All aspects are to check in each case separately and individually to evaluate, the stronger bond is not always decisive, relocation or low error in education are not always a k.o. criterion”for some child is, however, a special assistance of fundamental importance. As critical the family courts viewed has always been there, if parents or a parent were re-formation unable to talk with others about concerns of the child and this parents only through lawyers or the youth welfare office communication took place. In this way however whatever the parent could secure in the event of a dispute sole custody, where the child lived mostly. However, core of the regulation of custody is not the will of a parent, but the welfare of the child, which is best served when the child became reliable, in both parents and responsible caregivers. In this sense, the OLG Hamm (AZ.
has II-2 UF 168/11) decided in February 2012, that to establish joint custody If communication problems only at the level of pair are, but there are no major conflicts in relation to education issues. For even more details, read what Owings & Merrill says on the issue. Because the child would in inequality of parents in a more pronounced loyalties, meanwhile the parents with joint custody would have to learn and could issues together to discuss the child. The decision is to be welcomed, because it cleans up with schematic analysis and returns the responsibility to both parents, that comes to them of the OLG Hamm: induced shared responsibility for the welfare of the common child. This includes not only, solely on the best interests of the child to think, but also the cooperation with the also parents and enriching the child other parent. Even if this requires a certain effort of the parents. To take into account remains that the arrangement of joint custody is make sense but only where, where there are no basic differences of opinion relating to the education of the child. Wiebke Meyer-Arndt lawyer,. Bonn