Rita Grießhaber (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): No doubt all those gathered here today are in agreement that a reform of parenting rights must focus on the interests of the children. We therefore welcome the fact that an encompassing proposal that, in many instances, improves the legal position of children has finally been presented by the Federal Government.

However, they were unfortunately not entirely successful in their attempt to divert their perspective away from parenting rights and towards rights centered on the child. I would like to cite some examples: Despite having been under discussion for many years, the government still cannot force itself to grant children the right to be raised in an environment that is free of violence.

Naturally, § 1631 of the BGB states that degrading educational methods are not permitted. However, this is not enough to express the child's right to be raised in an environment that is free of violence, and what this means, including instances relevant to criminal prosecution.

During the previous election period, the parliamentary group of Bündnis 90 already submitted a motion whose principle request we have included in our motion to reform parenting rights.

What is so difficult in rewording § 1631, Para. 2, BGB as follows:

"Children are to be raised without violence. Any actions, including those for the purposes of education, that injure the physical, psychological, or spiritual integrity of the child are not permitted." What is it about this formulation that produces such fear in you that you must write in your proposal – and I quote: "a decision regarding further action must still be made". There was surely adequate time for this!

The possibility of joint custody for non-marital households as well, is certainly long overdo for the increasing number of children who grow up in such households, and represents a welcome advance, even if we would proceed differently in its concrete design.

One point on which you simply roll over the discussions of the past months and the concerns of numerous associations is in regard to the regulation of joint custody after separation or divorce. Automatic joint custody in these instances simply does not do justice to the social situation. What is there against parents who are in agreement documenting this opinion in a joint petition? The whole purpose here must, after all, be to ensure that the situation of the children, who are the primary sufferers in a separation, is clarified in such a manner that they do not suffer further.

But here too, you continue to maintain the perspective of parenting rights. If you place the child at the center of your deliberations, you too would do all that is necessary to obtain clear regulation.

Your reasons for not wanting a separate right of petition for the child also indicates that you are more interested in regulating relationships between adults than in the interests of children.

Naturally, the parents bear the primary responsibility for raising the child and for its development. However, where separation or divorce are involved, we are not speaking of an everyday situation, but instead, one of conflict. And, in our opinion, in such a situation children should certainly have the right to represent their own best interests.

After all, with the introduction of a process caretaker, you admit that these interests are legitimate. Why then, do you stop halfway?

With regard to contact rights: Where, I ask, is the child-focus of your proposal, where it states (§ 1684 and 1685): "Each parent has the right to contact with the child", and: "Grandparents and siblings have the right to contact with the child if this serves the welfare of the child"? After all, we want to strengthen the rights of children and not create a tangle of competing visitation petitions that would create pressure for the child.

The right of contact must be a right of the child. It is easily conceivable that the child may wish to maintain contact with an entirely different set of persons than the ones you have listed. You need this limitation in order to be able to restrain the flood of contact petitions that you have created. Had you approached the matter from the interests of the child, you would have avoided this difficulty.

Ladies and gentlemen, the new parenting rights bill brings with it a large number of improvements. I need only remind you of the regulation to equalize legitimate children and those born out of wedlock.

Nonetheless: this proposal does not do justice to the demand for child-focused reform. I hope that during subsequent debates, we have the opportunity of further improving it.