Margot von Renesse (SPD): Today I am extremely pleased that we may finally – finally – begin the parliamentary work on the reform of parenting rights. When, in the Summer of 1991, I wrote the proposal for what, in 1992 and 1995, was to become the SPD's reform proposal to be submitted to the parliament, I -- as a newcomer to parliament -- never suspected how difficult the discussion process would be within my own coalition and party, with associations and business groups, and how long it would take us to form our own opinion. I was even less aware of the fact that no proposition submitted by the opposition -- no mater how sensible and plausible – would be taken up by the responsible committee until either the majority or the government had first presented its own child. But this is just the way things are. Today the government has finally deigned to take notice, and we may finally start work. Joy of joys!

I continue to be satisfied that the government's proposal meets the majority of our expectations with regard to application, content, and the treatment of many individual questions. It makes this little opposition representative happy if the Justice Ministry, with its specialists, its expert committee made up of eminent names, and the great amount of time taken, comes to essentially the same conclusions as she with respect to the necessity of reform and, in fact, adopts several of what are recognizably her recommendations.

Now, according to the laws of adversarial speech, those remaining, basic differences should be aired. Now, as in the past, there should be talk of two, diametrically opposing viewpoints with regard to the topic of "families and the law", that separate our proposal from that of the government, namely: our concept of the role of the state's oversight authority in matters pertaining to the developmental interests of children, and of the legal subjectivity of the child; its material and procedural position under law.

To this, I have only the following comments: we feel that both these issues are too weakly developed in the government's proposal, and we will be forced to disagree with them in some instances. While they may label their position with regard to these two points as "liberal", we prefer to stay with the constitution – still the best advisor in basic questions.

With respect to the item under most heated public discussion – custody arrangement after separation, in particular, divorce – we continue to maintain the position we recommended back in 1992. The obligatory decision made by a judge with regard to arrangements in each case of divorce where minors are involved must be eliminated. Such a judicial decision concerning custody arrangements may only occur if at least one parent, the Youth Welfare Department, or the child requests it, or if the court itself feels that a decision is required in order to maintain the child's welfare. Up to this point, the government's proposal agrees with our own; from here on, however, things are different on our side. We – and here the Upper House is also in agreement – are not content to let things remain this way.

We want to ensure that possible conflict-charged questions concerning subsequent living arrangements, visitation, and the division of obligations between the parents, are introduced during the course of divorce proceedings, and that the result is recorded. This much is owed to the state's oversight authorities. Lawmakers cannot simply overlook the fact that marital divorce conflicts may represent a crisis in the child's life, a crisis during which the child's developmental interests may not be adequately taken under consideration.

For this reason we want to ensure that children are discussed during divorce proceedings. Such a procedural regulation causes parents seeking a divorce no more hardship than it does unmarried persons living separately, because they are not subject to any increased, material risk of having to relinquish their parental position. According to our proposal, parents only lose custody as a result of a judicial decision if both parents wish this to occur or if it is indicated for the child's welfare. This applies equally to married parents and to unmarried ones, provided they have the right of joint custody.

We merely require of married parents -- who, in contrast to unmarried parents, have a regulated process before a court for the purposes of legal separation – that, during the course of this process, they make some mention as to their concrete plans for their children. We -- in contrast to the government's proposal -- feel this is necessary if the state's oversight authority for children is not to be completely abandoned. We will undoubtedly need to discuss this point.

However, today I'm not in the mood to fight with you. The subjects of our debate are children and their families. We wish them motherly mothers and fatherly fathers; that is, involved adults who love their children because they exist. Love does not mean the absence of conflict, nor constant perfection. Instead, it means emotional security, reliability, and adult responsibility.

My mother was a living example of all of this under the harshest conditions. After war and escape, she alone bore the responsibility for four small children as a divorcee. Without alimony and without social support. My siblings and I owe our physical and social existence to her. As the eldest daughter, I – almost perforce and far above my childish level of understanding – became her confidant and was witness to her sorrow and her attempts to overcome it. I experienced the growth of the pearl of generosity and goodness that flourished in her wounds, which never completely healed. She reconciled us with the fact of our missing father, and greeted and promoted characteristics in us that were obviously inherited from him. In this way she was able to release us, while still accompanying us along our chosen paths. It was important to me that she followed and approved of my work on parenting rights reform as long as she was able to do so.

Naturally, I was also witness to occasional breakdowns and blind despair born of frightful overburdening. And naturally I am well aware of the consequences to myself and my siblings of these failings that resulted from a fatherless childhood and youth. But it is for this very reason that I am able to appreciate the advantage that children and their mothers can gain from the paternal partner, if such an advantage is offered. Our children do not so much lack motherly mothers as they do fatherly fathers who can combine responsibility, competence, and gentle care in a masculine manner. What male image rules our society: the guy between 18 and 35, the car nut, the Internet surfer, the techno-nerd, the successful broker, but less so the well-adjusted adult who exhibits responsibility and affection for others. The great father figures in the Bible, in literature, and the histories of all peoples, those who opened the world for their sons and daughters and made it habitable, appear to have been dethroned. Paternity in the form of flowering masculinity is a deficit in this society, and society suffers from this no less than do our children, who flock to a single young civil servant in every kindergarten.

My own father hid his paternal failure behind the conservative rhetoric that children belong with their mother, and that the only reason he made no effort on our behalf – on behalf of his children – was to avoid conflicts. Just as many separated and divorced fathers, he avoided contact with us when we needed him to respond to our questions.

Our law must result in justice for children. Above all else, they have the right to a father and a mother, regardless of their marital state. I am well aware that this can be coupled with pain, with disagreements, and with conflicts. I do not feel that this is catastrophic since tension is just as much a reality of daily life as are agreement and harmony. The only exception is in those cases where parents, who cannot themselves live with this, overburden their children.

The lawmaker's primary responsibility is to act as a partner for the children. He must therefore act in loco parentis for the parents, that is, for the good of the children. He must be on the side of parents with particular difficulties, for example, when they must raise their children without a partner. He must take the sand out of the gears for them by providing, for example, sole legal powers for day-to-day decisions; powers that they should have under law, and not merely as the result of a judicial decision. He may not, however, permit them to do away with the reality of the child who has always had a father and a mother. He must also bind the separated and divorced parents who do not live with their children in their responsibilities to their children. These responsibilities include, primarily, a total obligation for support, but also personal care and separation. It is to make this latter point very clear that we desire the child's right of contact; something which the government's proposal categorically rejects. Parental responsibility is irrevocable. Where parents living separately want to do justice to this claim on the part of their children, the law must provide the necessary freedom to do so.

The lawmaker must assume the part for those acting as parents who, as foster parents, adoptive parents, or stepparents (a suitable term should be found in the language for these!) provide children with that which the natural parents could not give them. They need a legally protected space for that which they do for the children entrusted to them.

The lawmaker must create space for the states' oversight authority when parents misinterpret, overlook, or simply ignore the interests of their children. Wherever this occurs, or threatens to occur, the children must be effectively protected. When the law encounters parental conflict, it cannot avoid asking the question:

"And what about your children?" Whether or not it then intervenes depends on whether, and the extent to which, the parents are in a position to autonomously overcome their tensions.

During my tenure as a Family Court Judge I witnessed much sorrow and failure, but also much love, responsibility, and competence on the part of parents. I learned – sometimes slowly and painfully – not to appoint myself judge over other people's lives. Neither is my private life as wife and mother free from failure. I stand beside all parents who love their children. In this position, I can truthfully say that I am pleased with our adversarial cooperation with regard to parenting rights reform that can only benefit the children.