Edu­ca­tio­nal advice in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on of the parents

1.

Initi­al situation

Sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce from par­ents place high demands on tho­se invol­ved and can result in an increased risk for the deve­lo­p­ment of the child. A nega­ti­ve deve­lo­p­ment of the child­ren is neither man­da­to­ry nor pre­do­mi­nant­ly given.

Figu­re 1 shows a model of the stres­ses and adapt­a­ti­ons of child­ren after a sepa­ra­ti­on of the par­ents based on the sel­ec­tion and sepa­ra­ti­on stress coping per­spec­ti­ve (Ama­to, 2000, p. 1271; Wal­per, 2003, p. 153; Wal­per & Brö­ning, 2008 , P. 575). The model also takes into account the fami­ly rela­ti­onships and thus the deve­lo­p­men­tal con­di­ti­ons of child­ren befo­re a sepa­ra­ti­on so that the cau­ses of a sepa­ra­ti­on can be unders­tood in the coun­seling pro­cess and the con­se­quen­ces for the for­mer part­ner and child­ren can be bet­ter assessed.

Figu­re 1: Model of the bur­den and adapt­a­ti­ons of child­ren after a sepa­ra­ti­on of the parents

Rese­arch in the human sci­en­ces has been able to demons­tra­te that paren­ting advice can make a valuable con­tri­bu­ti­on to child wel­fa­re in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce (Bacon & McKen­zie, 2004, pp. 95-96; Eme­ry, Lau­mann-Bil­lings, Wald­ron, Sbar­ra & Dil­lon, 2001, p. 330 -331; Kel­ly, 2000, pp. 971-972; Kel­ly & Eme­ry, 2003, pp. 360; McIn­tosh, 2006, pp. 32-34; McIn­tosh & Dea­con-Wood, 2003, pp. 192-193; McIn­tosh & Long , 2006, p. 60; Thoe­nes & Pear­son, 1999, pp. 214-217; White­si­de, 1998, p. 3; Wolch­nik, San­der, Win­slow & Smith-Dani­els, 2005, p. 77).

2.

Legal basis of edu­ca­tio­nal coun­seling in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce

2.1

Con­tent-rela­ted deli­mi­ta­ti­on of §§ 17, 18 and 28 SGB VIII

The “advice on ques­ti­ons of part­ner­ship, sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce” accor­ding to § 17 SGB VIII and the “advice and sup­port in exer­cis­ing per­so­nal care and the right of access” accor­ding to § 18 SGB VIII are in accordance with § 2 para. 2 and para. 3 SGB VIII a youth wel­fa­re ser­vice for the bene­fit of young peo­p­le and fami­lies. It is an offer to pro­mo­te fami­ly upbringing.

Paren­ting advice can not only be used as “help with upbrin­ging” accor­ding to Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code, but also if, after a sepa­ra­ti­on or divorce, “the con­di­ti­ons for exer­cis­ing paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty that is bene­fi­ci­al to the well-being of the child or young per­son” are requi­red and with the sup­port of coun­seling § 17 para. 2 SGB VIII a “con­cept for the per­cep­ti­on of paren­tal care and paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty” is to be deve­lo­ped, should be recei­ved as a bene­fit. Later on, the par­ents may also need advice in accordance with Sec­tion 18 Para. 1 and para. 3 SGB VIII (Fede­ral Con­fe­rence for Edu­ca­tio­nal Advice, 2012, p. 483).

