When parents order murders—what the Federal Court of Justice now clarifies

Image: MDart10 / Shutterstock.com

Parents under indictment: When does looking the other way become a crime?

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has caused a stir with a ruling from Karlsruhe: Parents can be held criminally responsible if they do not prevent their children of criminal age from committing serious crimes—even if the child is "old enough" to recognize the wrongdoing.

Specifically, it was a shocking case: a mother was at home when her son and a friend brutally murdered her ex-partner there—and she did not intervene. The Trier Regional Court initially convicted her only of failure to render assistance. But the Federal Court of Justice has now ruled that she will not get off so easily.

Guarantor status: What parents need to know

The decision focuses on the so-called guarantor position—that is, the legal obligation to protect or supervise certain persons. According to the Federal Court of Justice, this obligation applies particularly to parents. And not only in the case of small children, but also in the case of adolescents who are already criminally responsible under the law.

The reason: as long as a child is under the age of majority, parental responsibility remains in place. This means that anyone who recognizes signs that their own child is planning a crime—or is even in the process of committing one—must intervene. Otherwise, this can be considered a false omission under Section 13 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). And that can be punishable by law—even as aiding and abetting or complicity in murder.

The key scene: a nod as aiding and abetting murder?

In the case from Rhineland-Palatinate, the mother was not only inactive—according to the verdict, she had even tacitly agreed to the murder plan days earlier. She is said to have nodded at her son's suggestion to kill his hated ex. And then she said, "Think about how we can get rid of him."

The regional court did not consider this to be aiding and abetting. The Federal Court of Justice did: even if the specific decision to commit the crime had not yet been made at that point in time, such behavior could be considered psychological aiding and abetting—i.e., supporting the crime through words, gestures, or simple agreement.

And even later, during the crime, the woman was anything but powerless: according to the Federal Court of Justice, she could have intervened, stopped the attack, or at least attempted to provide medical care to the victim. She was a trained nurse. But she simply walked away.

Parents are not only liable under civil law—they are now also liable under criminal law.

The Federal Court of Justice sums it up: Parental duty of supervision does not end on a child's 14th birthday. Anyone who learns of a planned or ongoing crime committed by their own child must not simply look the other way—especially if someone's life is in danger.

The ruling drastically sharpens the boundaries and obligations in family law. It signals that parents do not have to control everything—but they must not remain inactive when there are concrete indications of serious crimes. And they certainly must not shirk their responsibility with a shrug of the shoulders or a "Well, think about it."

Classification: Finally, a powerful verdict

For too long, people have hidden behind the apparent independence of young people when things got uncomfortable. Parents don't want to know anything about TikTok—but suddenly they don't want to know about murder in their own home either? Anyone who watches their own child kill and looks away has not failed—they have participated. And that is not only morally reprehensible, but will also clearly be punishable by law in the future.

Source: lto.de