Previously, German authorities required proof of the mother's sole right to raise the child. If the child was born out of wedlock to an unknown father or if the father had been deprived of parental rights by court order, the legal requirement was considered fulfilled. For divorced families where the father pays child support and continues to care for his child, the situation was much more complicated. Fathers who had disappeared without a trace also caused certain problems. It was not uncommon for fathers to abuse their position and demand compensation for agreeing to renounce parental rights.
For an ex-husband and father who does not obstruct the joint departure of his child to the mother's new spouse, it is difficult to come to terms with the German authorities' demand that he renounce his right to continue participating in the child's upbringing. Why should he do this at the whim of an unknown German official? The process of depriving a father of the right to raise a child through court achieves its goal in only a small percentage of cases. This procedure is also very lengthy and costly.
Courts in CIS countries are also not inclined to yield to the demands of German authorities and deprive fathers who are properly caring for their children from broken families of parental rights. It is obvious that German regulations cannot be a legal basis for taking away from a father such an important human right to participate in the upbringing and fate of his own child. In most countries of the world, both parents retain the right to raise the child even after divorce.
To help women, I had to appeal to the rule of hardship and exceptional cases justifying the child's relocation with the mother without the father's renunciation of parental rights. Young children more often fell under the concept of hardship. For middle and older children, such legal constructions became more complicated. German authorities required the mother to prove her own persistent efforts to obtain sole custody of the child. As a result, the woman had to complicate her relationship with her ex-husband and the child's father. After all, even after divorce, for the sake of the child and her own interests, it is possible to maintain friendly relations with the former spouse. In any case, even positively resolved cases required time. All this time, the woman could not start her family life with her new husband. This also caused complications.
The law also prevented a reasonable solution in the form of the father signing consent for the child's departure and a power of attorney for the mother to handle the matter. Although it is obvious that from a distance the father cannot solve daily upbringing tasks, so the mother must promptly make appropriate decisions.
At the end of 2013, legislative provisions changed in favor of women and their children. Now, for the joint relocation of a minor child with the mother, the consent of the father or the competent authority at the child's place of residence will be sufficient. It is no longer necessary to prove sole custody of the child. The legislative provision is clearly formulated – the father's consent is now sufficient for the joint relocation of mother and child and for her to obtain a power of attorney to handle important matters concerning the child (school, travel, sports, property matters, the right to submit applications on behalf of the child, care for his health, etc.).
If the father refuses to sign consent, there is the possibility of applying to the competent authorities at the place of residence for an administrative or judicial permit for the child's joint relocation with the mother. For difficult cases that remain unresolved even under the relaxed rules, an appeal to hardship circumstances is still permissible. For example, if the father refuses to sign consent for the child's departure for the purpose of blackmail, and the competent local authorities see no possibility to permit the departure without the father's consent. Another common scenario is the father's disappearance.
Thomas PUE,
German lawyer.