D. Parentage law
The law of descent regulates who is the Parents of a child. Lines and Grade determine the quality of the parent-child relationship; according to the legal definition in the German Civil Code (BGB), everything depends on the number of mediating births. For example, a child is related to its parents in the 1st degree and in a straight line, and to its grandparents in the 2nd degree, but also in a straight line. There is a connection to the siblings in the collateral line.
German law provides for a maximum of 2 parents, namely the mother and father. The first parent is always the Mrswho gave birth to the child (biological parentage). This is associated with an indispensable and unalterable Maternity (§ 1591 BGB).
The second parent position (Paternity), on the other hand, can be filled in different ways: A Man can establish his relationship of descent to a child by
- Marriage with the birth mother (§ 1592 No. 1 BGB),
- by means of Recognition with their Consent (§§ 1592 No. 2, 1595 BGB) or by
- ascertaining Court order (§§ 1592 No. 3, 1600 d BGB)
establish a child. This is not possible for a wife (or partner of the birth mother); she can only become a parent through (stepchild) adoption.
However, paternity through marriage and recognition is not always based on reproductive biology truths, so that the concept of Ancestry is not exclusively genetically proven, but also - especially as so-called Responsible parenting - can include legal parenthood. The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) refers in this respect to an (at least possible appearing) Collapse from more bodily and legal parenthood, which is impossible for non-binary-sex couples. Against this background, whether a parentage law Equal treatment of wives and husbands, as discussed, is required, even necessary, appears questionable.
Both the Higher Regional Court of Celle and the Court of Appeal (Berlin) consider the current provision in the BGB, according to which only a Man the 2nd parent position, but not a woman, for unconstitutional. They are of the opinion that, in any case, if in a same-sex marriage after an (anonymous) embryo donation the second parent position is vacant would remain, a parent-child assignment would also have to be made to a female second parent (= wife). It should be taken into account that constitutional parenthood established by descent can also be recognised by an equivalent second parent. Voluntary element in addition to the takeover of Responsibility could be justified:
- OLG CelleParental status cannot be based solely on genetic and biological factors. The BVerfG has made it clear that there cannot be a parental right without a duty towards the child under Article 6 (2) sentence 1 of the Basic Law (BVerfG NJW 2003, 2151, 2153). It is true that the joint contribution of the parents, which is decisive for the creation of the child, cannot be based on the creation of a relationship between the wife and child with regard to the scope of protection of Article 6 of the Basic Law. However, this is to be assessed differently if the declarations of the intended parents are the basis and necessary prerequisite for the creation of the child (OLG Celle NZFam 2021, 352, 363). Constitutional parenthood established by descent can also be established by an (equivalent) voluntary element, i.e. a will to parenthood and the assumption of responsibility: The conception of the child is of existential importance, which is constitutionally relevant (cf. Oldenburg NZFam 2020, 985). Therefore, there is a constitutionally justified duty on the part of the legislator to adopt a statutory structure with regard to the justification and content of the Parental status of same-sex couples. The fundamental right of the child and the wife under Art. 2 para. 1 GG in conjunction with Art. 6 para. 2 sentence 1 GG are currently violated. Following the introduction of same-sex marriage and homogenisation with heterosexual marriage, the comparison groups should be formed anew. Specific allocation criteria of the respective parenthood, if juxtaposed, no longer justify gender-specific unequal treatment of the second parenthood.
In contrast, the Federal Court of Justice had ruled that this was unconstitutional with reference to a Missing regulatory gap rejected. The provision was not unconstitutional because the scope of protection of Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law was not affected. Finally, there are No constitutional necessityto assign an unrelated person to the child as a parent. There was also no unequal treatment within the meaning of Art. 3 para. 1 GG. There was also no analogous application of the standard to wives:
BGH: The wife is not a parent of the child. Rather, she wants this status first obtain. Furthermore, the child's right of personality does not give rise to a constitutional necessity to assign a person who is not physically related to the child as a parent under the law of parentage. This also applies if this person is willing and able to assume parental responsibility. Finally, there is also no unequal treatment within the meaning of Art. 3 Para. 1 GG, as there is an objective reason for the distinction between marriage and the effects of marriage on the one hand and parentage on the other.
The Federal Constitutional Court has announced that it will hear and rule on these issues in the course of 2025.