As previously announced by the press, on 7/1/2014, a search of the property, known as “Good Klosterzimmern” took place. The District Office Donau-Ries informed the public deliberately wrongly concerning this.

Contrary to the representation of the district office, there is no official report/certificate which rejects the staying of the two children with their parents. None of the four concerned parents has received such a report so far. Only regarding one child, such a report is mentioned by the court, but was withheld from the parents.

It is procedurally not understandable, why such process-relevant data is being kept secret. In this respect, the District Office is informing the public deliberately wrongly to give the impression that it is in the proven interest of the children.

In this respect the concerned parents, concerning whose daughters there is no report, have cautioned the county today. Also, as we have said about past procedures, in the case of these most recent procedures relating to the Community in Klosterzimmern, the authorities ought to proceed with the rule of law and without misrepresentations.

Unfortunately, the public in the form of press representatives was denied presence during the search (euphemistically called “inspection on foot”) in Klosterzimmern against the wishes of local residents. This way the public would have had the opportunity to witness first hand the suffering of those affected. Apparently it seems that neutral reporting is undesired here.

It is true that private rooms of non concerned persons who are not covered by the two decisions of the district court were opened by force by the police.

Since the decisions of the district court does not suffice the requirements of § 91 FamFG, the searches were too vague and thus  invalid, the assistance of the police should have never taken place. In that regard, because of absence of legal request passive resistance is not the case.

According to information from our law firm the two affected girls both reject going back into foster care.

A brother of one of the affected girls was dismissed from this “CARE” of the Jugendamt — despite the protests of his parents that he be treated with a fracture. It is now unclear whether he will ever be able to put his full weight on his hand again.

Why is the news of the Jugendamt’s failure to care for those within its “CARE” withheld from the public?

The public will be informed in due course upon presentation of evidence about further inconsistencies that have not been debated yet by the press, which have been ignored by the courts to date.