From a holi­stic view of the pro­blem in con­nec­tion with sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce from par­ents, the­re are over­laps in con­sul­ta­ti­ons accor­ding to Sec­tion 17 of Book VIII of the Social Code and Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code as well as Sec­tion 18 of Book VIII of the Social Code and Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code. The legal man­da­te to “mana­ge con­flicts and cri­ses in the fami­ly” (Sec­tion 17 (1) No. 2 SGB VIII) and “in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on or divorce, to crea­te the con­di­ti­ons for the child or young per­son to exer­cise paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty in a way that is con­du­ci­ve to the best inte­rests of the child or young per­son “(Sec­tion 17, Para­graph 1, No. 3 of Book VIII of the Social Code) is indis­tin­gu­is­ha­ble in terms of con­tent from a” cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on and over­co­ming of indi­vi­du­al and fami­ly-rela­ted pro­blems “(Sec­tion 28, Para­graph 1 of Book VIII of the Social Code). Advi­sing sin­gle par­ents “when exer­cis­ing per­so­nal care” (Sec­tion 18 (1) of Book VIII of the Social Code) and “when exer­cis­ing the right of access” (Sec­tion 18 (3) of Book VIII of the Social Code) over­laps with the tasks from Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code. “It has the­r­e­fo­re beco­me com­mon to speak of Sec­tions 17, 18 and 28 of the Book of Book VIII as the legal basis for indi­vi­du­al coun­seling in edu­ca­tio­nal coun­seling (DST; AGJ 1995) “(Men­ne, 2016, p. 13, see also: Coes­ter, 2003, P. 82).

Paren­ting advice accor­ding to Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code also ori­gi­nal­ly includes sup­port “in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce”. In prac­ti­ce, it is the­r­e­fo­re often a sup­port for this fami­ly pro­blem on the basis of Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code and, at the same time, sup­port for the exer­cise of paren­tal cus­t­ody accor­ding to Sec­tion 17 Para. 1 no. 3 and para. 2 SGB VIII (Fede­ral Con­fe­rence for Edu­ca­tio­nal Advice, 2009, p. 18). “In the majo­ri­ty of the con­sul­ta­ti­ons accor­ding to § 17, which take place in an edu­ca­tio­nal coun­seling cen­ter, ser­vices accor­ding to § 28 are requi­red at the same time. The crea­ti­on of con­di­ti­ons for the bene­fi­ci­al exer­cise of paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty (para. 1 No. 3) or the deve­lo­p­ment of con­sen­su­al con­cepts (Para­graph 2) takes place par­al­lel to the cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on and manage­ment of fami­ly pro­blems (Sec­tion 28), as well as in the form of (par­ti­al) pro­ces­sing of the cou­ple con­flict under­ly­ing a sepa­ra­ti­on and in the form of the­ra­peu­tic help for tho­se affec­ted Child­ren” (Wies­ner, 2015, S. 313).

The advi­so­ry ser­vices regu­la­ted in Sec­tion 18 of Book VIII of the Social Code are clo­se­ly rela­ted in terms of con­tent and timing to advice on issues rela­ting to part­ner­ship, sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce in accordance with Sec­tion 17 of Book VIII of the Social Code. “Despi­te pro­fes­sio­nal advice and / or a court decis­i­on on cus­t­ody, the con­flict situa­ti­on at the cou­ple level has in many cases not yet been dealt and coped with. As a result of the sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce, the­re are often dis­pu­tes over the exer­cise of per­so­nal cus­t­ody, the orga­niza­ti­on of cont­act and the gran­ting of main­ten­an­ce. § 18 the­r­e­fo­re con­ti­nues the coun­seling offer for the pha­ses of paren­thood fol­lo­wing sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce “ (Wiesner/Struck, 2015. p. 332).

18 para. 1 SGB VIII grants par­ents who have to care for a child or ado­le­s­cent alo­ne or who actual­ly care for a child, a right to advice “in the exer­cise of per­so­nal care”. Upbrin­ging the child is an essen­ti­al part of per­so­nal care, in addi­ti­on to super­vi­si­on and resi­dence requi­re­ments. This results in a natu­ral area of over­lap with paren­ting advice accor­ding to Sec­tion 28 of Book VIII of the Social Code.“Advice for sin­gle par­ents accor­ding to Sec­tion 18, Para­graph 1 of Book VIII of the Social Code is the­r­e­fo­re regu­lar­ly lin­ked in paren­ting advice to advice accor­ding to Sec­tion 28” (Fede­ral Con­fe­rence for Edu­ca­ti­on Advice, 2009 , P. 18).

