Family Reunification for a Child Outside Germany With Their Parent in Germany

When parents and child are separated by national borders, every day counts. This was precisely the issue in a recent case that our law firm successfully concluded before the Berlin Administrative Court by way of preliminary injunction (VG Berlin, decision of July 23, 2026 – VG 29 L 266/26 V).

The ruling is remarkable in two respects:

1. It demonstrates how the court assesses the particular urgency involved in bringing a young child to Germany
2. How the court concludes with a cost decision.

Table of contents

Family reunification case timeline: Child living outside Germany separated from their parent in Germany

• October 2025: For a child born in 2025, a visa application for family reunification with parents living in Germany was submitted as early as October 2025.
• November 2025: The Federal Foreign Office requested the necessary approval from the relevant immigration authority. This is required by Section 31 Paragraph 1 Number 1 of the Residence Ordinance (AufenthV).

What followed was months of silence.

• May 2026: Our legal team inquired, with a deadline at the end of May 2026. No reply from the authority, other than a general acknowledgment of receipt.
• June 2026: Our legal team filed an application for preliminary legal protection with the Berlin Administrative Court.
• July 2026: The immigration authorities granted their approval at the beginning of July 2026. The visa was subsequently issued, and the parties unanimously declared the legal dispute settled.

What is the court’s opinion in the matter of a child’s family reunion?

In preliminary legal protection proceedings (Section 123 VwGO), the following conditions must be met.

• The actual claim (claim for an injunction)
• Proof of urgency (so-called ground for the injunction).

In short, we must prove that waiting for a decision is unreasonable for the applicant.

Here is what the court stated on this matter.

Given the child’s age, the preliminary injunction proceedings are completely valid. Both parents are crucial for a child’s psychological and physical development.

If personal contact of parents with the child is lacking for an extended period, there is a risk of irreversible harm. For example, if one parent, due to a lack of direct contact, is unable to establish a primary bond with the child (sensitivity to the voice, smell, and face of the other parent).

The court also refers to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court. According to it, in situations where the child is not in contact with the parent, the preliminary injunction proceedings fully assume the function of the main proceedings.

This assessment is important for practical purposes.

In the case of young children separated from their parent in Germany, an urgency can be convincingly demonstrated. Rigid deadlines don’t apply in such situations.

Who bears the costs of the legal proceedings?

To understand who bears the cost, we first need to understand the parties involved in the process. The following parties are involved when you apply for a family reunion visa outside Germany.

• You (the applicant) who applied for the family reunion visa. In this case, it’s the young child.
• The German embassy in your home country where you applied for the family reunion visa.
• The local immigration authority where the sponsor of the family reunion visa lives.

The process looks like this.

• You apply for a family reunification visa to the German embassy in your home country.
• The German embassy then sends all the documents to the local immigration authority where the sponsor lives.
• The local immigration authority processes the family reunification visa application and issues a decision to the German embassy in your home country.
• Once the German embassy receives the decision from the local authority, they inform you about your application.

With that clarified, the costs are usually borne by the losing party. In this case, this should be the German embassy in your home country.

However, the court imposed the costs on the local immigration authority.

The immigration authority’s conduct before and during the proceedings was decisive for the court ruling.

• Roughly eight months passed between the request for consent (November 2025) and its eventual grant (July 2026).
• A specific deadline set by counsel was initially met only with a content-free acknowledgment of receipt.
• No plausible explanation for the delay was ever provided.

The court made clear that general workload pressures, staff vacations, or illness do not, as a rule, justify such delays.

The court further noted the following.

• Article 10, second sentence, of the Bavarian Administrative Procedure Act obliges authorities to conduct proceedings expeditiously.
• Given the child’s young age, the authority should have prioritized the decision.

How does this court decision impact future family reunion cases?

For those navigating family reunification proceedings, this decision offers two key takeaways:

1. Inaction by an immigration authority can be challenged. Anyone who receives no response to a visa application or a request for consent for months does not have to simply accept it.
2. In cases involving a minor child, interim relief proceedings can offer an effective and fast solution.
3. Delays can prove costly for the authority. The court can order the local authority to bear the costs of legal proceedings. Even if it never formally appeared as the opposing party.

Every case turns on its own facts, and a costs order of this kind depends heavily on the specific circumstances of the delay.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, feel free to contact us. We offer free case assessment to determine whether, and how, your matter could be resolved.

NOTE: This article does not constitute individual legal advice. Names and personal details from the underlying proceedings have been anonymized to protect client confidentiality.