Press releases of Europa-Universität Flensburg (EUF)

“Children do not share information on command, or in the order that a proceeding might want them to. Whether a child is listened to depends less on how often it is questioned and more on how and under what conditions they are asked. The norm is open-ended questions that do not put words in the child’s mouth—and that does not mean leaving the child alone: One may and should support the child while they are speaking, but without dictating the direction,” says Prof. Dr. Simone Pülschen, junior professor at Europa-Universität Flensburg, who initiated the symposium together with Dr. Ralf Bauer, president of Flensburg’s Regional Court. Both were responsible for putting together the symposium’s program and led the two-day event.

“A child does not go through two separate proceedings, but rather a single stressful period. Family and criminal courts can do a great deal to ensure that this does not result in twice as many court dates and twice as many interviews—but to do so, they must communicate with one another, and so far, that has been the exception rather than the rule,” says Dr. Ralf Bauer.

A forensic interview is not a casual conversation: it follows scientifically grounded rules and must achieve two things—elicit a statement that will hold up in court and avoid placing additional stress on the child in the process. The presentations from the experts demonstrated just how challenging this is: Legal psychologists categorized national and international recommendations for interviewing minors and specified requirements for robust training and continuing education. From the field of judicial practice there was an overview of recent case law on video-recorded interviews, and the status of proposed legislative changes, as well as a presentation on how child protection depends on clear role delineation between criminal and family law.

The symposium’s closing panel discussion on child-friendly questioning and the treatment of minors in judicial proceedings

The symposium highlighted where the obstacles lie: with family and criminal proceedings conducted in parallel that are largely unaware of each other and pursue different goals; with stressful multiple questioning; with a lack of clarity regarding roles in the exchange of information; and with the training of specialists. Approximately 110 experts participated—from the police, public prosecutors’ offices, and courts; from the federal and state ministries of justice; from the fields of medicine, psychology, and research; from Childhood Houses; from the German Institute for Human Rights and the German Children’s Fund; as well as members of the Council of Affected Persons at the UBSKM.

Models from several federal states were presented in which courts, Childhood Houses, the police, and child protection clinics collaborate closely—with centralized responsibilities and coordinated scheduling of appointments. Such examples can serve as a starting point. However, these practices will only become reliable when they no longer depend on the commitment of individuals. Members of the Victims’ Council at the UBSKM contributed their own form of expertise: They described what it is like to have gone through the system and to know where the gaps are.

“We now know quite precisely what makes a good interview. What is missing is not the knowledge, but the binding structure within which specialists can acquire and maintain it,” says Pülschen.

Pülschen and Bauer prepared the symposium together with other institutions: The program was structured around the current state of research, advisors were recruited, and forums were designed to facilitate dialogue among individuals from legal scholarship and practice, legal psychology, medicine, (social) pedagogy, and child protection practice.

As part of her junior professorship in pedagogy and interdisciplinary cooperation in the context of sexual violence, Pülschen conducts research on precisely the questions raised in the presentations: How can interview skills be taught and sustained over the long term? How can the various professions involved collaborate in a way that allows them to fulfill their mandates while minimizing the stress experienced by children?

A focus of Pülschen’s work is (technology-supported) continuing education and training. It is no coincidence that a pedagogue is working on this: Whether specialists can draw on their knowledge in an emergency depends on the structure of learning, not the textbook. How training should be structured so that communication skills adapt under pressure, what kind of feedback is effective, and how to retain what has been learned—these are pedagogical questions. Accordingly, in her junior professorship, she conducts training sessions in which specialists practice conducting interviews through, for example, simulations, and receive immediate feedback on their questioning style, without a child having to serve as a subject for the exercise.

The symposium in Berlin identified key fields of action: mandatory standards with the necessary personnel and financial resources, compulsory training for participating specialists, and better coordination of parallel proceedings.

The Justice Ministers’ Conference decided in June to establish a federal–state working group on child-friendly questioning, which could build directly on the findings of the Berlin symposium. The results will be followed up on in the National Council; at Europa-Universität Flensburg, they will be incorporated into research, teaching, and training programs.

"The best practices observed in Berlin largely emerge from the leeway available under current law. That is remarkable—but it remains dependent on the will of those involved. For children to be able to rely on this, we need legal guidelines that clarify what is mandatory, and specialists who are qualified for this task," says Pülschen.Pülschen.