Refusal of contact by the child
After a separation, the interaction between the child and the non-custodial parent is one of the most common areas of conflict in family law. It becomes particularly burdensome when a child rejects or refuses contact with a parent. Then the question often arises as to why the refusal of contact occurs—and whether the custodial parent is influencing the child. In a decision dated January 5, 2026 (Case No. 7 UF 88/25), the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court (OLG Frankfurt) clarified: Without concrete evidence, a refusal of contact cannot solely be attributed to the influence of the other parent.
The decision clearly distinguishes itself from the so-called PAS theory (“Parental Alienation Syndrome”). According to this theory, a child’s estrangement is often understood as the result of targeted manipulation by one parent. However, the OLG Frankfurt emphasizes that such assumptions should not be made the basis of judicial decisions without substantial factual evidence.
Initial situation: Son refuses contact with the father
In the underlying case, the parents had two children. The younger daughter (5) continued to seek contact with the father. The older son (11), however, increasingly turned away and refused contact. The father blamed this on the mother’s influence.
In the custody proceedings, an expert report was obtained. The expert diagnosed parental alienation and accused the mother of active influence— without concrete, objectively verifiable evidence. Consequently, she recommended that both children should move in with the father. However, the son stated that he could only imagine having contact with the father again if he did not insist on moving.
Child’s welfare as the decisive standard
The OLG Frankfurt clarified that in custodial matters the child’s welfare alone is the central guideline. Decisions regarding custody and visitation rights must not follow the interests of one parent but must focus on which solution best protects and promotes the child’s development, stability, and living situation.
The court transferred parental custody—particularly the right to determine residence—solely to the mother and rejected a change in the children’s primary place of residence.
The legal framework is also important in this context:
- Visitation rights: Every child has the fundamental right to contact with both parents; both parents are obliged and entitled to have contact (§ 1684 BGB).
- Custody/Sole custody: The transfer of sole custody or individual partial areas is conceivable if this best serves the child’s welfare (especially § 1671 BGB for separated parents).
Joint custody requires the ability to cooperate
According to the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court (OLG Frankfurt), joint parental custody requires a minimum of communication and cooperation. This was lacking in the specific case because the parents’ conflict had escalated to such a degree that reliable joint decision-making no longer seemed possible. In such a situation, transferring sole custody to one parent can be the milder and more child-appropriate means of making actionable decisions.
Rejection of a parent: often multifactorial causes
The OLG Frankfurt explicitly emphasized that a child’s rejection of a parentregularly has complex causes. It should not automatically be assessed as a result of manipulation by the other parent. Possible factors include, among others:
- stressful conflict dynamics between the parents that the child experiences,
- the child’s own (including past) relationship experiences with the rejected parent,
- the communication and attachment behavior of both parents,
- the child’s loyalty conflicts,
- the child’s development, age, and resilience.
Special importance is given to thechild’s will: This must be independently determined, taken seriously, and factored into the evaluation. As the child ages, their will typically gains significance. This does not mean that the child’s will always “decides,” but depending on the maturity and quality of reasoning, it can be a substantial factor.
No sustainable basis: Distinction from the PAS theory
The OLG Frankfurt classified the PAS theory asscientifically insufficiently sustainableand clarified that itdoes not provide a suitable basisfor judicial decisions. Expert opinions that significantly rely on this theory may, according to the court’s standards,not be usableif they lack the necessary methodological quality.
In the specific proceedings, the OLG Frankfurt also criticized the design of the expert report, including due to:
- a one-sided focus on the mother,
- insufficient engagement with the child’s experience,
- lack of consideration of the father’s behavioral contributions and the overall family dynamics.
Expert reports must be unbiased and methodologically transparent
A family psychological expertise must be methodologically sound, comprehensive, and unbiased according to the decision. It must not start from a pre-established hypothesis (“one parent is at fault”) but must systematically include all relevant circumstances. The court must be able to understand the foundations and conclusions; otherwise, a sustainable basis for custody or visitation decisions is missing.
Distinction: Custody withdrawal and state interventions
The OLG Frankfurt also made it clear that in conflicts between parents who are fundamentally capable of parenting, awithdrawal of custody according to §§ 1666, 1666a BGB is generally not proportionate – even if children suffer from the disputes. Such interventions require aspecific threat to the child’s welfare, and the principle of proportionality applies: milder measures must be examined first.
Instead of withdrawing and appointing a guardianship, if necessary, thetransfer of sole custody or specific parts thereof to one parent can be a more appropriate means to make reliable decisions in the child’s best interests.
What does the decision mean for practice?
- No automatic assumptions: Refusal of visitation is not proof of manipulation.
- Specific facts are crucial: Allegations of manipulation must be demonstrably substantiated.
- The child’s will counts: Especially for older children, the will must be carefully assessed and considered.
- Quality of expert reports: Reports must be methodically stringent, balanced, and open-ended.
- Proportionality of state interventions: A withdrawal of custody is only possible with a specific threat and no milder alternatives.
Notice on legal classification
This post is for general information and does not replace individual advice. In matters of visitation and custody conflicts, the options for action depend heavily on the specific circumstances (e.g., child’s age, conflict dynamics, previous visitation history, reliable findings from hearings and reports).
Contact
If you have questions about visitation, custody, or legal proceedings, a legal review of the individual case may be useful. Please use the contact options on the website for this.
