Cochemer model
The Cochem model is or was the name for a method of operation that was initiated in the Cochem District Court in 1992 by the family judge Jürgen Rudolph. The aim was to prevent a conflict escalation in the course of family court proceedings regarding custody and access rights when married or unmarried couples with children split up . The basic principle was to implement an interdisciplinary cooperation between the various persons and institutions involved in the judicial process (judges, employees of youth welfare offices and family counseling centers as well as psychologists). The postulate was that this cooperation primarily focused on the interests of the childalign. Specifically, parents should be enabled to avoid arguments and, despite the failure of their relationship, continue to (or again) speak to one another for the good of the children, in order to enable their children to maintain a fruitful relationship with both parents.
Initially only implemented in the Moselle town of Cochem , the model quickly gained national popularity. Subsequently, in the course of a few years, significant parts of the model were adopted by various family courts elsewhere in Germany; the method, also known as "Cochemer Praxis", gained national recognition. This culminated in the fact that some of the core elements of the model found their way into the new FamFG , such as the early scheduling and possible implementation of mediation or another procedure for out-of-court conflict resolution ( Section 155 FamFG) as well as working towards an agreement in general, indications of possibilities for Advice and, if necessary, an order to participate in relevant information meetings or even advice as such ( Section 156 FamFG).
In Cochem itself, the model is no longer practiced after Judge Rudolph left the company in 2008.
Development of the Cochem practice
In the nineties, the demands on youth welfare changed, among other things due to the increase in the divorce rate , unsatisfactory custody and access regulations and the passage of the KJHG in 1991.
As a result of these changes, the Cochem Youth Welfare Office felt the need and desire for a better coordinated cooperation with separated families. The already existing good cooperation with the local life counseling center facilitated agreements between the youth welfare office and educational counseling after the Child and Youth Welfare Act came into force. It was agreed that custody agreements and statements in divorce proceedings would remain the sole responsibility of the youth welfare office. Far-reaching conflicts about the children are dealt with in the counseling center. Since the family court and lawyers have a considerable influence on the course of the separation process, lawyers, family judges and forensic experts were invited to an exchange of experiences on the subject of "child's best interests in the event of separation / divorce". A further cooperation was decided. With this, the Cochem “Working Group Separation Divorce” began its work in 1993, which bundled and further developed the competencies from different disciplines in a joint process.
Based on the knowledge that separation-related conflicts between parents can only be resolved by court decisions, but mostly not resolved, the working group began to bring all institutions and persons professionally involved in separation and divorce into discussion with one another on an equal basis and to make their offers of help and working methods known close. Judges, employees of youth welfare offices and family counseling centers as well as psychologists were called upon to create greater awareness of the problem of underage children of divorce . The aim was to establish cooperation between the various professions as an effective instrument for conflict resolution.
Professionals involved
- Family judge
- Forensic reviewers
- Social workers, social pedagogues from the youth welfare office
- Psychologists, social pedagogues or other specialists from the educational and family counseling centers or from life counseling centers
- others as required in individual cases
Working method
The way of working is characterized by the principle of early intervention:
- In procedural briefs, lawyers limit themselves to the essential submissions in order to avoid aggravating the conflict; the focus is on oral presentations during the negotiation.
- Court terminates within 14 days of receipt of the application.
- Employees of the social services of the youth welfare offices attend court appointments after they have previously contacted the family.
- If an amicable arrangement is not made, the parents will be accompanied to the counseling center, which in turn will assign appointments to them within 14 days.
- Experts undertake to work in a solution-oriented manner.
In the first contact with the lawyer, the respective parents are already informed of the counseling services offered by the youth welfare office and the life counseling center in order to organize a new regulation of parental responsibility in a self-reliant and child-centered manner, or, with increasing tendency, parents are turning directly to the youth welfare office or the counseling center. If there is an application for divorce, this is forwarded by the family court to the youth welfare office as information and the parents are offered advice from there. We are working towards an out-of-court agreement to exercise parental responsibility.
