Very Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby
lay a complaint against the above decision.
Reason:
• As the magistrate correctly observed, it has removed the child's mother Kathleen Wichmann residence determination, health care and the right to regulate intercourse. The grandparents but they did not deprive the residence determination. There is no decision, which deprives the grandparents' way of interim order obtained residence determination for her granddaughter Leonie Wichmann again. (See attachment) The grandparents are still, up to now, carriers of the residence determination. This eliminates, for objective Establish criminal liability under § 235 of the Penal Code and the transfer of the residence determination on the caregiver is ineffective. A child's withdrawal, there have been so before. A retrial is therefore in progress.
• Lt. the checklist for the child welfare risk in accordance with SGB VIII, § 8a existed since the return of Leonie's in the best interests of Germany a permanent threat to my granddaughter. Sun including no protection against psychological violence. Leonie has been traumatized by the removal. This trauma has to remain and be seen among others in the bed-wetting, bowel movements. In November 2005, after the child's mother has tried Leonie to remove from my budget, responded with Leonie wetting. Dr. Ruppin Dacke of the hospitals at that time diagnosed with fears of loss and recommended allowing the pediatrician Dr. Gratopp no walkways to the child's mother Leonie has stabilized. The magistrate then went Czyszke already across that recommendation and ordered whorls. Leonie's behavior problems were getting worse after each use. Despite repeated request to the Youth Office Oberhavel for amendment of intercourse on a child-friendly level was not acted upon. Offers of assistance were made in full. I then tried using a child psychiatrist to clarify where the base is looking for Leonardo's Behavioral problems. This study was the child's mother forbid, by threatening with criminal consequences. The child psychiatrist then broke off the investigation. (See file 32F273/05) Only after my relocation from Germany to Austria in July 2006, listened to the behavioral problems. Leonie had to fear no more, that her mother picks them up. Every print in the internet you can see that Leon was not wearing a diaper or the like. As long as Leonard was living in Vienna, there were no behavioral problems. This only began after the keeper Leonie by Marcel Piesche was picked up from Vienna. The reason for this decision of the magistrate issuing the wake of a report on order, with a predetermined result. (On the question clearly readable) Here the principle of neutrality of judicial experts has been completely ignored. (1 BvR 252/10 dated 02.02.2010)
The magistrate Czyske continues from the beginning of the process of family over the will and the sensitivities of Leon. Furthermore, there Leonie currently following child welfare hazards according to the checklist:-lack of clothes (age-and weather-under), not a regular visit to a mainstream school, although Leonie in Vienna has already visited the school, not a continuous educational behavior, no stable loving relationship (according to reports and statements of YES Oberhavel / Landshut and child psychiatrist Soldo has it the fact to me), there is no recognition of the person in relation to self-determination and individuality, their talents are not age-appropriate support and a future planning is certainly not even. Therefore, urgent action here, especially now that the office nurse, the magistrate, the curator ad litem and the child's mother does not behave cooperatively for the benefit of my granddaughter. Their action has led to Leonie must live in psychiatry.
• Reports of procedures help Katrina students that Leonard suffers from massive behavioral problems that are in the bed-wetting, bowel movements, complete dependence and shows a sexualized, distance-free and oppositional behavior. Leonie's a trauma by the removal will of course continue to deny, even though the Office of the Judge so prized witness Waschke-Peter says in his report: "Ms. Wichmann sen. was severely traumatized in their youth and prevented from living out their emotional relationships built up. She describes herself that she as about six-year-old intensively for many months showed resistance when she was obliged to make contact with her grandmother, she had brought up by then and moved to give up and the home of their mother to live. "Why this should at Leonie be different? The child psychiatrist Ms. Soldo stated in its opinion that a removal is not necessary and may be the removal of Leonie's psychological development negative consequences. Ignoring the facts will certainly not justice.
