Nr. 03/2026
Without concrete evidence, a child’s refusal to have access to a parent cannot be attributed to the child being unconsciously influenced by the other parent
If a child refuses contact with a parent, this cannot be generally attributed to the fact that the parent with whom the child lives (iF: custodial parent) is manipulating the child. An expert report that makes a recommendation to move the child into the household of the rejected parent in custody proceedings and is based on the thesis of a so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) or parent-child alienation (EKE), which the Federal Constitutional Court regards as pseudoscientific, or parent-child alienation (EKE) for which the custodial parent is solely responsible, is not usable, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) decided in its decision of January 5, 2026. The child’s authentic, negative will precludes an order to change residence with this parent if there is no evidence that the custodial parent is actively negatively influencing the child.
In the underlying case, an eleven-year-old boy turned away from his father after his parents separated and increasingly refused contact with him. The five-year-old sister visited her father regularly. The expert appointed in the custody proceedings had advocated that both children move to their father, even though the boy had continually expressed his desire to stay with his mother. The expert had certified that the mother had an anti-bonding attitude without there being any concrete evidence of active influence and despite the undisputed promotion of accompanied father-son interactions. This caused the child’s refusal. Since she concluded that the mother only had limited parenting skills, she considered moving the son to the father to be in the best interests of the child. The now almost 13-year-old son had stated in the proceedings that he could only imagine having contact with his father again if he no longer insisted on moving in with him.
The responsible 7th Family Senate of the Higher Regional Court decided, in accordance with the children’s wishes, that they should stay with the mother and gave her sole parental responsibility. The Senate stated that joint exercise of parental responsibility was no longer conceivable in view of the escalated parental conflict. The expert unilaterally did not include in her considerations the father’s behavior, which was understandably negative from the son’s perspective. The circular argument common to the PAS thesis, which attributes a refusal of access to manipulative influence by the mother without taking other factors into account for the refusal, is unsuitable as a basis for a custody decision. The recommended intervention would not do justice to the complex process of refusing contact and would lead to a disregard for the child’s wishes that would be harmful to the child’s well-being. The father also bears responsibility for the family situation, which remained highly contentious years after the separation. Among other things, he constantly accused the mother of violating her health care and thus made necessary medical treatment more difficult; He also asked for the children’s furniture and toys when dividing up the household goods. He also reported the mother to her employer because of an alleged official misconduct and reported the mother’s new partner for child abuse. The public prosecutor’s office discontinued the investigation because it could be heard from the audio files presented by the father that he repeatedly wanted to suggestively get the girl in question to provide information about the alleged abuse.
The decision cannot be appealed.
Decision of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main dated January 5, 2026, case number 7 UF 88/25
The decision will be made shortly
www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.deOpens in a new window available.