If an out-of-court agreement is unsuccessful, judicial proceedings will be initiated. The lawyers only write short applications to the family court, which terminates within 14 days and informs the youth welfare office of this. The youth welfare office will contact both parents immediately. A written statement to the family court is not given because the employee of the youth welfare office takes part in the oral hearing.
On the occasion of the oral hearing before the family court, a solution will be sought in cooperation with the professions present and the parents. If the discussion does not lead to a consensual solution for the child, the family court will again refer the parents to the advice that is still required. The oral hearing is then ended and the parents are accompanied to the counseling center by an employee of the youth welfare office, where they each receive an initial appointment.
If the consultation leads to a solution, the result is communicated to the family court so that the proceedings can be concluded. If the parents are unwilling or unable to find a consensus with the help of counseling , or if the counseling is broken off, the counseling center informs the youth welfare office. The family court sets a new date for the hearing.
If necessary, the court takes decisions to settle the disputes, if possible without provoking a hardening of the fronts and for a limited period in order to repeatedly call the parents themselves to account. If no agreement is again possible in a prompt, repeated oral hearing, an expert will be appointed. Expert opinions are developed with the parents in a solution-oriented manner.
By networking the professions, the development of the procedure for the welfare of the children is closely monitored in order to counter threats to the child’s welfare .
application
With resolution 2079 of the Council of Europe of October 2, 2015, the latter unanimously decided that the case law and advice of the member states should be geared towards the establishment of a changeover model for caring for children after a separation. The Cochem model is explicitly recommended here:
" 5. In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on the member States to: ... 5.9 encourage and, where appropriate, develop mediation within the framework of judicial proceedings in family cases involving children, in particular by instituting a court- ordered mandatory information session, by ensuring that mediators receive appropriate training and by encouraging multidisciplinary co-operation based on the Cochem model "
“ 5. In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on the Member States: ... 5.9. To promote mediation in the context of legal family proceedings that involve children, in particular by introducing a court-ordered obligation to provide information advice to parents that the double residence (alternation model) is a sensible option in the best interests of the child and such a solution to work out, which ensures that the mediators received adequate training and by promoting the interdisciplinary collaboration on the basis of Cochemer model are trained "
criticism
Siegfried Willutzki , the former President of the German Family Court Assembly , criticized the Cochem working group's claim that its model was a kind of panacea. He went on to say that the child's position as a subject in family court proceedings - the consideration of the child's wishes and will - had largely been lost in the Cochem model if the child was no longer a member or if he was not granted legal assistance in accordance with Section 158 of the FamFG - that is, if without participation of the child is only influenced by the parents in order to find an amicable solution. Willutzki went on to say that, according to the provision of Section 156, the court should work towards an amicable solution in every stage of the proceedings, but with the restriction "if this is not contrary to the best interests of the child". Willutzki interpreted this to mean that the concerns of the critics of the Cochem model, which the legislature otherwise largely followed in this area, were taken into account. The creators of the new FamFG had also recognized that efforts to reach a consensus could reach their limits, which would then make a judicial regulation imperative.
According to Brigitte Lohse-Busch, specialist psychologist for forensic psychology , the criticism from specialist circles concerns the claim to general validity and the guarantee of success. Ultimately, cooperation between the parents and their involvement in an amicable solution cannot be forced. Particularly weak, poorly assertive people may not be in good hands in this model because it is difficult for them to formulate deviant thoughts against a high general pressure of expectation. In general, doubts would arise as to whether the highly schematic procedure could actually do justice to each individual case.
The Cologne family experts say that one should also ask oneself whether a model that, with a regular advisory system, refuses to make any controversial decision for a long time, can in any case do justice to the rights of those involved. The Cochem model may work in simple cases of parents who are fundamentally willing to consent. In a large number of cases, however, the parents involved would not be willing or possibly also not able to participate in a consensual procedure.