2.2

17 SGB VIII: Advice on ques­ti­ons of part­ner­ship, sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce

Essen­ti­al goals of the con­sul­ta­ti­on in the ser­vice area of § 17 Abs. 1 No. 3 SGB VIII and § 17 Abs. 2 SGB VIII as a reor­ga­niza­ti­on aid (Coes­ter, 2003, p. 82) ser­ve to impro­ve the rela­ti­onship, upbrin­ging, action and con­flict com­pe­ten­ci­es of the par­ents to pro­tect the inte­rests of the child in the paren­tal con­flict, thus ensu­ring the con­ti­nui­ty of the paren­tal rela­ti­ons of the child to mother and father (Mün­der, Mey­sen & Tren­c­zek /Proksch, 2013, S. 225 und 229; Wiesner/Struck, 2015, S. 312).

Regar­ding the con­tent of coun­seling in sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce situa­tions accor­ding to Sec­tion 17 Para. 1 No. 3 SGB VIII and § 17 Abs. 2 SGB VIII include:

• Sepa­ra­ti­on of the dif­fi­cul­ties at the part­ner level from the respon­si­bi­li­ty at the parent level in order to be able to resol­ve the rela­ti­onship con­flict and to coope­ra­te in the inte­rests of the child­ren (see also Jopt, 1998, pp. 290-291).
• Sen­si­tiza­ti­on of par­ents to the con­side­ra­ti­on and prio­ri­ty of the needs, inte­rests and rights of child­ren over other needs in order not to end­an­ger the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of the child.
• Pre­ser­va­ti­on of access and rela­ti­onships bet­ween the child­ren and both par­ents wit­hout coming under pres­su­re to form a coali­ti­on, in order to gua­ran­tee the pos­si­bi­li­ty of iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on with father and mother.
• Child­ren should retain as many of their sup­port­i­ve rela­ti­onships as pos­si­ble and, as far as pos­si­ble, their fami­li­ar surroundings.
• Ins­truc­ting par­ents to obser­ve the mutu­al good beha­vi­or requirement.
• Ade­qua­te sup­port for the child in deal­ing with the sepa­ra­ti­on of the parents.
• Deve­lo­p­ment of a com­mon con­cept for the care and inter­ac­tion of par­ents with their child­ren (brin­ging about a com­mon atti­tu­de of both par­ents towards their children).

2.3

18 SGB VIII: Advice and sup­port in the exer­cise of per­so­nal care

The objec­ti­ves of coun­seling in accordance with Sec­tion 18 of Book VIII of the Social Code are advice and sup­port in exer­cis­ing paren­tal cus­t­ody and in deal­ing with peo­p­le in accordance with Sec­tion 1684 of the Ger­man Civil Code and Sec­tion 1685 of the Ger­man Civil Code, i.e. the pro­mo­ti­on of cont­acts bet­ween the child­ren and both par­ents and other important caregivers.

Regar­ding the con­tent of the advice and sup­port in sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce situa­tions accor­ding to § 18 Abs. 1 No. 1 SGB VIII and § 18 Abs. 3 SGB VIII include:

• Advice and sup­port for sin­gle par­ents in the exer­cise of per­so­nal care with regard to ques­ti­ons of child care, child upbrin­ging, edu­ca­ti­on, super­vi­si­on, the right to deter­mi­ne the right of resi­dence, in cases of con­flicts with the other parent (Mün­der, Mey­sen & Tren­c­zek / Proksch, 2013, p. 250 ; Schell­horn, Fischer, Mann, Schell­horn & Kern / Fischer, 2017, p. 170).
• Advice and sup­port for tho­se entit­led to access when they request infor­ma­ti­on about the child’s per­so­nal cir­cum­s­tances, when estab­li­shing cont­act with each other and imple­men­ting judi­cial or agreed access regu­la­ti­ons (Schell­horn, Fischer, Mann, Schell­horn & Kern / Fischer, 2017, p. 172) .

3.

