When I filed my petition requesting sole custody of my children, my knowledge of the German legal system was extremely limited. However, I had already been exposed to Family Law in other jurisdictions—particularly in Greece and Albania—where I had either studied or worked directly on family law cases.
This comparative experience shaped my expectations as I entered the German Familiengericht for the first time.
Understanding the Jurisdictions: Greek vs. Albanian Family Law
In Greek law, which is rooted in Roman civil law traditions, Family Law is embedded as a subdivision of the Civil Code. Family matters are treated as one of several components within the broader umbrella of civil obligations and personal status. The codified law governs everything, and while the judge retains a certain interpretative freedom, the procedure is still tightly linked to established legal texts and precedent.
In contrast, Albanian law—while also civil-law based—treats Family Law as a standalone code. The Family Code of Albania is an independent legal instrument with its own rules of procedure, definitions, and doctrines, offering a more autonomous legal identity to family-related matters. This distinction grants more procedural flexibility and allows courts to handle sensitive family issues with a nuanced approach that isn’t forced to fit the rigid framework of general civil obligations.
This background shaped my expectations: I anticipated an active, dynamic courtroom where facts and emotions would interplay under legal reasoning, where advocacy and procedural tactics mattered—especially in complex, emotionally charged family conflicts.
The German Familiengericht: Formality Over Flexibility
Initiating proceedings in Germany meant stepping into a specialized Family Court, known as the Familiengericht. Unlike adversarial systems I had experienced, the German approach is inquisitorial: the judge takes a central, investigative role, not merely acting as a neutral referee but leading the entire process.
Yet, to my surprise, this investigatory role was extremely reserved in practice.
- There were no leading questions.
- Cross-examination was absent.
- Even in the face of inconsistent statements or incomplete evidence, the court maintained an overly cautious approach.
The entire hearing revolved around written submissions, pre-approved statements, and minimal oral interaction. Lawyers were present, of course, but their roles seemed limited to drafting motions and silently steering their clients’ written strategies.
What I found missing—compared to both Greek courtroom rigor and Albanian procedural flexibility—was the human element: the passionate advocacy, the probing of contradictions, the opportunity to speak, explain, confront. In Germany, the system delegates authority to the judge but discourages confrontation or direct challenge, as if the facts will emerge purely by judicial observation and minimal interaction.
Reflections
While I respect the institutional logic behind Germany’s efficiency-first model, I also experienced its emotional distance and lack of responsiveness to nuance. Family cases are not mere administrative matters—they are deeply personal, emotionally complex, and legally delicate.
My story reflects the difficulty of adapting to a system that assumes procedural correctness equals justice, rather than one that allows the courtroom to become a forum for truth-seeking and emotional healing.
Read the entire book: https://amzn.eu/d/92g15jv
