Statement: Draft Bill for the Reform of Child Custody and Visitation Law (Child Custody Law Modernisation Act – KiMoG) | Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Täterarbeit Häusliche Gewalt e.V.

Preliminary remark:

The Federal Association for Domestic Violence Perpetrator Work (BAG TäHG) represents 85 perpetrator work facilities with 117 counselling locations in Germany as an umbrella organisation. In the following, the BAG TäHG comments on the planned reform of child custody law, with particular consideration for the areas of protection against violence and perpetrator work.

Introduction:

The LeSuBiA dark figure study published in 2026 concludes that every second person experienced physical violence as a child and every fourth person witnessed violence between their parents or guardians.[1] Both direct experiences of violence and witnessing domestic violence between caregivers have a massive impact on the development of children and young people.[2] The consequences are diverse, not always immediately recognisable, and range from learning difficulties to trauma or physical health damage. Furthermore, children are at high risk of adopting violence as a conflict behaviour and exercising violence themselves in later relationships or being affected by it. Many people affected by violence and those who use violence experienced domestic violence themselves as children.

Although averting threats to child welfare is a central task of family courts, domestic violence has so far been insufficiently taken into account in custody and visitation proceedings. The lack of harmonisation between family law, protection against violence, and child protection, as well as a lack of knowledge about domestic violence and its dynamics, has led in previous practice to the ensuring of sufficient protection against violence for children and parents affected by violence being ignored or subordinated to custody and visitation regulations.[3] As the GREVIO report on the implementation status of the Istanbul Convention in Germany 2022 also criticises, parents and children affected by violence are thereby insufficiently protected from domestic violence or exposed to the danger of renewed violence in particularly high-risk constellations.[4]

The BAG TäHG therefore welcomes the draft bill now presented, which contains important and overdue reform proposals for protection against violence. At the same time, the KiMoG in its current version excludes central aspects or remains too vague in important places. In order for the project to achieve its goal of improving protection against violence and strengthening children’s rights, and to lead to an improvement of the current situation in practice, improvements must be made at decisive points. The BAG TäHG demands:

Mandatory referral to perpetrator work: In the interest of violence prevention, the referral to perpetrator work in cases of domestic violence according to § 1632 BGB-E should take place as a rule, instead of being one option among many subject to the subjective assessment of the court. As current studies by the German Institute for Human Rights confirm, existing legal options for ordering perpetrator work are rarely used due to excessive discretionary power and ignorance about perpetrator work.[5] Clear allocation criteria are therefore crucial to exploit the potential of perpetrator work and to sustainably protect children and parents affected by violence. Participation in a social training course should be anchored as a prerequisite for visitation in cases of domestic violence. Furthermore, clarification is needed that referrals are made exclusively to facilities that are oriented towards victim protection and meet the requirements of the Istanbul Convention.

Compulsory training for family court judges: Not only regarding the referral to perpetrator work, but in custody and visitation decisions in general, it is evident that family court judges and other actors involved in the proceedings have no or only insufficient knowledge of domestic violence, its (gender-specific) causes, and dynamics of violence. However, these are the prerequisites for applying the KiMoG in the sense of protection against violence. The BAG TäHG therefore demands compulsory training for family court judges and all professional groups involved in the proceedings. The planned amendment to the Courts Constitution Act as part of another government legislative project is a first step, but not sufficient for this purpose.

Standardised risk management and interdisciplinary case conferences: Decisions on custody and visitation require a sound analysis and the consideration of all signs of domestic violence. This includes not only sufficient knowledge of the above-mentioned subject areas but also a uniform risk analysis involving the relevant actors in protection against violence. To date, there is no nationwide standardised, interdisciplinary case management in Germany, which conversely means a further risk to children and parents affected by violence. The BAG TäHG therefore demands standardised risk assessments and the establishment of interdisciplinary case conferences according to nationwide uniform standards.

The BAG TäHG comments on individual paragraphs of the draft bill as follows:

Regarding § 1632 BGB-E: Domestic Violence

The definition of domestic violence in the sense of the Istanbul Convention provided in § 1632 BGB-E is expressly welcomed. Domestic violence is a vague term that is defined neither uniformly nor bindingly in the German-speaking world. It is all the more important to include a clear definition that is in line with the Council of Europe Convention, which Germany has committed to implementing.

The fact that family courts must take specifically named criteria into account in decisions under the title of Parental Custody is also to be assessed positively (§ 1632 para. 2 numbers 1 to 7 BGB-E). However, it remains unclear when and according to which aspects the named criteria should be examined. This also applies to the newly formulated principles of visitation in § 1680 BGB-E. The explicit restriction of the so-called presumption of regularity is to be assessed positively. In cases of violence against a parent, it should then be examined according to the criteria listed in § 1632 BGB-E whether the violence has an impact on the child. Consequently, it should rather be examined here whether the violence has no impact on the child, and a threat to child welfare according to § 1626 paragraph 3 number 5 BGB-E should be assumed as a rule.

