12.04.2016 20:36 Uhr
Neue Begründung: The description of the situation is based on the statements of the mother and the girl: In the household of the family, couple with one daughter, domestic violence occurred frequently after the marriage. At that time the eight years old girl is forced to cuddle with his father, when he was completely naked. The father is laughing about her as she is asking him to put some clothes on. After the mother came back after a long weekend trip the girl doesn’t want to go to the bathtub naked when her mother is the bathroom too. She doesn’t put off her underpants even in the bathtub. The girl told her mother that she never wants to be alone with her father again.
Chronologic summary of the further incidents:
- in spring 2013 the mother and the girl escape from the household in a women’s refuge, criminal complaint against the father because of sexual abuse
- family court August 2013 - the mother got the provisional right to determine the childs place of residence and the father was allowed to have attended contact with the daughter
- the father denied the abuse, in court or in the face of the police the father kept silent consequently to the reproach, he claims the mother would lie and manipulate
- family court March 2014 - request of the father to extend the contact
- decision that the contact to the daughter will be extended from monthly 4 hours attended to biweekly 12 hours without attendance of an observer
- early summer 2014 - investigation about the criminal complaint was stopped, reason: evidence would not be strong enough to open a criminal case, therapist diagnosed several traumata at the child
- summer 2014 - the girl got sleep disorder, abdominal pain and was often full of fear
- she told her young uncle (12 years old) and her mother, that her father touched her between her legs in former times
- contact with father was interrupted by the mother
- a new criminal complaint was started
- the youth welfare office stated that the wellbeing of the child is not in danger, attended contact is proposed again
- family court February 2015 - psychological certificate is ordered, it is needed to decide about the contact with the father
- May 2015 - first interview with the appraiser and the mother was devastating - request about prejudice was placed with extensive reason, request was denied, a grievance about the denial was placed, it was also denied, because of that the psychological certificate was discontinued by the mother
- December 2015 - second criminal complaint because of sexual abuse was stopped, in the statement of the prosecutor were wrong information about the moments of the actions, there is evidence to suggest that the witness report was misunderstood or not read carefully, a grievance was place with reason
- family court February 2016 - girl told the judge that she doesn’t want any contact to her father anymore
- the judge made clear that the contact will be concluded and an assignee will be
determined who will take care that the girl will attend to the contacts unless the mother agrees to a psychological certificate with a new appraiser (to the background: according to BGH XII ZB
68/09 February 2010 no one could be forced to attend to a psychological certificate)
- March 2016 - the mother agrees under pressure to the psychological certificate to protect her daughter from the forced contact for the moment
Definition in the literature:
“Sexual abuse is a sexual action of an adult or adolescent which crosses the line by using a
authority position. Following forms of sexual actions are called sexual abuse:
3. oral, anal or carnal intercourse,
4. sexual assault,
6. sexual exploitation by involvement of infants into pornographic actions and prostitution.
“Through sexual abuse the physical and the mental development, the integrity and the autonomy and the sexual self determination of the infants is compromised.”
Extract from “Kindeswohlgefährdung, Erkennen und Helfen - Kinderschutz-Zentrum Berlin (10.Auflage)” S.42/43.
The behaviour of the family court and the youth welfare office is completely out of all reason! Has the damage to the health to be overwhelming high before the people in power react? Has to splatter the blood first or has a suicide to occur or is it necessary that the victims must be devastated before?
Please take the perspective of the mother which was suffering domestic violence over years, whose child was abused (according to her assumption), which could finally escape with her child and now still has to live in fear that she could not protect her child against further harm.
How can that be tolerated in a constitutional state?
You can find more background information to the case and to the grievances in the blog: