Jolanda Genton: Judicial regulation – but amendment by agreement possible at any time

Jolanda Genton: Court order – but modification by consent possible at any time

Source-based reconstruction. Private family members are not identified. Office-holders and professionals are mentioned only in their documented capacity.

At the same time, the decision states that the court-established arrangement may be changed at any time by mutual agreement and mutual consent, taking the child’s welfare into account. The decision assumes that, in view of the course to date, an independent agreement by the parents on the remaining holidays in 2026 is not to be expected. At the same time, the decision states that the geri…

Source basis

What the files show

At the same time, the decision states that the court-ordered arrangement may be amended at any time by mutual consultation and mutual consent, taking the child’s best interests into account. The decision assumes that, given the course of events to date, no independent agreement by the parents regarding the remaining holidays in 2026 is to be expected.

Application and opposing position

For this aspect, no independent additional request is decisive; the analysis compares the documented state of the file with the result.

At the same time, the decision states that the court-ordered arrangement can be changed at any time by mutual consultation and mutual consent, taking the child’s welfare into account.

“in mutual consultation and with mutual consent”

Checkpoint

The public characterization is limited to the documented professional conduct. Personal motives, intentions or attributions of character are not substantiated.

LawReport Classification

The person is not characterized here, but described based on a documented professional act. Decisive are the date, function, specific motion or decision, and the associated primary source. Motives, beliefs or personal characteristics cannot be inferred from this.

What does not follow from this

The documented proceedings substantiate the stated motions, statements and decision steps. They do not, by themselves, establish personal motives, bias, abuse of law or a general unlawfulness. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual grounds.

Further posts