As a basis for the corresponding risk assessments by family courts, which include, among other things, the frequency, duration, and intensity of the violence, the risk of recurrence, or the child’s (witnessing) experience of the violence (§ 1632 paragraph 2 numbers 1 to 3 BGB-E), uniform risk analyses, written cooperation structures, and interdisciplinary case conferences must be established. The alternative report of the Istanbul Convention Alliance concludes the following regarding the implementation of Article 51 Risk Analysis and Risk Management: “There are examples of good regional practice, but no nationwide uniform structures and procedures and no uniform standards for systematic case management.”[6] Furthermore, a goal-oriented and standardised implementation in practice requires that the actors involved are comprehensively trained to recognise and soundly evaluate the dynamics and facets of domestic violence. Currently, family court judges are generally not obliged to participate in training on domestic and gender-based violence. Only in isolated cases do they possess the necessary expertise on domestic violence and its forms of appearance.

The measures in the area of domestic violence named in the draft can only lead to a sustainable improvement in protection against violence in practice if a nationwide uniform case and risk management is established and compulsory training for family court judges on the subject of domestic violence is introduced. The BAG TäHG therefore demands that efforts to establish standardised risk analyses and nationwide uniform, interdisciplinary case conferences be intensified and that a training obligation for family court judges on domestic violence be introduced. In the long term, the BAG TäHG calls for specialised courts for gender-based violence based on the Spanish model.

Explicitly regarding § 1632 paragraph 2 number 5 BGB-E:

In addition to other criteria, the family court’s decision should take into account “the behaviour shown after the violent event by the person who exercised domestic violence”. In the explanatory memorandum, it is considered decisive whether the parent who used violence critically reflects on their behaviour and changes it sustainably. For this purpose, a variety of different measures are named as measures that suggest a willingness to change, including sincere remorse, the use of counselling, participation in anti-violence training, participation in perpetrator work, participation in violence prevention counselling, the acceptance of social assistance, or the use of psychological support. Ongoing potential for aggression and a lack of accountability can be taken into account negatively.

From the perspective of the BAG TäHG, it is necessary to clarify that there are significant differences between the listed measures. Long-term social training courses and perpetrator programmes according to the BAG TäHG standard[7] differ significantly in terms of duration, central content, and the counselling setting from anti-violence training and the newly established violence prevention counselling. The multi-month duration is central to achieving the sustainable behavioural changes named in the draft. Participation in an initial interview or the start of a general anti-violence training does not automatically suggest a willingness to change behaviour. As correct as it is to allow the behaviour shown by the person who used violence after the violent event to flow into the decision, a standardised risk assessment and a sound analysis of the situation are just as important to prevent further violence. A prerequisite for this is that family court judges have sufficient knowledge of equality-oriented perpetrator work according to the recognised standard of the BAG TäHG, its central content and framework conditions, as well as differences to other intervention formats. Following the recommendations of the German Institute for Human Rights, the BAG TäHG therefore demands compulsory, standardised, continuous, and qualified training for all professional groups involved in perpetrator work.[8] In individual cases, court decisions should take into account the expertise of specialists from perpetrator work.

Regarding § 1626 BGB-E: Child Welfare

In the interest of violence prevention, it is essential to take domestic violence against children, but also against parents or guardians, into account in custody and visitation law and to give top priority to protection from further violence. The BAG TäHG therefore expressly welcomes the naming of significant children’s rights in § 1626. In this context, the clarification provided for in § 1626 paragraph 3 number 5 BGB-E, that child welfare also includes “protection from assault and violence as well as from witnessing these against caregivers” and that violence is to be understood in the sense of the Istanbul Convention, represents a central improvement of the current legal situation. Domestic violence is always also a threat to child welfare and must be treated as such in court proceedings. This in turn requires that family court judges possess the necessary expertise.

On the referral to perpetrator work according to § 1666 BGB-E and § 1684 BGB-E:

The BAG TäHG welcomes the explicit inclusion of perpetrator work as a possible court measure in custody and visitation proceedings. In the interest of violence prevention and against the background of the risk of transgenerational transmission of violence, a stronger focus on addressing the causes of violence is essential.

Family courts can already oblige persons who use violence to participate in a social training course under current law. However, family courts have so far hardly made use of this possibility. In 2024, only 5% of persons who use violence came to the perpetrator work facilities of the BAG TäHG via family courts.[9] Furthermore, the long-term orientation of a perpetrator programme is not always taken into account in the directives that have taken place. The ordering of a few individual sessions is only limitedly suitable for the intended confrontation with harmful violent acts and a sustainable change in behaviour.