Regarding the participation of the legal profession in the model, the working group states that despite the definition of the lawyer's role as an independent judicial body, it should not be overlooked that he is primarily a representative of the interests of his own party in family court proceedings. It goes without saying that the lawyer experienced in such proceedings usually also advises his own party in the direction of a consensus solution. However, it is and remains the right of every parent to decide against a consensus solution. In these cases it is of course the task of the lawyer to represent the party's point of view clearly in family court proceedings and to protect his own party from false tutelage and undesirable pedagogy. This definition of the lawyer's role in custody and access law proceedings is only insufficiently reflected in the Cochem model.
It is interesting that it is the highly controversial cases in which it is just as difficult to find an amicable solution with the Cochem model as elsewhere, at short notice or at all.
Kerima Kostka missed an evaluation of the model or the effort to arrive at empirical findings. The "successes", in particular with regard to the sustainability of the agreement, would only be claimed by the professions involved. Regarding the common concern favored in the Cochem model and now also in the FamFG, Kostka notes that previous research has not shown that the form of custody has a behavioral control effect. Studies have shown that no connection can be established between the form of custody and the potential for conflict or parental cooperation or the extent of hostility. There is no evidence of increased communication regarding decisions concerning the children. If almost 100% of the parents in Cochem have joint custody, this does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about how the children are doing. Kostka denies the basic assumption of the "Cochem model", according to which the child's best interests are automatically secured if the parents have joint custody.
Mediation is an essential element of the “Cochem model”. However, the latter should be viewed critically on the basis of empirical findings from the USA and Great Britain. The desire for "agreement" between the parties could lead to the mediator exerting undue pressure, particularly in the direction of an acceptance of joint custody or certain rules of contact. Satisfaction with the results of the mediation also decreased significantly over the years, and around half of all respondents found the sessions tense and unpleasant, they were mostly angry and felt put on the defensive.
Furthermore, most of the studies showed only minor and, above all, only short-term improvements in cooperation and communication between parents. Just two years after the divorce decree, all differences between couples with mediation and those who had gone through a conventional procedure had disappeared, and after four to five years there were just as many legal disputes again. Mediation does not reduce the general anger towards the partner.
Parents are often urged to agree to an agreement even against their will, but many of these "agreements" do not last long and there is great dissatisfaction with the regulations made. In terms of benefits for the children, the studies generally did not reveal any consistent differences between mediation and traditional judicial proceedings. There are no signs that mediation has a positive effect on the adaptation of children and parents and their mental health.
See also
- Parent-child alienation
- Deprivation
- Abuse with abuse
- Separation and divorce mediation
- Family mediation
literature
- Jürgen Rudolph: You are my child: the “Cochem practice” - ways to a more humane family law. Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf, Berlin 2007. ISBN 978-3-89602-784-9 .
- Traudl Füchsle-Voigt, Monika Gorges: Some data on the Cochem model. In: Journal for Child Law and Youth Welfare (ZKJ) 2008, pp. 246–248.
- Traudl Füchsle-Voigt, Ordered Cooperation in Family Conflicts as a Process of Attitude Change : Theoretical Considerations and Practical Implementation. In: Family Partnership Law (FPR) 2004, issue 11, p. 600 ff., Online (PDF, 27 kB) .
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ [1]
- ↑ Siegfried Willutzki, Das FamFG in der FGG-Reform , lecture, online (PDF, 129 kB) ( Memento of the original from October 18, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .
- ↑ Brigitte Lohse-Busch, cooperation between professions based on the Cochem model , contribution to the conference on cooperation in children's issues on November 19, 2008 in St. Gallen, in: Mitteilungen zum Familienrecht , special issue, online (PDF, 164 kB) ( page no longer retrievable , search in web archives ) Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .
- ↑ Kölner Fachkreis Familie, "The Cochem model - The solution of all disputed separation and divorce cases", article in Forum Familienrecht 6 + 7/2006 and Kind-Prax 6/2005 online ( Memento of the original from October 18, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 96 kB).
- ↑ Kerima Kostka, Critical Comments on the “Cochem Model” in the context of empirical findings , theses paper for the symposium on cross- professional cooperation in custody and access law and the perspective of children - a critical inventory , March 23, 2007, Frankfurt am Main, online ( Memento des Originals from October 16, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .
