Preliminary remark:
As a pro-feminist umbrella organisation, the Federal Working Group for Work with Perpetrators of Domestic Violence (BAG TäHG) represents 85 perpetrator work facilities with 117 counselling locations in Germany. We would like to thank the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) for the opportunity to comment on the ministerial draft.
Introduction:
Despite the serious consequences for parents affected by violence and their children, domestic violence has so far been insufficiently taken into account in custody and contact 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, often leads in current legal practice to protection against violence being subordinated to custody and contact regulations.[1] As the GREVIO report on the implementation status of the Istanbul Convention in Germany 2022 also criticises, parents and children affected by violence are consequently insufficiently protected from domestic violence or are exposed to the risk of renewed violence in particularly high-risk constellations.[2]
The BAG TäHG therefore welcomes the BMJV’s current reform projects, which aim to improve child protection and protection against violence in custody and contact proceedings. The BAG TäHG has written a separate statement on the draft of the Act to Modernise Child Law (KiMoG) and pointed out the need for necessary improvements. Below, the BAG TäHG comments on the ministerial draft of a Law on Improving the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence, Strengthening the Position of the Child in Proceedings, and Increasing Procedural Efficiency. The BAG TäHG welcomes the present legislative initiative but calls for more extensive regulations at key points to improve protection against violence.
Article 1: Amendment to the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Voluntary Jurisdiction
Regarding §§ 13a and 13b FamFG-E:
Data collection and research on domestic violence is enshrined in Article 11 of the Istanbul Convention, which is binding for Germany. Relevant, precisely disaggregated data on domestic violence must be collected regularly and research must be promoted.[3] The Violence Assistance Act (Gewalthilfegesetz) passed in 2025 also provides for annual federal statistics on protection and counselling under this law.[4]
Against this background, the possibility planned in §13a FamFG-E to transfer personal data from court files to universities and other scientific institutions as well as public bodies is to be fully welcomed. Purposeful implementation in the sense of the Istanbul Convention requires uniform and systematic data collection. This is currently not yet the case. In its ‘Violence against Women Monitor’, the Reporting Office on Gender-Based Violence of the German Institute for Human Rights concludes that there is still no reliable data on the incidence of gender-based and domestic violence.[5] Regarding the consideration of domestic violence in custody and contact proceedings, there is “hardly any data or comprehensive studies” available.[6]
The BAG TäHG therefore calls for the standardisation and expansion of data collected by family courts. A systematic and uniform collection of data explicitly relating to domestic violence is essential for fulfilling Article 11 of the Istanbul Convention and creating a meaningful database. This includes socio-demographic information on the persons involved, the forms of violence exercised, the outcomes of proceedings, and decisions regarding custody and contact in cases of domestic violence. Furthermore, the BAG TäHG calls for a standardised recording of whether the court ordered participation in a social training course or violence prevention counselling for the person exercising violence, and whether the ordered measure was fully completed or terminated prematurely. As our own federal statistics show, family courts only make use of the existing possibilities for ordering perpetrator work in individual cases. In 2024, only 5% of persons exercising violence came to the BAG TäHG perpetrator work facilities via family courts.[7] Recording the reasons for not ordering perpetrator work in proceedings where domestic violence was established is recommended in order to be able to develop targeted solution strategies and improve protection against violence.
Regarding §§ 156 and 156a FamFG-E:
Working towards mutual agreement and maintaining joint custody have so far been central principles in custody and contact proceedings. In cases of domestic violence, these contradict Article 31 of the Istanbul Convention, as such efforts to reach agreement mean an additional risk for the persons concerned and can result in the perpetuation of violence against children and parents.
The clarification provided for in § 156 Para. 2 FamFG-E, according to which the court must regularly refrain from working towards mutual agreement in cases of domestic violence and that amicable arrangements must not contradict the best interests of the child, is therefore expressly welcomed. Together with the specification of the child’s best interests planned in the KiMoG, taking into account violence against a parent and the restriction of the so-called ‘standard presumption’ in cases of domestic violence, important reform needs that experts have been calling for for years are addressed here. In § 156a FamFG-E, it is subsequently explicitly emphasised that the court must pursue its duty of ex officio investigation (§26 FamFG) at an early stage if there are indications of domestic violence in child matters. Risks and protection needs for parents and children affected by violence must be determined and the necessary measures taken.
It remains unclear what is meant by “indications” and how these are to be determined by family courts. For a purposeful implementation of this new regulation, it is not “only” family judges who must have sufficient knowledge of domestic violence and its manifestations. Furthermore, a systematic, well-founded analysis of the respective case is needed, taking into account all signs of domestic violence. This requires uniform case and risk management involving all actors involved. This has only happened in isolated cases in Germany so far: “There are examples of good regional practice, but no nationwide uniform structures and procedures and no uniform standards for systematic case management.”[8] A purposeful and nationwide high-quality implementation of §§ 156 and 156a FamFG-E according to Article 51 of the Istanbul Convention is not possible under current conditions. The BAG TäHG therefore calls for efforts to establish standardised risk analyses and nationwide uniform, interdisciplinary case conferences, with the regular involvement of perpetrator work and victim support, to be urgently intensified. Family courts need action guidelines, binding cooperation structures, and uniform risk management in order to recognise domestic violence and initiate necessary intervention and prevention measures.
Regarding §§ 152, 170 and 232 FamFG-E:
The ministerial draft provides for the introduction of an optional venue for better confidentiality of the place of residence of the parent affected by violence in child, parentage, and child maintenance matters. However, it is incomprehensible that the requirements specified in §§ 152, 170 and 232 FamFG-E for an optional venue are designed to be high-threshold. According to the current draft, the possibility of keeping the place of residence secret should only be available to those affected if they have already taken active action against the violence inflicted on them (fleeing to a women’s shelter, application for protection against violence proceedings/protection order, expulsion/contact ban). This restriction is justified, among other things, by the principle of priority and acceleration in child law proceedings.