• As for the sexual behavior of Leon, the magistrate shall try here once again seems to suggest a child welfare endangerment, which is of course with his grandmother. The results to which they will then prove, in fact just their incompetence and lack of expertise. The curator ad litem does not seem to have the necessary competence and professional ability. After consulting a child psychologist may be true that Leonie was sexually abused but it does not. (See also the appendix) Quote: ". It is to be considered that can be inferred from a problematic sexual behavior never that sexual abuse has actually taken place" And again, to underestimate "is not, moreover, that linguistic provocations for children may be of particular social milieu and a contact offer to enter into a kind of test of readiness, to them, albeit an unfortunate one, because rather than creating barriers desire to encourage a conversation. "And who is in psychiatry is to Leonie? If you observe their will to want to live with his grandmother? And then you wonder about oppositional behavior? Behavior that you have caused yourself? It is here the question of why none of the leaders has been brought a lawsuit to remove the suspicion and why is spoken only in the current decisions of a sexual abuse? I any case, today asked police. Leonie has never shown in my household these abnormalities. This is demonstrable and provable by medical reports and development reports from the day care center.
• According to the decision to Leonie is now more in a residential care facility where she has settled in well and feels comfortable. If a child feels comfortable, it does not show such behavior. Leonie and lives not in a residential care facility, but still in the Ruppin clinics in child and adolescent psychiatry. According to her supervisor and witnesses (who are willing to testify), it is very bad Leonie. She receives no visitors, not even by the child's mother, who allegedly wanted to build a bond with their child (see file 32F273/05), has no social contacts and not even attended a mainstream school. While I allegedly committed a child welfare endangerment, because I supposedly did not allow that forges a bond with their mother Leonie, may a youth office, a magistrate and the child's mother away with any social contact and completely deny a child . Isolate Leonie visited in Vienna, first detected the nursery and then school. Now she was disturbed by these persons sustained psychological. All statements and reports which are opposed by a removal of the judge ignored. Even the youth services Oberhavel and Landshut, and the child psychiatrist Dr. Soldo spoke out against removal. The judge sat down across everything. Not to me there is a lack of insight capability here in unlawful conduct. I strongly recommend to the judge for lack of insight into their illegal conduct to reconsider and cease to traumatize children.
Furthermore forbids BverfG youth services and courts Admission to mental hospitals and the arrangement of psychotherapy.
bind
BVerfGG
§ 31 (1) Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, the constitutional organs of the federal and state governments and all courts and authorities.
Federal Constitutional Court 1BvR 1572/10
paragraph 14 of the Judgement.
"aa) of Article 2 paragraph 1 GG guarantees in conjunction with Article 1 paragraph 1 GG the general right to protect this right from the concept of following self-determination right of the individual to decide in principle, be revealed when and within what limits personal life issues (see BVerfGE 65, 1, 80, 367). This includes the protection against the collection and dissemination of findings on the health status, mental condition and character of the individual (see BVerfGE 32, 373 <378 ff.>, 44, 353 <372 f.>, 65, 1 <41 f.>, 78, 77 <84>, 84, 192 <194 f.> , 89, 69 <82>). The protection is all the more intense the closer the data of the privacy of the affected persons who claimed a sacrosanct area of private life against all the state's respect for and protection (cf. BVerfGE 32, 373 <378 f.>, 65, 1 <45 f.>, 89, 69 <82 f.>). "
A psychotherapy, and medical or psychological assessments affect the most personal and constitutionally protected private Area of life and access to the fundamental right under Article 2 and Article 1 of the Basic Law Reviews
Thus the Federal Constitutional Court is under para. 15 states:
is despite the specific form of psychotherapy used their objective is, through the interaction with the therapist to change personal behavior and / or certain personality structures to reduce mental illness or suffering or to resolve. Such treatment often requires a constant analysis of the mental state and personal attitudes of the patient by the therapist and the patient in turn requires a thorough discussion with yourself, you actually get to the very personal, by Article 2 Para 1 in conjunction with Article 1 paragraph 1 GG protected life of the person concerned. This also includes the will and the decision of not doing individual to a psychotherapeutic influence to submit to your own personality or that.
Leonie is against their will in psychiatric accompanied by constant fear. treat According to the testimony of child psychiatrists here in Vienna to present the documents to Leonie's behavior problems would a) be ambulatory and b) dissolve completely after their return to their main caregiver.