Vague formulations on the possibility of ordering perpetrator work, which do not define any criteria for an order and provide for the individual assessment of judges as the sole basis for decision-making, are therefore completely insufficient for both § 1666 BGB-E and § 1684 BGB-E. Here, the BAG TäHG demands improvements that take into account the need for standardised procedures for the systematic and timely processing of the causes of violence:

§ 1666 BGB-E: If domestic violence according to § 1632 BGB-E is established in the course of a proceeding, the court must, in the interest of violence prevention, regularly examine the order to participate in a social training course or violence prevention counselling. If a court measure according to § 1666 paragraph 3 numbers 3 to 7 BGB-E is ordered due to domestic violence, participation in a social training course or violence prevention counselling is to be ordered automatically. If the court deems it necessary in cases of domestic violence to issue restraining or contact orders to safeguard child welfare in the sense of paragraph 3 numbers 3 to 7 BGB-E, the necessity to hold the person who used violence accountable is given in any case. Through a regular and timely connection to a qualified perpetrator programme, cycles of violence can then be broken and the long-term safeguarding of child welfare supported.

§ 1684 BGB-E: The BAG TäHG demands a similar logic for § 1684 BGB-E, aimed at the systematisation and unification of the order. If domestic violence according to § 1632 BGB-E is established in the context of visitation proceedings and visitation is restricted or excluded for the welfare of the child (para. 1) or for the protection of the parent affected by violence (para. 3), perpetrator work is to be ordered as a rule as an intervention and prevention measure. This applies in particular if the family court issues entry, approach, or contact bans against the parent who used violence according to paragraph 4 numbers 1 to 5. But also for other restrictions, e.g. in connection with a visitation guardianship, the ordering of social training courses or violence prevention counselling is sensible. Short-term protective measures must inevitably be supplemented by long-term instruments. The legislative project can only live up to its claim if a binding framework for the regular ordering of perpetrator work is created here.

For the effectiveness of perpetrator work, ensuring the implementation of perpetrator work programmes according to binding criteria and specifications is crucial. These are described in Germany in the Standard for Work with Perpetrators in Cases of Domestic Violence developed by the BAG TäHG, the BMFSFJ, and women’s support services.[10] In order to prevent an ordering practice that is not in the spirit of the reform project and the Istanbul Convention, an explicit clarification must be made here. For a reliable implementation of the KiMoG and sustainable cooperation between family courts and perpetrator work, it is furthermore essential that family court judges receive mandatory training on local perpetrator work services, their framework conditions, and content priorities. [11]

A goal-oriented implementation of the planned measures inevitably requires the overdue and mandatory provision for Germany of a nationwide supply of perpetrator work according to Article 16 of the Istanbul Convention. As GREVIO 2022[12], the Reporting Office on Gender-Based Violence 2024[13], and the Needs Analysis for the Prevention of Gender-Based and Domestic Violence 2025[14] established, standardised perpetrator work services are neither available in sufficient numbers nor adequately funded. Against the background of the numbers of domestic violence rising for years and the extreme impact of violence on children, this state of affairs is unacceptable. There is an acute need for action here beyond the legislative project.

[1]https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Publikationsreihen/Forschungsergebnisse/260210_LeSuBiA_Ergebnisse_I.html?nn=261272, p. 115 (accessed on 18/06/2026).

[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-66900-6_22, pp. 321-335 (accessed on 25/06/2026).

[3] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/publikationen/detail/haeusliche-gewalt-im-umgangs-und-sorgerecht (accessed on 17/06/2026).

[4] https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/resource/blob/202386/3699c9bad150e4c4ff78ef54665a85c2/grevio-evaluierungsbericht-istanbul-konvention-2022-data.pdf, p. 74ff. (accessed on 17/06/2026).

[5] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Analyse_Studie/Analyse_Taeterarbeit.pdf, p. 5 (accessed 25/06/2026).

[6] https://www.buendnis-istanbul-konvention.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/DE_ONLINE_251120_Alternativbericht_2025_1.pdf, p. 113 (accessed on 23/06/2026).

[7] https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/resource/blob/95364/b8e655a98504ca7aa3e3cc4e1b7e16c0/standards-taeterarbeit-haeusliche-gewalt-data.pdf (accessed on 23/06/2026).

[8] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Analyse_Studie/Analyse_Taeterarbeit.pdf, p. 37 (accessed on 25/06/2026).

[9] https://www.bag-taeterarbeit.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/BAG-Statistik-Publikation_A4_v05.pdf, p. 25 (accessed on 23/06/2026).

[10] https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/resource/blob/95364/b8e655a98504ca7aa3e3cc4e1b7e16c0/standards-taeterarbeit-haeusliche-gewalt-data.pdf (accessed on 23/06/2026).

[11] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Analyse_Studie/Analyse_Taeterarbeit.pdf, p. 37 (accessed on 25/06/2026).

[12] https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/resource/blob/202386/3699c9bad150e4c4ff78ef54665a85c2/grevio-evaluierungsbericht-istanbul-konvention-2022-data.pdf, p. 41 ff. (accessed on 23/06/2026)