Skip to content

FamFG § 163 — Sachverständigengutachten (verbatim)

Jurisdiction: Germany · Citation: Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen § 163 · Authoritative source: gesetze-im-internet.de — § 163 FamFG

The expert-evidence provision in German family-procedure law. FamFG § 163 establishes the qualification requirements for court-appointed Sachverständige (psychological / forensic expert assessors) in child-affecting proceedings, and empowers the court to direct the expert to work toward consensus during the assessment process. Together with the Mindestanforderungen an psychologische Sachverständigengutachten im Familienrecht methodology standards (2018), § 163 is the statutory anchor for the German forensic-expert framework — the inquisitorial counterpart to the US-style Daubert/Frye expert-evidence framework analysed in the expert evidence comparative.

§ 163 FamFG completes the German procedural set that operates in PA litigation: § 156 Hinwirken auf Einvernehmen + § 158 Verfahrensbeistand + § 159 Anhörung des Kindes + § 163 = the FamFG procedural framework for child-welfare-focused private-law proceedings.

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

§ 163 FamFG — Sachverständigengutachten

(1) In Verfahren nach § 151 Nummer 1 bis 3 ist das Gutachten durch einen geeigneten Sachverständigen zu erstatten, der mindestens über eine psychologische, psychotherapeutische, kinder- und jugendpsychiatrische, psychiatrische, ärztliche, pädagogische oder sozialpädagogische Berufsqualifikation verfügen soll. Sachverständige mit pädagogischer oder sozialpädagogischer Qualifikation müssen den Erwerb ausreichender diagnostischer und analytischer Kenntnisse durch eine anerkannte Zusatzqualifikation nachweisen.

(2) Das Gericht kann in Verfahren, die die Person des Kindes betreffen, anordnen, dass der Sachverständige bei der Erstellung des Gutachtens auch auf die Herstellung des Einvernehmens zwischen den Beteiligten hinwirken soll.

(3) (weggefallen)

English working translation

§ 163 FamFG — Expert assessments

(1) In proceedings under § 151 numbers 1 to 3, the assessment is to be produced by a suitable expert who should possess at least a psychological, psychotherapeutic, child and adolescent psychiatric, psychiatric, medical, pedagogical, or social-pedagogical professional qualification. Experts with pedagogical or social-pedagogical qualification must demonstrate the acquisition of sufficient diagnostic and analytical knowledge by a recognised supplementary qualification.

(2) In proceedings concerning the person of the child, the court may order that the expert, in producing the assessment, also work toward establishing consensus among the parties.

(3) (repealed)

Why this matters for PA

  • Subsection (1) — qualification requirement. The expert must possess at minimum one of the enumerated professional qualifications: psychological, psychotherapeutic, child-and-adolescent psychiatric, psychiatric, medical, pedagogical, or social-pedagogical. This is the statutory floor for forensic expert evidence in German family proceedings. In PA-pattern cases the practical default is a Diplom-Psychologe or Psychotherapeut with specialist family-court forensic-assessment training.
  • Supplementary-qualification requirement for pedagogical experts. Where the expert is qualified pedagogically or social-pedagogically (rather than psychologically), they must demonstrate ausreichende diagnostische und analytische Kenntnisse through a recognised supplementary qualification. This is a structural protection against under-qualified assessors in welfare-affecting cases.
  • The Mindestanforderungen (2018) interaction. The statutory floor under § 163 (1) is supplemented by the Mindestanforderungen an psychologische Sachverständigengutachten im Familienrecht (2018) methodology standards. The BGH has affirmed that non-compliance with the Mindestanforderungen affects evidential weight — see expert evidence comparative for the cross-jurisdictional context. In PA-pattern cases the Mindestanforderungen require:
  • Anamnese (history-taking) with all parties
  • Direkte Beobachtung (direct observation) of child-parent interactions
  • Psychometrische Verfahren (psychometric tools) where indicated
  • Methodologically transparent reporting
  • Boundaries between psychological assessment and legal opinion
  • Subsection (2) — the conciliation role. Auf die Herstellung des Einvernehmens zwischen den Beteiligten hinwirken. The court can direct the expert to work toward consensus during the assessment. This is doctrinally distinctive — the expert is not solely an evidence-gatherer but can be tasked with active conflict-reduction work alongside the assessment. In PA-pattern cases this can support graduated therapeutic intervention alongside the welfare assessment.
  • The Sachverständige in the procedural triad. The § 163 expert is doctrinally distinct from the § 158 Verfahrensbeistand:
  • The Verfahrensbeistand represents the child's interests as a procedural party
  • The Sachverständige provides expert evidence on welfare assessment
  • Their roles are complementary and the court typically engages both in PA-pattern cases.

Procedural application

  • The court appoints the Sachverständige under § 163 read with § 30 FamFG (Beweiserhebung)
  • The Sachverständige produces a written Gutachten (report) and may be required to attend the hearing for cross-examination
  • The expert's methodology is governed by the BPSV professional standards and the Mindestanforderungen
  • Where the expert engages with the (2) conciliation role, the court must structure the assessment timeline to accommodate that work
  • The expert's report is shared with the parties; the parties may file written responses challenging methodology, findings, or conclusions

Use in alienating-conduct cases

  • The Sachverständigengutachten is the principal evidential pathway for PA findings in German family proceedings
  • The expert's assessment of (a) the child's autonomy in expressing rejection of the targeted parent, (b) the resident parent's facilitation conduct, © the welfare-impact of established conduct is what the court relies on for substantive determinations
  • The Bundesgerichtshof's BGH XII ZB 565/2018 and subsequent jurisprudence have emphasised the importance of methodologically compliant expert assessment in alienating-conduct findings
  • Where the expert finds alienating conduct established but recommends therapeutic intervention rather than custody reallocation, the court can engage § 156 Beratung measures
  • Where the expert finds Kindeswohlgefährdung established, § 1666 BGB measures are engaged

Relationship to other procedural provisions

  • § 155 FamFG — Beschleunigungsgebot (expedited proceedings)
  • § 156 FamFG — Hinwirken auf Einvernehmen — see § 156 entry
  • § 158 FamFG — Verfahrensbeistand — see § 158 entry
  • § 159 FamFG — Anhörung des Kindes — see § 159 entry
  • § 151 FamFG — Kindschaftssachen (the proceedings to which § 163 applies)
  • § 30 FamFG — general Beweiserhebung framework

Cross-reference

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):