• Neither the magistrate nor the nurse or the nurse procedures are able to communicate with Leonie. A hearing of Leonard would not hurt her, but it would come to light that Leonie will remain with her grandmother back and would not be natural. So researchers are looking for reasons to prevent this. Leonie Landshut has only been to the Youth Welfare Office is clearly expressed to the effect that she wants to stay with his grandmother. Even with our arrest, Leonie said the official from the quiver LKA Vienna: "Why do I need in a home, I have parents." And later: "I want to stay with their mother." And even if they excite now back terrible , yes Leonie mom said to me, because she looked at me as their mom. In Moreover, according to child psychiatrist, a natural occurrence. Also can the LKA Vienna has all the Leonie tried in their stay at home, no one has ever seen a child welfare risk with us and only then is a possible removal. So we designed a future child welfare endangerment and because they had nothing else, of course, a spiritual. Only the Constitutional Court prohibits forecasts for the future. And that is also binding on a district court. (§ 31 of the FCC) also has the magistrate no child psychological assessment as required by the Federal Constitutional Court sought, that would have to clarify whether the removal of harmful Leonie. I refer to my letter from the Pre-Trial 32 F 273/05.
• As for the alleged education inability of the grandmother: How usable is a report from 2006 by an alleged expert notes that the grandparents and the child's mother education are incapable, when born in January 2008 a second child (Michelle Fabio) and the may raise child's mother this child? And without that she made a therapy. She still has a personality disorder and is therefore incapable of education or not? I consider, therefore, in the near future a request for withdrawal of parental custody to provide regarding the child's mother for the second child, as there is an acute danger, according to child welfare reports. And if the report not in relation to the child's mother are true, it may not even apply to a logical conclusion on the grandmother. Is education so I am able.
• Furthermore, I refer to my comments received in the request for the magistrate not a word. Rather, they exist in every back of the three decisions, like a mantra, repeat the same slander and falsehoods. It explains not know why, neither the court nor the nurses office so far managed to build a relationship that Leonie with her mother. Here, too, lacks the necessary expertise. Leonie's mother has a personality disorder, it can build no relationship with her daughter. And unlike as the judge here it is, had a contact Leonie for their mother until they have and the YES Oberhavel interfered. Then did not want to Leonie. The child's mother had already taken the time to use each and are brought back home. There were even more offers to the child's mother lived as we have in Austria. The cost for the train and take on board we wanted. A support for the handling was found. The mother has never responded to this offer. And even after the return of Leon in the FRG took care of the mother is not her child. The alleged deal is designed so frustrating, like everything in its decision. Because these facts are verifiable and subject to the Act from the Pre-Trial.
• If the return of a child with the serious risk of physical or psychological harm is linked to the child or the child is brought to others in an intolerable situation to remain under the child's return. (Art. 13 Hague Convention) Also this article was simply ignored to the detriment of Leon, because what do they stay in psychiatry without any reference person now? (Decision of 29.10.1998 - 2 BvR 1206/98) due to Leon's decision violated their fundamental right under Article 6, paragraph 2 sentence 2 in conjunction with article 2 paragraph 1 GG and in their fundamental right under Article 103, paragraph 1 GG (right to a fair hearing).
• According to the European Court of Human Rights includes family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, at least - well - close relatives - such as grandparents and grandchildren - as they can within the family play a significant role. Respect for family life so understood reasons for the state the obligation to act in a way that allows for the normal development of this relationship (see ECHR, Judgement of 13 June 1979, NJW 1979, p. 2449 <2452>). It follows that the courts have to consider when choosing a guardian existing family ties between grandparents and grandchildren.
If these relatives to guide the guardianship suitable for the purposes of § 1779 Section 2 BGB, it may not be as ignored because an outside third party would be better suited to such a view to optimal mental demands of the child. And I have 6 years of proven, despite the alleged inability of education, that I can educate Leonie.
