Parental consensus tested in Paris
A new procedural approach called the parental consensus has been tested in Paris since October 7, 2026, as part of an experimental initiative to resolve family disputes through early mediation and agreement-seeking. This method is inspired by a similar process developed in Germany in the 1990s and is conducted under existing legal frameworks, including Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Scope of the parental consensus
The parental consensus applies to initial requests outside of divorce and modifying requests after divorce, excluding urgent situations and cases involving intrafamily violence that make meetings impossible. Ongoing criminal procedures must be reported and assessed by the judge, and a contentious procedure can be redirected toward the parental consensus if both parties request it.Simplified request format
One of the notable features of the Parisian approach is the use of a simplified request without grievances. This introductory document contains essential information about the family situation and requests related to the children, but its motivation is limited to ten or twenty lines. The parties are asked to outline points of disagreement and the needs of the children without detailing grievances against the other parent.Filing and hearing procedures
Two modes of filing are available: depositing the request at the court clerk's office or transmitting it via RPVA, followed by service by a judicial commissioner. Hearings are typically scheduled within one to two months, with the personal presence of both parents and their lawyers required. Preparation with the other parent or their lawyer is recommended to ensure the approach is understood before the hearing.First hearing in Paris
The first hearing in Paris differed significantly from traditional family court proceedings. It began with a collective session where the judge explained the approach and its goals to the parents, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and the impact of parental conflict on children. This was followed by time for parents and their lawyers to discuss and explore solutions, with rooms available for private discussions or interviews with mediators, parental coordinators, and child listeners.Individual exchanges with the judge
Individual exchanges with the judge followed, without traditional pleading or contradictory debate. The judge aimed to identify difficulties and seek concrete solutions. Possible outcomes included a full agreement, partial agreement, or referral to a contentious hearing if no agreement was reached. If an agreement was reached later, it could be submitted for homologation without a new hearing.Example case and results
An example case involved divorced parents with a complete breakdown in communication, where the children had no contact with their mother. The father's lawyer proposed the parental consensus to restore dialogue and gradually resume the children's relationship with their mother. The mother's lawyer showed openness, but the mother did not attend the hearing. Despite this, the father was able to express his situation, and the judge encouraged continued efforts to resume dialogue, referring the case for further consideration.Challenges and future outlook
The experience highlights the importance of both parents' adherence and preparatory work, as well as the choice of filing mode, which must balance procedural security with the spirit of the device. The role of lawyers is also different, requiring them to prepare clients for an unusual hearing process, support the search for solutions, and ensure agreements are precise and balanced. The absence of an immediate agreement does not necessarily mean the approach has failed, as introducing a different discussion framework can still be beneficial. The Parisian experiment is still in its early stages, and more hindsight will be needed to assess its results. However, the initial experience suggests that the parental consensus deserves consideration when appropriate, provided the preparatory work is not underestimated.