Con­sul­ting approach Klu­ge and Schmidt

Dr. Karl-Josef Klu­ge and Axel Schmidt have deve­lo­ped an inter­ven­ti­on approach for coun­seling par­ents in sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce situa­tions. The advi­so­ry approach pre­sen­ted here is geared towards the fami­ly mother-father, parent-child sys­tem and their inter­de­pen­den­ci­es (Wies­ner /Struck, 2015, p. 319). The coun­seling approach is pri­ma­ri­ly inten­ded to enable par­ents to deve­lop and main­tain a fami­ly rela­ti­onship based on part­ner­ship, and to encou­ra­ge and sup­port them in this. “This is ser­ved in par­ti­cu­lar by inter­di­sci­pli­na­ry and media­ti­ve advi­so­ry ser­vices, which also pre­ven­tively pro­mo­te and sup­port the abili­ty of par­ents to resol­ve con­flicts and their abili­ty to com­mu­ni­ca­te and coope­ra­te” (Mün­der, Mey­sen & Tren­c­zek /Proksch, 2013, P. 225).

The cour­se con­tent com­pri­ses 11 units and is desi­gned for a dura­ti­on of 3 months. The group ses­si­ons con­sist of appro­xi­m­ate­ly 8 to 10 par­ti­ci­pan­ts. During the cour­se, work is car­ri­ed out in the who­le group and in small groups. The group ses­si­ons are ide­al­ly led by a mixed-gen­der trai­ner couple.

The aut­hor and Dr. Karl-Josef Klu­ge deve­lo­ped the fol­lo­wing struc­tu­re for their coun­seling approach in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on of the par­ents (see also Eme­ry, 2012, p. 63; Nie­sel, 2008, p. 328-334; John­s­ton & Camp­bell, 1988, p. 199).

(1) Rea­lignment of the par­ents’ rela­ti­onships with a focus on the needs of the child­ren(Eme­ry, 2012, p. 63; Fthe­na­kis, Nie­sel & Grie­bel, 1993, pp. 267-268; John­s­ton & Camp­bell, 1988, p. 199 ; Rohr­baugh, 2008, pp. 196-209; Wal­per & Krey, 2013, p. 196; White­si­de, 1998, p. 13)

If the­re are child­ren, a cer­tain form of paren­tal coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the for­mer part­ners is requi­red: “One of the many iro­nies of divorce is that, even in the midst of their paren­ting, par­ents need to find a way to work tog­e­ther for their child­ren” (Eme­ry , 2012, p. 93). In this area, par­ents are infor­med about the effects of a sepa­ra­ti­on on the par­ents and on the child­ren. Fur­ther­mo­re, the deve­lo­p­ment-rela­ted needs of child­ren are pre­sen­ted and the par­ents are taught to put the needs of the child­ren in the foreground.

Con­tents:

– Pos­si­ble effects of sepa­ra­ti­on on parents

– Gene­ral deve­lo­p­men­tal needs of children

– Pos­si­ble effects of paren­tal sepa­ra­ti­on on children

– Brin­ging awa­re­ness to the needs of child­ren in the foreground

Method:

4 units of three hours each. The indi­vi­du­al cour­se units are held at weekly intervals.

(2) Reduc­tion of con­flicts at the cou­ple level (John­s­ton & Camp­bell, 1988, p. 199; Rohr­baugh, 2008, p. 196-209)