The access rights are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court for grandparents as they falll also under the protection of Article 6 of the Basic Law and Article 8 ECHR (see Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2604/06 of 18.12.2008 - in the blog below)
Citation: Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 3189/09 of 14/07/2010, paragraphs No.. (1 - 31)
http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20100714_1bvr318909.html
• I also find it very strange that I put on 01/14/2011 an application for inspection on 01.18.2011 and the records from the youth office Oberhavel disappeared. At the same time ordered retroactive to 1/5/2011, a new office nurse. My application will not be edited. Only after a Disciplinary Complaint against the judge, it is their work on this and two other possible applications.
• Can a proceeding under § 1666 BGB, but the legal elements for the infringement of fundamental rights, namely the risk to the child and the absence of risk aversion will and ability of the parents, will not be determined as appropriate measures must omitted (see Briesemeister, in:. Jansen, FGG, 3rd edition, 2006, § 12 para 15). And in my household there were never a real child's welfare at risk.
• The judge has once again shown in their decisions that they can not objectively decide in the light of the circumstances and according to the child's interests but acting out their will and their feelings on the back of my granddaughter. I have handwritten notes from the judge that clearly prove that it has no interest in the welfare of my granddaughter. I will publish these in due course.
• Furthermore, I refer to my comments in Application to which the magistrate with no word is received. Rather, they exist in every back of the three decisions, like a mantra, repeat the same slander and falsehoods. Since when judicial decisions are actually made of text blocks? It explains not know why, neither the court nor the nurses office so far managed to build a relationship that Leonie with her mother. Here, too, lacks the necessary expertise. Leonie's mother has a personality disorder, it can build no relationship with her daughter. And unlike the judge, it is here, Leonie had any contact with their mothers until they have and the YES Oberhavel interfered. Then did not want to Leonie. The child's mother had then be brought to every deal and even brought back home. There were even more offers to the child's mother lived as we have in Austria. The cost for the train and take on board we wanted. A support for the handling was found. The mother has never responded to this offer. And even after the return of Leon in the FRG took care of the mother is not her child. The alleged deal is designed so frustrating, like everything in its decision. Because these facts are verifiable and subject to the Act from the preliminary proceedings.
• What do you mean keep the grandparents, the child's mother is "allegedly" unfit for education? Here, too, seems to be the judge forget the expert in his report comes to the conclusion: Quote:. "A support and care Leonie by the child's mother is therefore currently not compatible with the welfare of children, ...; Given the scale of the disturbances of the child's mother, whose chronic in recent years and the lack of willingness to change is likely to become involved in the coming years, no significant changes ... .. A patient family support is extraordinary in view of the situation is no sensible and appropriate assistance dar. "And as the judge wrote in her decision:" ... .. is the child's mother is not able, so far the custody of pursue the minor child. "So who is saying the child's mother is incapable of education?
• And what are the therapeutic measure to reduce disturbance terms of the relationship to adult level, the judge seems to have still not noticed that the child's mother has a personality disorder. Such therapy is for healthy people may be preferable to the child's mother, however, requires a different treatment. I recommend to the judge the witness Waschke-Peter, to question this will certainly confirm that a Borderlinerin requires a different treatment. And I'm perfectly normal, according to reports.
• Due to the denial of the child's mother the magistrate would have long ago must take steps to improve the child's mother gives up their obstructive behavior and the contact Leonie their main caregivers (according to opinion) allows. The obvious reasons for the denial will be here once again not been established. That we are the child's interests promote the OLG Brandenburg (9UF176/09) stated in an earlier decision and even the experts Waschke-Peter comes to the conclusion that Leonie have contact with their main caregivers must.
• Which conflicts of loyalty should we rush to Leonie? Should they be loyal attitude towards psychiatry? The child's mother takes care of it not about her, she can do this by now a new child.
• A judicial neutrality is here, not in the other two decisions as can be seen.
The acute welfare of the child endangerment by the official keepers of the district of Upper Havel and the now newly appointed me unnamed guardianship is transferred to me, because I know the needs of my granddaughter and she was always supplied the best, both mentally and physically.
0 comments:
Post a Comment