Skip to content

FamFG § 156 — Hinwirken auf Einvernehmen (verbatim)

Jurisdiction: Germany · Citation: Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen § 156 · Authoritative source: gesetze-im-internet.de — § 156 FamFG

The procedural anchor for German family-court mediation/counselling orders in custody, contact, and child-handover proceedings. FamFG § 156 is the statutory foundation for the Cochemer Praxis working model — the integrated multidisciplinary family-court approach analysed in the therapeutic intervention paradigms comparative entry. The provision requires the court to work toward consensus (Einvernehmen) at every stage of proceedings, and empowers the court to order mediation information sessions, Erziehungsberatung (parenting counselling), and interim orders.

§ 156 FamFG is doctrinally critical in PA litigation because it provides the procedural framework through which court-ordered therapeutic intervention operates — the structural mechanism that distinguishes the German integrated-therapy model from the US separate-track reunification-therapy approach.

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

§ 156 FamFG — Hinwirken auf Einvernehmen

(1) Das Gericht soll in Kindschaftssachen, die die elterliche Sorge bei Trennung und Scheidung, den Aufenthalt des Kindes, das Umgangsrecht oder die Herausgabe des Kindes betreffen, in jeder Lage des Verfahrens auf ein Einvernehmen der Beteiligten hinwirken, wenn dies dem Kindeswohl nicht widerspricht. Es weist auf Möglichkeiten der Beratung durch die Beratungsstellen und -dienste der Träger der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe insbesondere zur Entwicklung eines einvernehmlichen Konzepts für die Wahrnehmung der elterlichen Sorge und der elterlichen Verantwortung hin. Das Gericht kann anordnen, dass die Eltern einzeln oder gemeinsam an einem kostenfreien Informationsgespräch über Mediation oder über eine sonstige Möglichkeit der außergerichtlichen Konfliktbeilegung bei einer von dem Gericht benannten Person oder Stelle teilnehmen und eine Bestätigung hierüber vorlegen. Es kann ferner anordnen, dass die Eltern an einer Beratung nach Satz 2 teilnehmen.

(2) Erzielen die Beteiligten Einvernehmen über den Umgang oder die Herausgabe des Kindes, ist die einvernehmliche Regelung als Vergleich aufzunehmen, wenn das Gericht diese billigt (gerichtlich gebilligter Vergleich).

(3) Kann in Kindschaftssachen, die den Aufenthalt des Kindes, das Umgangsrecht oder die Herausgabe des Kindes betreffen, eine einvernehmliche Regelung im Termin nach § 155 Abs. 2 nicht erreicht werden, hat das Gericht mit den Beteiligten und dem Jugendamt den Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung zu erörtern. Wird die Teilnahme an einer Beratung, an einem kostenfreien Informationsgespräch über Mediation oder einer sonstigen Möglichkeit der außergerichtlichen Konfliktbeilegung oder eine schriftliche Begutachtung angeordnet, soll das Gericht in Kindschaftssachen, die das Umgangsrecht betreffen, den Umgang durch einstweilige Anordnung regeln oder ausschließen. Das Gericht soll das Kind vor dem Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung persönlich anhören.

English working translation

§ 156 FamFG — Working toward consensus

(1) In children's-matters proceedings concerning parental responsibility on separation and divorce, the residence of the child, the contact right, or the handover of the child, the court shall work toward consensus among the parties at every stage of the proceedings, where this does not contradict the welfare of the child. It shall draw attention to possibilities of counselling through the counselling centres and services of the youth-welfare providers, particularly for developing a consensual concept for the exercise of parental responsibility and parental responsibility. The court may order that the parents, individually or jointly, attend a free information session on mediation or other possibility of out-of-court conflict resolution before a person or body named by the court, and produce confirmation thereof. It may further order that the parents attend counselling pursuant to sentence 2.

(2) If the parties reach consensus on contact or the handover of the child, the consensual arrangement is to be recorded as a settlement where the court approves it (court-approved settlement).

