Verdict No claim to change model for separated parents

Federal Constitutional Court: Law does not have to provide this as a rule
Parity childcare by separated parents is not mandatory. It can not be inferred from the parental right contained in the Basic Law that the legislator must prescribe the so-called parity exchange model when dealing with children as a rule, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in Karlsruhe in a resolution published on Thursday, April 12, 2018 (ref. 1 BvR 2616/17).

Always listen to the kids too. Image: Markus Bormann - fotolia

In court, a separated, unmarried father from the Rüsselsheim area, who wanted to share with the mother how to deal with the common child in half, had moved.

The problem: The mother did not want this so-called parity exchange model. Although the parents had shared custody, the right to reside, however, lay with the mother, in which the child also lived as a priority.

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main rejected the application of the father. The parents are too little cooperative, so that the exchange model could work for the benefit of the child.

The father thus saw his parent's right enshrined in the Basic Law violated. He complained that the current law does not provide for the change model as a rule. It also follows from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that the parity exchange model must be the "regular support model". The legislature would have to improve here.

The constitutional complaint, however, was unsuccessful. Neither the Basic Law nor the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child make it clear that the legislature must prescribe parity childcare as a rule, the Federal Constitutional Court said in its ruling of 22 January 2018. The OLG is right to have this form of care in the specific case because of the best interests of the child rejected, because the relationship between the parents was "highly controversial".

There is thus no contradiction to a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 1 February 2017 (Ref .: XII ZB 601/15, JurAgentur Report dated 27 February 2017). Although he had determined that even against the will of a parent, the parity model could be arranged. The yardstick, however, is the child's well-being, emphasized the Federal Constitutional Court.

The BGH had also turned off on the child's will. The older the child is, the sooner it can decide with a desired change model. fle / mwo