font design protection
to the district court (possible 1)
to the district court (possible 2)
(address)
Schutzschrift
possible in a preliminary injunction proceedings
the District Youth Welfare Office (in front of the door)
(?)
Agent of
- the potential plaintiff -
against
ME
In my privacy
99 999 ZuHause
process represented Advokatus
- potential defendant -
due to avert a possible injunction / Interference with parental custody by removing one or more children from the budget of the applicant in
I am submitting the name of and on my s / r client / to a protected document and request for the putative defendant,
a possible rejected the request for an interim injunction.
the alternative, to decide without hearing on an application for an interim injunction.
reasons: first
The potential defendant (the defendant) must be in the circumstances concerned that the potential applicant (hereinafter Applicant) intends to obtain from the defendant a preliminary injunction of the court without a hearing. The consequences of such an injunction would be for the defendant - even with subsequent lifting of the injunction - a very serious and irreparable but especially the children affected by the measure.
second
The defendant is located for months in a pending divorce case, pending before the Family Court (away) during which the couple especially strongly to each of the transfer of custody / residence determination for their children Filia Filius and fight. From the Family Court (away) in this regard was already a psychological report commissioned which should be in the next few days.
third
The defendant is also trying vigorously in any family proceedings a proper arrangement of working with the 4 year old living with his father Filia achieve, what the father of the children, however, is opposed.
4th
The father studied for the separation of the spouses, to disparage the defendant in any way so as to obtain custody of makeshift residence determination for both legitimate children.
5th
On Thursday, received a call from the defendant the plaintiff in which she was informed that the county youth office (near from far away) would be present "something" against them. The clerk told the defendant to do you go home the same day. Since the defendant was prevented in time, they agreed on Friday as a deadline for a home visit.
6th
The defendant was the telephone call by surprise, so that she agreed without second thought the home visit. In retrospect, however, she doubted the legality of such investigations, which apparently only to a renewed vilification of the husband based.
their view, the task of youth ministry in counseling and providing assistance. Possible investigation of criminal offenses, however the responsibility for their understanding of the law only the state institutions, police and prosecutors.
7th
The defendant has been canceled so the agreed home visit appointment and goes instead to look directly to the plaintiff for the personal interview.
you could wish for:
entirely confidential talks in the framework of advice and assistance through the county youth office (in front of the door).
information about her alleged allegations, if necessary to enlighten.
8th
Since you apparently allegations to § 1666 BGB is accused, she fears that the plaintiff, the refusal of an immediate home visit as an opportunity for removal under § 1666a (2) will take the Civil Code, for their one or more of the children in the household to . escape
This was a substantial and unjustified interference would mean in her constitutionally protected parental rights. Much more, however, a massive psychological damage to children would be feared, can not understand the situation and of course also do not protect against the applicant are.
presumption: The upcoming
Factual and legal issues must always be mounted so that available on a possible application can not be determined without a hearing.
signature
(Advokatus)
http://www.lets-goerg.de/Kommentiert/Schutzschrift/Musterschutzschrift/musterschutzschrift.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment