German law establishes that parents can be held criminally responsible for the actions of their children, even those who have reached the age of criminal responsibility, if they fail to prevent harm to others caused by their child. This principle stems from a legal duty to safeguard against potential damages.
Landmark Ruling Clarifies Parental Responsibility in Criminal Cases
A recent ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarifies the extent of this parental responsibility. The court determined that parents have a legal obligation to intervene when there are concrete indications that their child is planning or engaging in criminal behavior. The decision, issued on October 7, 2025 (Az. 3 StR 11/25), also refines the requirements for establishing “psychological assistance” in criminal proceedings (§ 27 StGB).
The case originated from a tragic family dispute in Gerolstein, Rhineland-Palatinate, in December 2022, resulting in the brutal murder of a 53-year-old physician, Steffen B. Julia L. (35 at the time), the victim’s ex-partner, resided in the same house with their three children and her 16-year-old son, S.-J., from a previous relationship.
According to the Trier Regional Court (LG), S.-J. and his half-brother, W., discussed a plan to kill B. with his mother days before the crime. The plan involved striking B. from behind. Julia L. reportedly nodded in agreement and then suggested the teenagers “think about how to get rid of B.”
Initial Ruling Focused on Failure to Provide Assistance
On December 30, 2022, S.-J. and W. carried out the murder, fatally striking and strangling B. Julia L., a trained nurse, was in the kitchen downstairs and, according to the LG’s findings, witnessed the attack but left the room without attempting to stop the assault or provide medical assistance. The body was buried in a forest and later burned. Remains were discovered months later by passersby.
The LG Trier convicted the two teenage perpetrators of murder. However, Julia L. was initially found guilty only of failing to provide assistance (§ 323c StGB). The LG determined she could not be charged as an accomplice or accessory to the murder.
The LG reasoned that she had no duty to protect her ex-partner, as their separation and cohabitation arrangement did not establish such an obligation. Furthermore, she was not obligated to prevent her 16-year-old son from committing the crime, as he was deemed mature enough to understand the wrongfulness of his actions.
BGH Reverses Ruling, Cites Parental “Supervisory Duty”
The BGH overturned this assessment on appeal from the public prosecutor’s office. The court stated that Julia L. could be convicted as an accomplice to murder through “improper omission” (§ 13 Abs.1 StGB). As a responsible parent, she had a “supervisory duty” to prevent her son from carrying out the attack.
This duty exists regardless of whether the 16-year-old is legally responsible for his actions, the BGH stated. The court emphasized that the legal obligation to provide parental care does not end upon reaching the age of majority, citing provisions within German civil law (§§ 1626 Abs. 1, 1631 Abs. 1, and 832 BGB).
However, the BGH also acknowledged that parental supervision has limits. The measures required are those that “reasonable parents would take to prevent harm to others caused by their child,” based on concrete evidence of potential criminal behavior.
In this case, the BGH concluded that Julia L. had the means to prevent the crime. She could have verbally stopped her son and, as a trained nurse, provided immediate medical assistance to the victim. The court believed that intervention could have saved the victim’s life or at least prolonged it.
Psychological Assistance Can Occur Before a Decision is Made
The BGH also found fault with the LG’s assessment regarding psychological assistance. The court stated that Julia L.’s nod of approval to her son’s initial plan to kill B. could constitute “relevant encouragement” under § 27 Abs. 1 StGB. This type of psychological support is not limited to situations where the perpetrator has already made a firm decision to commit the crime. Her suggestion that the teenagers “think about how to get rid of B.” could also be considered encouragement.
The case has been sent back to the Trier Regional Court for further consideration of Julia L.’s potential involvement in the murder. The BGH overturned the conviction for failing to provide assistance, but did not replace it with a new verdict, stating that the existing findings were insufficient to determine the extent of her culpability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the key takeaway from this BGH ruling?
The ruling clarifies that parents have a continuing legal duty to supervise their children, even those who are past the age of initial criminal responsibility, and to intervene when there are concrete indications of planned criminal activity.
What constitutes sufficient “supervisory duty” in these cases?
The BGH stated that the required level of supervision depends on what “reasonable parents” would do in similar circumstances, based on the specific threat and the child’s age and maturity.
Could Julia L. still face a conviction for murder?
Yes, the case has been sent back to the Regional Court to determine whether Julia L. can be convicted as an accomplice to murder through improper omission or psychological assistance.
How might this ruling influence future cases involving parental responsibility for the crimes of their children?
Related reading