Skip to content

BGH XII ZB 565/15 — German Federal Court of Justice on Coached Child Wishes

TL;DR. German Federal Court of Justice ruling addressing how family courts must evaluate a child's stated wishes when there is evidence of alienating influence by one parent. The Court held that the child's hearing right under FamFG § 159 cannot be the sole basis for decisions when documented patterns of one-parent influence suggest the wishes may not be authentic. Aligns Germany with the ECHR Solarino line.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-16 · License: CC BY 4.0

Citation

BGH, Beschluss vom 30. Mai 2018 — XII ZB 565/15

Holding

The Bundesgerichtshof clarified:

  1. The child's stated wishes are one factor, not the only factor — Family courts may not treat the child's expressed preference as automatically decisive when contextual evidence suggests alienating influence
  2. The court must investigate the formation of the wish — courts have an affirmative duty to consider whether stated wishes reflect authentic preference or one-parent influence
  3. FamFG § 159 (child's hearing) sets a procedural floor, not a substantive ceiling — hearing the child is required; treating that hearing as the dispositive evidence is not
  4. Expert assessment may be ordered when the source-of-wishes question is contested

Significance

This decision is the German doctrinal anchor for the same principle that:

  • Solarino v. Italy (ECHR 2017) established at the European level
  • Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) operationalized in England
  • Cassazione 9691/2022 affirmed in Italy
  • Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448 incorporated into UK abuse+alienation dual-frame

For German PA cases, this gives targeted parents a clear domestic-supreme-court citation: the child's stated wish to refuse contact, standing alone, is not sufficient when alienating influence is documented.

Practical use

Sample German motion language:

Gemäß BGH XII ZB 565/15 (Beschluss vom 30. Mai 2018) ist das Familiengericht verpflichtet, die Bildung des kindlichen Willens zu untersuchen, wenn Anhaltspunkte für eine einseitige elterliche Einflussnahme vorliegen. Der geäußerte Wille des Kindes ist ein Faktor unter mehreren, nicht das alleinige Kriterium für die Sorgerechtsentscheidung. Das Gericht wird respektvoll gebeten, ein Sachverständigengutachten zur Frage der Willensbildung einzuholen.

The German PA jurisprudential context

German family-law treatment of PA has evolved:

  • Historically cautious — German courts skeptical of "PAS" framing
  • BGH 2018 (this decision) — affirmative duty to investigate source-of-wishes
  • 2020s — increasing acceptance of behavior-pattern framing (consistent with international convergence)
  • BGB § 1666 (Kindeswohlgefährdung) — grounds for state intervention when documented alienation rises to child-welfare endangerment

How this interacts with international jurisprudence

German PA cases operating in cross-border / EU contexts benefit from the alignment of:

  • BGH XII ZB 565/15 (Germany)
  • Solarino v. Italy (ECHR — binding via Article 8)
  • Re C [2023] (England)
  • Cassazione 9691/2022 (Italy)
  • Brussels IIb (2019/1111) — cross-recognition framework

All four reach the same conclusion: child's stated wishes cannot be the sole basis when alienating influence is documented.

Citing posts

# Post
13 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/echr-article-8-eu-legal-weapon
17 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/pa-vs-estrangement-courts
19 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/custody-evaluators-prepare
58 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles

Primary source

  • Bundesgerichtshof: https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de
  • Decision database (juris/openjur): search "XII ZB 565/15"

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice. German family-law matters require qualified Rechtsanwalt in Familienrecht.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com