Advice on hand­ling and pro­ces­sing the psy­cho­lo­gi­cal con­flict dyna­mics in the event of sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce and the con­se­quen­ces of sepa­ra­ti­on in child­ren and ado­le­s­cents is seen as a pre­re­qui­si­te for the deve­lo­p­ment of a con­sen­su­al and per­ma­nent con­cept for the per­cep­ti­on of paren­tal cus­t­ody (par­ents’ agree­ment) (Weber, 2009, p . 324). In this way, it can be ensu­red with a hig­her pro­ba­bi­li­ty that par­ents do not sub­mit any appli­ca­ti­ons for cus­t­ody or access rights to the fami­ly court in order to get their sup­po­sed rights. Becau­se when fami­ly courts deci­de, they pro­du­ce win­ners and losers. This does not always lead to real paci­fi­ca­ti­on and sta­bi­liza­ti­on of the fami­ly. “The“ fight for the child ”and the sup­po­sed right is car­ri­ed on with more subt­le and / or coar­ser means. Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal mecha­nisms by per­so­nal vul­nerabi­li­ty, by dis­ap­point­ments and inju­ries by the divorcee [Author’s note: sepa­ra­te] Part­ners, who are deter­mi­ned by a sub­li­mi­nal­ly con­ti­nuing guilt prin­ci­ple, by femi­nist and mas­cu­li­ne atti­tu­des and by a right to an undis­tur­bed rela­ti­onship with the child nou­ris­hed by law and public opi­ni­on, can then lead to a build-up of con­flicts“( Weber, 2009, p. 327).

Once the con­flicts bet­ween the par­ents have been iden­ti­fied, the par­ents are par­ti­cu­lar­ly infor­med about the pos­si­ble effects of their con­flicts on their child­ren. Redu­cing the par­ents’ con­flicts is an essen­ti­al pre­re­qui­si­te for redu­cing and avo­i­ding coali­ti­on pres­su­re and the asso­cia­ted con­flicts of loyal­ty for child­ren (Eme­ry, 2012, p. 93). Sub­se­quent­ly, stra­te­gies are deve­lo­ped to limit the conflicts.

Con­tents:

– Estab­li­shing the con­flicts bet­ween the par­ents (Lebow, 2003, pp. 183-184; Rohr­baugh, 2008, pp. 170-172):

• Type of con­flict (e.g. judi­cial, atti­tu­des, personal)
• Are­as of con­flict and pos­si­ble interdependencies
• Tem­po­ral dimen­si­ons (begin­ning, duration)
• Cau­se and cau­se of the conflict
• Under­stan­ding the con­flict from the dif­fe­rent per­spec­ti­ves of tho­se involved
• Con­flict level

– Pos­si­ble con­se­quen­ces of par­ents’ con­flicts on the children

– Deve­lo­p­ment of stra­te­gies to redu­ce paren­tal con­flict behavior

Method:

3 units of three hours each. The indi­vi­du­al cour­se units are held at weekly intervals.

(3)Development of a paren­ting plan (John­s­ton & Camp­bell, 1988, p. 199, Kel­ly, 2005, p. 253-254, Kli­ne Pruett & Bar­ker, 2009, p. 445-453)

A joint par­ents’ agree­ment can pre­vent decis­i­ons by the fami­ly courts. When dra­wing up a par­ents ‘agree­ment, the par­ents’ poten­ti­al for con­flict must be taken into account (Rohr­baugh, 2008, p. 173).

Con­tents:

A joint par­ents’ agree­ment should include the following:

(A) Name of the child and parents

(B) Gene­ral rules about the par­ents’ atti­tu­de towards their rela­ti­onship after a separation

– needs of the child

We agree that we put the child’s needs at the cen­ter of our actions.

– Com­pli­ance with the recipro­cal code of conduct

We agree that we have mutu­al respect for the inde­pen­dence and auto­no­my of the other parent.

We agree to keep the child out of any dis­cus­sion of paren­tal separation.

We agree that we will refrain from any­thing that could make the other parent appear nega­ti­ve in the child.

– Coope­ra­ti­on

We agree that we will coope­ra­te on all child-rela­ted issues and want to come to com­mon solutions.

(C) Legal concern

– Agree­ment of joint custody

– Agree­ment to trans­fer parts of paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty to one parent

– Ver­ein­ba­rung zur allei­ni­ge Sor­ge eines Elternteils

(D) Time of the child with his par­ents(Bau­ser­mann, 2002, p. 97-99; Kel­ly, 2007, p. 46-47)

– Inter­ch­an­geable model

The child most­ly lives with parent A and parent B, e.g. alter­na­ting weekly.

– Resi­dence model

The child lives main­ly with parent A and spends time with parent B every two weekends, for exam­p­le. Addi­tio­nal stays with parent B can be arran­ged here.

