Outsourcing

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article or paragraph presents the situation in Germany . Help us to describe the situation in other countries.

The home care (including foster placement) refers to a term used in child and youth welfare and means the placement of one or more still of minor children outside their own family .

Situation in Germany

Types of out-of-home care

Depending on the immediate educational needs, the well-being of the child and other family parameters, various specific measures for out-of-home care are available.

Generally they are

In a broader sense, the (short-term) taking into care of children and young people from children's emergency services beyond one night is considered to be out-of-home care (Section 42 of Book VIII of the Social Code).

requirements

The prerequisite for out-of-home placement is either the determination of the educational needs on the part of the youth welfare office in the assistance plan procedure for assistance with upbringing and the given consent of the parents with custody , or the decision of a family court on the withdrawal of parental custody and transferring it to a guardian .

The latter does not require the consent of the parents, but there must be a massive risk to the child's welfare , as is the case with severe neglect , abuse or abuse .

Out-of-home care as a last resort

Conversely, however, this does not mean that if the child is at risk, out-of-home care is always most beneficial to the child's further well-being; the family court can also order another measure of youth welfare or give priority to out-of-home care.

In this respect, out-of-home care represents the last effective instrument of the state to secure the right to physical and mental integrity of a child as his fundamental needs for upbringing and education . Which is why he feels he has an obligation to take into care ( Section 42 of Book VIII of the Social Code).

Compensation for pain and suffering and compensation in the event of child withdrawal for no reason

In the case of Conny and Josef Haase's family, the parents were awarded EUR 53,000 for a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR . During the time of out-of-home care they had not even been able to see their children ( ECHR , complaint no. 11057/02 Haase / Germany, April 8, 2004).

In 2009 parents were awarded EUR 20,000 in damages by the Munich Regional Court I. A kindergarten in Munich reported to the Munich Youth Welfare Office that the daughter had a black eye. The doctors at the Haunersche Children's Clinic said that the only cause of the injury was child abuse. The girl is then withdrawn from her parents. The distraught parents were taken to the psychiatric ward, accompanied by the police, after the father of the family of five in desperation threatened to kill himself. During the four weeks of out-of-home care, the child protested that it had hit a door. In the trial against the hospital, the judicial expert found that the injury matched the parents' description of the accident. There was no evidence of child abuse. The Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, as the sponsor of the Hauner Children's Clinic, was sentenced to pay compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of EUR 20,000, with the girl being awarded EUR 10,000 and the parents EUR 5,000 each (Regional Court Munich I, January 7, 2009, Az O 20622/06).

In 2012, the Constitutional Court of the Free State of Saxony in Leipzig determined that the forced loss of parents is traumatizing and psychological abuse that is relevant under civil law (and criminal law) (Constitutional Court of the Free State of Saxony, decision of July 19, 2012, Az. Vf. 68-IV-11 ). The court stayed "... therefore with the determination, as the Regional Court of Munich in a judgment of 07.01.2009 (Az: 9 O 20622/06) cited by the plaintiff, that tearing the child out of the family environment and the The almost complete separation of the toddler from his parents is presumably one of the worst things that can happen to the child from his subjective point of view. ”The background to the taking into care was a parental argument in which furniture was thrown out of the window. The four-year-old daughter was taken into care. The family was awarded € 10,000 in compensation.

In 2013, the Dresden Higher Regional Court decided that the youth welfare office had to pay damages for inadequate investigation of the facts. The girl, who was wrongly withdrawn from her parents for three months at the age of 1.5 years, was granted € 7,000 in compensation for pain and suffering because she was younger than she was able to perceive the withdrawal so intensively (Dresden Higher Regional Court, judgment of 30 April 2013, Az. 1 U 1306/10). There was a report from the childminder here. The employees of the defendant's youth welfare office initially insufficiently and incompletely ascertained the facts relevant to an application for deprivation of custody.

In 2015, a couple of parents from Fußgönheim demanded at least 80,000 euros in damages from the expert and alleged specialist for children with experience of violence from the Forensic Medicine Institute at the University of Mainz for the unlawful removal of two children (6 and 18 months) . She had confirmed that abuse was "extremely likely" without ever seeing the children. The forensic ambulance for victims of domestic violence was set up “precisely because of the problem of numerous undiagnosed cases of abuse and abuse”. Due to benign hydrocephalus (head of water), the children had the problem that the slightest vibration could trigger blood clots. The remote expert diagnosis of shaking trauma was therefore ruled out. The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz released the expert in 2016 from liability and saw the youth welfare office and thus the Rhine-Palatinate district responsible (Higher Regional Court Koblenz, judgment of March 18, 2016, Az. 1 U 832/15).

A 2016 decision by the Brandenburg Constitutional Court concerned the granting of legal aid because of a corresponding official liability procedure at the Nauen District Court . In December 2013, the parents sought damages and compensation for pain and suffering from the district Havelland at the Potsdam Regional Court due to a breach of duty in connection with the initiation of the family court proceedings that had led to the nursing care. The granting of legal aid was refused because the proposed prosecution had no prospect of success.

In February 2018, a lawyer reported an amicable payment of 24,000 euros in compensation for pain and suffering and the payment of legal fees. The parents had hardly seen their unjustly taken child care son within eleven months.

Situation in Switzerland

In Switzerland, family placement organizations (FPO), which are private organizations or independent organizations that place children in foster families on behalf of government agencies, are involved in out-of-home care.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ ECHR, complaint No. 11057/02 (Haase / Germany), judgment of April 8, 2004
  2. ↑ Regional Court Munich I, January 7, 2009, Az. 9 O ​​20622/06
  3. ↑ Ass. Jur. Michael Langhans, Nuremberg
  4. ^ Constitutional Court of the Free State of Saxony, decision of July 19, 2012, Az. Vf. 68-IV-11
  5. ↑ BVerfG, decision of April 24, 2014, Az. 1 BvR 1700/11
  6. ↑ Dresden Higher Regional Court, judgment of April 30, 2013, Az. 1 U 1306/10
  7. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, judgment of March 18, 2016, Az. 1 U 832/15
  8. ↑ Children separated from parents for six months: the doctor does not have to be liable for false reports. In: Rhein-Main-Zeitung, February 13, 2016
  9. ^ Constitutional Court of the State of Brandenburg, decision of October 14, 2016, Az. VfGBbg 17/16
  10. ^ Matthias Bergmann: Taking into care, criminal liability of the youth welfare office and compensation for pain and suffering of 24,000 euros . February 18, 2018