(3) Where, in children's-matters proceedings concerning the residence of the child, the contact right, or the handover of the child, a consensual arrangement cannot be reached at the hearing under § 155 paragraph 2, the court shall discuss with the parties and the youth welfare authority the issuance of an interim order. Where attendance at counselling, at a free information session on mediation or other possibility of out-of-court conflict resolution, or written expert assessment is ordered, the court shall, in children's-matters proceedings concerning the contact right, regulate contact by interim order or exclude it. The court should personally hear the child before issuing an interim order.

Why this matters for PA

  • Subsection (1) — the consensus-orientation duty. Das Gericht soll … auf ein Einvernehmen der Beteiligten hinwirken. The court has a procedural duty to work toward consensus at every stage. This is the structural foundation of the Cochem-model integrated approach — proceedings are not framed as zero-sum adjudication but as a guided consensus-building process with the welfare assessment as the operative constraint.
  • Subsection (1) Satz 3 + 4 — mandatory information and counselling. The court can order mandatory attendance at:
  • A free Informationsgespräch über Mediation (mediation information session)
  • An außergerichtliche Konfliktbeilegung (out-of-court conflict resolution) information session
  • Beratung (counselling) — the Erziehungsberatung equivalent
  • The "shall" formulation in Das Gericht kann anordnen (court may order) is permissive on its face but operationally treated as a strong default — in contested PA-pattern cases the court routinely orders Beratung as a procedural step.
  • Subsection (2) — court-approved settlements. Where the parties reach consensus, the agreement is recorded as a gerichtlich gebilligter Vergleich. The "approval" is welfare-mediated — the court does not rubber-stamp; it assesses welfare compatibility. In PA-pattern cases, this provides a procedural safeguard against the alienating parent pressuring the targeted parent into a one-sided "consensus" that the court would not approve on welfare grounds.
  • Subsection (3) — interim orders and the child's hearing. Where consensus is not reached at the § 155 (2) hearing, the court must discuss interim orders with the parties and Jugendamt. The Anhörung des Kindes (personal hearing of the child) before an interim order is doctrinally significant — see child's voice age thresholds comparative for the Germany age-14 mandatory threshold under § 159 FamFG.
  • The Cochem-model procedural anchor. § 156 FamFG is the statutory codification of the Cochem-Zell working-group practice. The 2009 FamFG enactment formalised the practice as nationwide procedural law. In PA litigation, this means the integrated-therapeutic approach is not a regional practice but a statutory framework binding on every German Familiengericht.

Relationship to other procedural provisions

  • § 155 FamFG — Beschleunigungsgebot (expedited-proceedings principle); requires first hearing within one month of application — the procedural acceleration that the Cochem model relies upon
  • § 158 FamFG — Verfahrensbeistand (guardian ad litem for the child)
  • § 159 FamFG — Anhörung des Kindes (child's hearing); age-14 mandatory + capacity-based below
  • § 163 FamFG — Sachverständigengutachten (psychological expert assessment) — the technical-expert evidential pathway

Together these provisions form the German procedural framework for child-welfare-focused private-law family proceedings — see expert evidence admissibility comparative.

Use in alienating-conduct cases

  • The § 156 (1) Beratung order is a principal procedural tool in alienating-conduct cases: the court can require both parents to attend court-counselling as a structural intervention before adjudicating on contact/custody
  • Non-engagement with court-ordered Beratung is itself probative — the welfare-assessment professional reports on engagement quality, and the court treats non-engagement as evidence of incapacity to put the child's needs first
  • The § 156 (3) interim-order pathway — Wird die Teilnahme an einer Beratung … angeordnet, soll das Gericht … den Umgang durch einstweilige Anordnung regeln oder ausschließen — operates as the procedural foundation for graduated remedy escalation
  • The Cochem model's effectiveness in PA-pattern cases relies on § 156's procedural integration of counselling and adjudication

Cross-reference

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):