– Regu­la­ti­ons on other appoint­ments and par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the child’s activities

• Holi­day regulation
• Public holidays
• Birthdays
• Other spe­cial days
• Cont­act via pho­ne, Sky­pe, email, etc.
• Cont­acts with other peo­p­le (e.g. grand­par­ents, fami­ly members)
• Par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in appoint­ments of the child (e.g. school events, sports acti­vi­ties, invitations)

(E) Exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on about the child (Lebow, 2003, p. 188)

We agree that we can talk about important things about the child at any time.

We agree that we estab­lish and main­tain relia­ble com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on struc­tures regar­ding mat­ters rela­ting to the child and coope­ra­ti­on regar­ding the child in two sepa­ra­te households.

Method:

4 units of three hours each. The indi­vi­du­al cour­se units are held at weekly intervals.

4.

Lite­ra­tu­re

Ama­to, P. R. (2000). The con­se­quen­ces of divorce for adults and child­ren. Jour­nal of Mar­ria­ge and the Fami­ly, 62, 1269-1287.

Bacon, B. L. & McKen­zie, B. (2004). Parent edu­ca­ti­on after sepa­ra­ti­on / divorce: Impact of the Level of Paren­tal Con­flict on Out­co­mes. Fami­ly Court Review, 42, 85-97.

Bau­ser­mann, R. (2002). Child adjus­t­ment in joint-cus­t­ody ver­sus sole-cus­t­ody arran­ge­ments: A meta-ana­ly­tic review. Jour­nal of Fami­ly Psy­cho­lo­gy, 16, 91-102.

Bun­des­kon­fe­renz für Erzie­hungs­be­ra­tung. (2009). Rechts­grund­la­gen der Bera­tung. Fürth: Eigenverlag.

Bun­des­kon­fe­renz für Erzie­hungs­be­ra­tung. (2012). Inan­spruch­nah­me von Erzie­hungs­be­ra­tung bei gemein­sa­mer elter­li­cher Sor­ge nach Tren­nung der Eltern, Zeit­schrift für Kind­schafts­recht und Jugend­hil­fe, 7, 483-487.

Coes­ter, M. (2003). Güt­li­che Eini­gung und Media­ti­on in fami­li­en­recht­li­chen Kon­flik­ten. Kind­schafts­recht­li­che Pra­xis, 6, 79-84.

Eme­ry, R. E. (2012). Ren­ego­tia­ting fami­ly rela­ti­onships: Divorce, child cus­t­ody, and media­ti­on (Second edi­ti­on). New York, NY: The Guil­ford Press.

Eme­ry, R. E., Lau­mann-Bil­lings, L., Wald­ron, M., Sbar­ra, D. A. & Dil­lon, P. (2001). Child cus­t­ody media­ti­on and liti­ga­ti­on: Cus­t­ody, cont­act, and co-paren­ting 12 years after initi­al dis­pu­te reso­lu­ti­on. Jour­nal of Con­sul­ting and Cli­ni­cal Psy­cho­lo­gy, 69, 323-332.

Fthe­na­kis, W. E., Nie­sel, R. & Grie­bel, W. (1993). Schei­dung als Reor­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­pro­zess, Inter­ven­ti­ons­an­sät­ze für Kin­der und ihre Eltern. In K. Men­ne, H. Schil­ling & M. Weber (Hrsg.), Kin­der im Schei­dungs­kon­flikt, Bera­tung von Kin­dern und Eltern bei Tren­nung und Schei­dung (S. 261-289). Wein­heim: Juventa.

John­s­ton, J. R. & Camp­bell L. E. G. (1988). Impas­ses of divorce: The dyna­mics and reso­lu­ti­on of fami­ly con­flict. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Jopt, U. (1998). Jugend­hil­fe und Tren­nungs­be­ra­tung. Zen­tral­blatt für Jugend­recht, 85, 286-297.