However, many cases are not known to the authorities or even to the social environment of those affected. Fleeing to a women’s shelter or taking legal action against the violence are often last resorts for those affected, preceded by a long period of being affected by violence. For improved protection against violence, the possibility of an optional venue should therefore be expanded. The possibility of keeping the current place of residence secret should always be available to parents affected by violence if the court establishes domestic violence according to § 1632 BGB-E. This naturally includes the criteria named in the current draft. The principle of priority and acceleration must not, as in previous practice, be at the expense of comprehensive protection against violence. The BAG TäHG calls for the inclusion of a corresponding, broadly formulated regulation in the legislative text.
Regarding § 158d FamFG-E:
The appointment of a guardian ad litem for minor children is regulated in § 158 FamFG. With the addition of §158d FamFG-E, parents are obliged to enable personal discussions with the appointed guardian ad litem. it is not clear to what extent this new regulation is intended to contribute to an improvement in child protection and protection against violence. The BAG TäHG agrees here with the assessments of the German Women Lawyers’ Association from 2024 and rejects this new regulation. [9]
Rather, from the perspective of the BAG TäHG, there is a need for reform regarding the qualification of guardians ad litem in cases of domestic violence according to § 1632 BGB-E. In order to effectively represent the interests of the child and contribute to the protection of the child and the parent affected by violence, guardians ad litem must be trained in domestic violence and its gender-specificity, its manifestations, and the effects on (co-)affected children. A statutory training obligation for guardians ad litem is necessary to ensure professional work by guardians ad litem that is oriented towards the protection of the children/parents affected by violence. The training must be in line with the Istanbul Convention and adopt a child-well-being-centred and gender-sensitive stance. Here, the BAG TäHG urgently calls for new legal regulations that define clear minimum standards for guardians ad litem in cases of domestic violence. In addition, the possibility of dismissing guardians ad litem must be created if they do not meet the minimum standards or are rejected by the child.
Regarding § 160 FamFG:
With regard to § 160 FamFG, which provides for the personal hearing of parents in child matters, the current ministerial draft contains no proposals for changes. From the perspective of the BAG TäHG, an explicit reference should be made here to §§ 33 Para. 1 Sentence 2 and 157 Para. 2 Sentence 1 FamFG, according to which separate hearings are to be conducted if this is necessary for the protection of a participant or for other reasons.
Article 2: Amendment to the Courts Constitution Act
An elementary prerequisite for improving protection against violence in custody and contact proceedings is sufficient knowledge of domestic violence among all professional groups involved in the proceedings. A purposeful implementation of the planned new regulations inevitably requires that the actors involved are comprehensively trained to understand the intention of the regulations and to be able to recognise and soundly assess the dynamics and facets of domestic violence in practice.
There is an urgent need for action here. Currently, family judges are not obliged to participate in training on domestic and gender-based violence. Only in isolated cases do they have the necessary expertise on domestic violence and its manifestations.[10] Other relevant professional groups such as public prosecutors, police officers, experts, youth welfare office employees, or guardians ad litem also do not have the expertise necessary for adequate consideration of protection against violence across the board.
The planned amendment in § 23b Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 GVG-E addresses this blatant grievance. Judges in family matters should not only have verifiable knowledge in relevant legal areas (family law, child law, protection against violence law, family procedural law) and in (child) psychology. Knowledge of the dynamics and effects of domestic violence and communication with children is also required.
From the perspective of the BAG TäHG, this welcome impulse must be sharpened and expanded. The BAG TäHG calls for a general training obligation for family judges on domestic violence in accordance with the contents of the Istanbul Convention. Fundamental knowledge of domestic violence and its gender-specificity, structural causes, violence dynamics, and effects on (co-)affected children must be conveyed nationwide and continuously. Equality-oriented perpetrator work, its framework conditions, and central contents are also to be considered as an elementary component of victim protection.[11] The training formats must be scientifically sound and also aligned with the stance of the Istanbul Convention.
The training obligation should not be limited to family judges alone. The BAG TäHG calls for mandatory and quality-assured training formats on domestic violence for all professional groups involved in family court proceedings and applying the law. Alternatively, specialised courts or special jurisdictions for domestic violence should be created at the family courts. To support everyday practice, nationwide uniform action guidelines and information brochures should be developed and made available to the respective professional groups.
[1] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/publikationen/detail/haeusliche-gewalt-im-umgangs-und-sorgerecht (accessed on 17/06/2026).
[2] https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/resource/blob/202386/3699c9bad150e4c4ff78ef54665a85c2/grevio-evaluierungsbericht-istanbul-konvention-2022-data.pdf, p. 74ff. (accessed on 17/06/2026).
[3] https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b076a (accessed on 30/06/2026).
[4] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gewhg/BJNR0390B0025.html (accessed on 30/06/2026).
[5] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Weitere_Publikationen/Monitor_Gewalt_gegen_Frauen.pdf, p. 356 (accessed on 30/06/2026).
[6] Ibid., p. 251.
[7] https://www.bag-taeterarbeit.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/BAG-Statistik-Publikation_A4_v05.pdf, p. 25 (accessed on 23/06/2026).
[8] 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).
[9] https://www.djb.de/presse/stellungnahmen/detail/st24-31?actback-=&cHash=d0376659e5ad2110a346eb075055d39d (accessed on 30/06/2026).
[10] http://institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/publikationen/detail/haeusliche-gewalt-im-umgangs-und-sorgerecht (accessed on 30/06/2026).
[11] https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Analyse_Studie/Analyse_Taeterarbeit.pdf (accessed on 25/06/2026).
