Facts
A. (born 1977) and B.B. (born 1974) are the divorced parents of the children D. (born 1999), E. (born 2004) and F. (born 2007). The children are under the sole parental care and custody of the mother, who lives with them in U. (ZH). The father lives in V. (FR) and works in W. (BE). According to the divorce judgment, he has to pay maintenance contributions for his children, which he allegedly neglects according to the mother's claims.
Therefore, she applied to the District Court of Hinwil for a garnishment order against the employer pursuant to Art. 291 ZGB for the two minor children, but the court did not enter into the matter due to lack of local jurisdiction.
Thereupon, A. filed her request with the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland. The latter ordered the requested garnishment order in its decision of 26 February 2018. On appeal by B.B., the High Court of the Canton of Bern revoked this decision and did not enter into the request for a garnishment order (judgment of 3 May 2018).
By way of a complaint to the Federal Supreme Court, A. (the complainant) requests that the requested garnishment order be ordered, or alternatively that the matter be remanded to the lower court for reassessment. The Federal Supreme Court dismisses her complaint, insofar as it enters into it.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that in the internal relationship, the local jurisdiction for the garnishment order is to be determined according to Art. 23 CPC (Art. 132 and 177 CC) or according to Art. 26 CPC (Art. 291 CC). The place of enforcement jurisdiction under Art. 339 CPC is not decisive.
The garnishment order has references to civil and enforcement law, but…