Introduction
When urgent decisions must be made about a child’s wellbeing, who has the competence to decide? In Germany, it’s often a social worker. In Greece, it’s a judge. This contrast reveals more than a difference in administrative setup—it exposes a deep divide in legal philosophy regarding who should wield authority in the most sensitive family matters.
Germany: Delegating to the Jugendamt
In Germany, provisional measures concerning children—especially in emergency situations—are typically administered through the Jugendamt (Youth Welfare Office). This agency plays a central role in the day-to-day realities of German family law. But here’s the key issue:
Decision-makers at the Jugendamt are not required to have formal legal training.
Instead, they are social workers or administrators with a focus on child welfare and social integration.
While this may foster a more empathetic, socially oriented perspective, it also places immense legal responsibility in the hands of professionals without legal credentials. This has raised ongoing concerns about the balance between social care and legal accuracy, particularly when decisions have binding consequences.
Greece: Judicial Oversight Even in Emergencies
In contrast, Greek family law takes a firmly legalistic approach.
All provisional measures—even in urgent child protection cases—must be issued by judicial authorities.
These decisions are handled either by a family court judge or, in highly urgent situations, by the public prosecutor, ensuring that:
- The decision-maker holds legal training.
- Legal reasoning and rights-based frameworks are systematically applied.
This method may be less flexible in execution but prioritizes legal safeguards, procedural transparency, and judicial accountability.
A Philosophical Divide in Legal Culture
At its core, this is a question of competence—not merely in qualifications, but in institutional philosophy.
- Germany entrusts child-related emergencies to a social services model, implying that child welfare expertise can stand in for legal reasoning.
- Greece demands that every urgent decision with legal effect be made by a legally qualified professional, reinforcing the view that law must remain in the hands of the judiciary.
This contrast mirrors broader legal traditions:
- Germany’s hybrid model reflects its administrative and welfare-state legacy.
- Greece’s model, influenced by civil law purity, aligns more with systems where legal certainty and constitutional procedure dominate even in welfare cases.
Conclusion: Where Do We Draw the Line?
Should urgent family decisions be led by legal reasoning or social care expertise? Is procedural legality more important than responsive intervention?
This competence conflict reveals a broader debate over the very nature of authority in family law. It also invites us to ask: are children better served by flexible social care or by strict judicial oversight?
Buy the book here: https://amzn.eu/d/aefBnWM