Kel­ly, J. B. (2000). Children’s adjus­t­ment in con­flic­ted mar­ria­ge and divorce: A deca­de review of rese­arch. Jour­nal of the Ame­ri­can Aca­de­my of Child and Ado­le­s­cent Psych­ia­try, 39, 963-973.

Kel­ly, J. B. (2005). Deve­lo­ping bene­fi­ci­al paren­ting plan models for child­ren fol­lo­wing sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce. Jour­nal of Ame­ri­can Aca­de­my of Matri­mo­ni­al Lawy­ers, 19, 237-254.

Kel­ly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arran­ge­ments fol­lo­wing sepa­ra­ti­on and divorce: Insights from empi­ri­cal and cli­ni­cal rese­arch. Fami­ly Pro­cess, 46, 35-52.

Kel­ly, J. B. & Eme­ry, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjus­t­ment fol­lo­wing divorce: Risk and resi­li­ence per­spec­ti­ves. Fami­ly Rela­ti­ons, 52, 352-362.

Kli­ne Pruett, M. & Bar­ker, C. (2009). Joint Cus­t­ody: A judi­cious choi­se for families–but how, when, and why? In R. M. Galaz­ter-Levy, J. Kraus & J. Galat­zer-Levy (Eds.). The sci­en­ti­fic basis of child cus­t­ody decis­i­ons (Second edi­ti­on, pp. 417-462). Hobo­ken, NJ: Wiley.

Lebow, J. (2003). Inte­gra­ti­ve fami­ly the­ra­py for dis­pu­tes invol­ving child cus­t­ody and visi­ta­ti­on. Jour­nal of Fami­ly Psy­cho­lo­gy, 17, 181-192.

McIn­tosh, J. E. (2006). The Children’s Cases Pilot Pro­ject. An explo­ra­to­ry stu­dy of impacts on paren­ting capa­ci­ty and children’s well-being. Final report to the Fami­ly Court of Aus­tra­lia. Vic­to­ria: Fami­ly Transitions.

McIn­tosh, J., & Dea­con-Wood, H.B. (2003). Group inter­ven­ti­ons for sepa­ra­ted par­ents in ent­ren­ched con­flict: An explo­ra­ti­on of evi­dence-based frame­works. Jour­nal of Fami­ly Stu­dies, 9, 187-199.

McIn­tosh, J. E. & Long, C. M. (2006). Child­ren bey­ond dis­pu­te: A pro­s­pec­ti­ve stu­dy of out­co­mes from child focu­sed and child inclu­si­ve post-sepa­ra­ti­on fami­ly dis­pu­te reso­lu­ti­on. Final report to the Fami­ly Court of Aus­tra­lia. Vic­to­ria: Fami­ly Transitions.

Men­ne, K. (2016). Erzie­hungs­be­ra­tung als Jugend­hil­fe. Die Ent­wick­lung der Erzie­hungs- und Fami­li­en­be­ra­tung in Deutsch­land in den 25 Jah­ren seit Inkraft­tre­ten des Kin­der- und Jugend­hil­fe­ge­set­zes (KJHG). In Bun­des­kon­fe­renz für Erzie­hungs­be­ra­tung (Hrsg.), Bera­tung in Bewe­gung. Bei­trä­ge zur Wei­ter­ent­wick­lung in den Hil­fen zur Erzie­hung (S. 10-52). Fürth: Eigenverlag.

Mün­der, J., Mey­sen, T. & Tren­c­zek, T. (2013). Frank­fur­ter Kom­men­tar zum SGB VIII, Kin­der und Jugend­hil­fe (7. voll­stän­dig über­ar­bei­te­te Auf­la­ge). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Nie­sel, R. (2008). Wäh­rend und nach einer Schei­dung – Ver­pflich­ten­de und frei­wil­li­ge Pro­gram­me in den USA. In H. Mader Stif­tung (Hrsg.), Die Fami­lie nach der Fami­lie. Wis­sen und Hil­fen bei Eltern­tren­nung und neu­en Bezie­hun­gen (S. 328-334). Mün­chen: Beck.

