Skip to content

FamFG § 159 — Persönliche Anhörung des Kindes (verbatim, post-2022 reform)

Jurisdiction: Germany · Citation: Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen § 159 (as amended by KJSG 2021) · Authoritative source: gesetze-im-internet.de — § 159 FamFG

The child's-hearing provision in German family-procedure law. FamFG § 159 establishes the court's duty to personally hear the child and obtain a personal impression of the child in proceedings concerning the child's person. The 2021 Kinder- und Jugendstärkungsgesetz (KJSG) reform (in force 9 June 2021) removed the prior age-14 mandatory hearing threshold and established the current framework: the court must hear the child personally in all child-affecting proceedings, with narrow exceptions, regardless of age.

§ 159 FamFG is doctrinally significant in PA litigation because the court's personal impression of the child — the persönlicher Eindruck — operates as direct evidential input alongside the welfare-assessment report from the § 158 Verfahrensbeistand and the § 163 Sachverständigengutachten.

Verbatim text (current consolidated, post-KJSG 2021 reform)

§ 159 FamFG — Persönliche Anhörung des Kindes

(1) Das Gericht hat das Kind persönlich anzuhören und sich einen persönlichen Eindruck von dem Kind zu verschaffen.

(2) Von der persönlichen Anhörung sowie davon, sich einen persönlichen Eindruck zu verschaffen, kann das Gericht nur absehen, wenn

  1. ein schwerwiegender Grund dafür vorliegt,

  2. das Kind offensichtlich nicht in der Lage ist, seine Neigungen und seinen Willen kundzutun,

  3. die Neigungen, Bindungen und der Wille des Kindes für die Entscheidung nicht von Bedeutung sind und eine persönliche Anhörung auch nicht aus anderen Gründen angezeigt ist oder

  4. das Verfahren ausschließlich das Vermögen des Kindes betrifft und eine persönliche Anhörung nach der Art der Angelegenheit nicht angezeigt ist.

Satz 1 Nummer 3 ist in Verfahren nach den §§ 1666 und 1666a des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs, die die Person des Kindes betreffen, nicht anzuwenden.

(3) Sieht das Gericht davon ab, das Kind persönlich anzuhören oder sich einen persönlichen Eindruck von dem Kind zu verschaffen, ist dies in der Endentscheidung zu begründen. Erfolgt die persönliche Anhörung des Kindes allein aus schwerwiegenden Gründen nicht unverzüglich, ist sie unverzüglich nachzuholen.

English working translation

§ 159 FamFG — Personal hearing of the child

(1) The court has to personally hear the child and to obtain a personal impression of the child.

(2) The court may dispense with the personal hearing and with obtaining a personal impression only where

  1. there is a serious reason for doing so,

  2. the child is manifestly not in a position to make known his or her preferences and will,

  3. the preferences, attachments, and will of the child are not of importance for the decision and a personal hearing is not indicated on other grounds, or

  4. the proceedings exclusively concern the child's assets and a personal hearing is not indicated by the nature of the matter.

Sentence 1 number 3 is not applicable in proceedings under §§ 1666 and 1666a of the Civil Code which concern the person of the child.

(3) Where the court dispenses with personally hearing the child or with obtaining a personal impression of the child, this is to be reasoned in the final decision. Where the personal hearing of the child fails to occur without delay solely for serious reasons, it is to be conducted without delay thereafter.

Why this matters for PA

  • No age threshold — the post-2022 reform. Pre-KJSG 2021, § 159 imposed mandatory hearing only at age 14 with capacity-based hearing below. The KJSG reform removed the age threshold entirely. The court must now hear the child personally in all child-affecting proceedings, regardless of age, subject only to the narrow subsection (2) exceptions. This is doctrinally significant: Germany has moved from a fixed-age mandatory threshold to a near-universal personal-hearing standard, narrower than the pre-reform DACH pattern.
  • The persönlicher Eindruck obligation. Sich einen persönlichen Eindruck von dem Kind zu verschaffen — to obtain a personal impression of the child. This is doctrinally distinct from a substantive hearing on contested matters: the court must form a direct personal impression of the child, separate from any expressed-view hearing. In PA-pattern cases, the personal-impression obligation operates as a structural protection against the court adjudicating welfare-affecting matters without direct contact with the child.
  • Subsection (2)(2) — capacity exception. Where the child is offensichtlich nicht in der Lage to express preferences and will (typically infants and very young children), the personal hearing can be dispensed with — but the personal-impression obligation under § 159 (1) remains. The Familiengericht must still obtain a personal impression of the child, even where formal hearing is not feasible.
  • Subsection (2)(3) limitation — §§ 1666/1666a exception. Where the proceedings concern Kindeswohlgefährdung under § 1666, the (2)(3) exception (will not material to decision) does not apply. The court must hear the child even where the welfare assessment suggests the child's expressed view does not affect the substantive decision. This is doctrinally significant: in the most severe PA cases (where § 1666 measures are contemplated), the child's hearing is procedurally required notwithstanding the welfare-jeopardy framework.
  • Subsection (3) — reasoning obligation. Where the court dispenses with hearing, dies ist in der Endentscheidung zu begründen. This must be reasoned in the final decision. The reasoning requirement is appealable on the standard of reasonableness — a court that dispensed without adequate reasoning can be reversed.

Procedural application

  • The hearing is conducted by the Familienrichter personally (not delegable to court staff or to the Jugendamt)
  • Typical venue is the court chamber (formal) or a neutral child-friendly room
  • The § 158 Verfahrensbeistand is, by practice, present at the hearing
  • The Jugendamt may also be present but is not required
  • The hearing is age-and-maturity-adapted — younger children typically have shorter, less-formal interactions; older children have substantive conversations
  • The court may invite the child to express views in writing or via drawing for very young children where verbal expression is limited
  • Where the child refuses to attend, the court may have to dispense under (2)(1) "schwerwiegender Grund"

Use in alienating-conduct cases

  • The personal-impression obligation under § 159 (1) is structurally important in PA cases: the court forms its own impression of the child, not solely mediated through the Verfahrensbeistand or welfare-assessment expert
  • Where the child expresses strong rejection of the targeted parent, the court can directly observe indicia of coaching (parroted phrasing, lack of specific detail, age-inappropriate vocabulary) — see child's voice age thresholds comparative Approach B
  • The hearing is procedural input — not outcome-determining. The court considers the child's expressed view alongside welfare assessment, Verfahrensbeistand report, expert evidence, and other sources
  • Where the welfare assessment establishes that the child's expressed view is the product of alienating influence, the court can properly assign reduced weight to the expressed view while still affirming the procedural-rights obligation under § 159

Cross-reference

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):