1666 (3) measures
  • Less-invasive measures (counselling orders, supervised contact, etc.) must be considered first
  • Separation-involving measures (foster care, residence reallocation) require failure or inadequacy of less-invasive alternatives
  • Total Personensorge withdrawal requires either prior failure of other measures, or assessment that they will not suffice
  • Operational use in sustained PA cases. Where alienating-conduct findings establish welfare-jeopardy under § 1666, § 1666a ensures that the court's response is proportionate:
  • First-tier: counselling orders, Beratung, Jugendamt support
  • Second-tier: supervised contact, Umgangspflegschaft
  • Third-tier: contact prohibition between alienating parent and child, or residence reallocation
  • Apex-tier: total Personensorge withdrawal — only after demonstrated failure of other measures

Procedural application

  • § 1666a operates as a constraint on the Familiengericht's discretion under § 1666
  • The court must reason through the proportionality analysis: why are less-invasive measures inadequate or unavailable?
  • The Jugendamt's report typically addresses available public-assistance frameworks
  • The Sachverständigengutachten under FamFG § 163 addresses whether the danger can be averted by less-invasive means
  • Appellate review on proportionality grounds is available where the welfare assessment supports less-invasive measures

Use in alienating-conduct cases

  • The leading authority on § 1666a in PA-pattern cases is the BGH XII ZB line, including BGH XII ZB 565/2018
  • The graduated-escalation doctrine codified in § 1666a means that PA-pattern cases routinely require sustained engagement with public-assistance frameworks before separation-involving measures are imposed
  • Where the alienating parent has engaged superficially or refused engagement, § 1666a (2) is satisfied — andere Maßnahmen erfolglos geblieben sind
  • Where the alienating parent has not been offered structured public-assistance frameworks, § 1666a (1) operates as a structural bar to separation-involving measures — the Jugendamt must first attempt support

Cross-reference

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):