Rohr­baugh, J. B. (2008). A com­pre­hen­si­ve gui­de to child cus­t­ody eva­lua­tions:
Men­tal health and legal per­spec­ti­ves. New York, NY: Springer.

Schell­horn, W., Fischer, L., Mann, H., Schell­horn, H. & Kern, C. (2017). SGB VIII, Kin­der und Jugend­hil­fe Kom­men­tar (5. Auf­la­ge). Köln: Luchterhand.

Schmidt, A. & West­hoff, K. (2020). Kin­des­wohl inter­dis­zi­pli­när: Empi­ri­sche Ergeb­nis­se für die juris­ti­sche Pra­xis bei Tren­nung der Eltern. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Thoen­nes, N., & Pear­son, J. (1999). Parent edu­ca­ti­on in the dome­stic rela­ti­ons court: A mul­ti-site assess­ment. Fami­ly and Con­ci­lia­ti­on Courts Review, 37, 105-218.

Wal­per, S. (2003). Kon­text­merk­ma­le gelin­gen­der und miss­lin­ge­ner Ent­wick­lung von Kin­dern in Einel­tern­fa­mi­li­en. In J. M. Fegert & U. Zie­genhein (Hrsg.), Hil­fen für Allein­er­zie­hen­de. Die Lebens­si­tua­ti­on von Einel­tern­fa­mi­li­en in Deutsch­land (S. 148-166). Wein­heim: Beltz.

Wal­per, S. & Brö­ning, S. (2008). Bewäl­ti­gungs­hil­fen bei Tren­nung und Schei­dung. In F. Peter­mann & W. Schnei­der (Hrsg.), Ange­wand­te Ent­wick­lungs­psy­cho­lo­gie (S. 571-604). Göt­tin­gen: Hogrefe.

Wal­per, S. & Krey, M. (2013). Eltern­kur­se zur För­de­rung der Tren­nungs­be­wäl­ti­gung und Prä­ven­ti­on von Hoch­kon­flikt­haf­tig­keit. Das Bei­spiel „Kin­der im Blick“. In S. Wal­per, J. Ficht­ner & K. Nor­mann (Hrsg.), Hoch­kon­flikt­haf­te Tren­nungs­fa­mi­li­en. For­schungs­er­geb­nis­se, Pra­xis­er­fah­run­gen und Hil­fen für Schei­dungs­el­tern und ihre Kin­der (2. Auf­la­ge, S. 189-212). Wein­heim: Juventa.

Weber, M. (2009). Neue Her­aus­for­de­rung für die Bera­tung. Zeit­schrift für Kind­schafts­recht und Jugend­hil­fe, 5, 324-329.

White­si­de, M. F. (1998). The paren­tal alli­ance fol­lo­wing divorce: An over­view. Jour­nal of Marital and Fami­ly The­ra­py, 24, 3-24.

Wies­ner, R. (2015). SGB VIII, Kin­der- und Jugend­hil­fe, Kom­men­tar (5. über­ar­bei­te­te Auf­la­ge). Mün­chen: Beck.

Wolch­nik, S. A., San­der, I. N., Win­slow, E., Smith-Dani­els, V. (2005). Pro­grams for pro­mo­ting paren­ting of resi­den­ti­al par­ents: Moving from effi­ca­cy to effec­ti­ve­ness. Fami­ly Court Review, 43 65-80.

5.

Cont­act

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Karl-Josef Kluge

(Uni­ver­si­ty of Colo­gne, Facul­ty of Human Sci­en­ces, Depart­ment for Cura­ti­ve Edu­ca­ti­on and Reha­bi­li­ta­ti­on, Sub­ject: Edu­ca­tio­nal Aid and Social-Emo­tio­nal Promotion)

Pho­ne:

02162 24606

E-Mail:

klugekajo@yahoo.de und kluge@euroges.de

Dr. Axel Schmidt

(Diplo­ma in busi­ness admi­nis­tra­ti­on, diplo­ma psychologist)

Pho­ne:

0171 307 39 48

E-Mail:

axel.schmidt@familiengutachten.eu