Response to the Press Release from the District Office Donau-Ries
“The legal basis of the raid of 1 July 2014 in Klosterzimmern”:
After about 100 policemen and dozens of employees of the Jugendamt (Youth Office) had left the estate Klosterzimmern on Tuesday morning, a press conference with the goal of justifying this further police action attempting to return the two girls (11 and 12 years old) back into the care of the Jugendamt was held at the District Office Donau-Ries. These girls had shown the courage and bravery five months ago to escape to their home, where they obviously want to be.
We too gave a press release, and so did our lawyers. In the District Office press conference, they justified the use of police violence against the two girls by a so-called “professional psychological assessment” that denies them the right to stay with their parents.
“The family court has obtained a professional psychological assessment, which concludes the rejection of the children’s stay with his parents in Klosterzimmern” so the District Office Donau-Ries explained the action. On this basis, the Jugendamt was able to be active.
However, the evaluator had inspected neither the girl nor her parents personally nor spent time in the community. He points out to the judge explicitly that the assessment has only limited significance because it lacks important information.
“[…] I cannot submit a comprehensive expert report, as you have asked me to, because the parents of the concerned child […] would not even talk to me, and do not permit me to have access to their daughter. […], I must point out, however, the limited evidence of a psychological report based on such limited data.”
Nevertheless, he concludes that “no milder measures are recognizable.”
He does not know of other less forceful measures to achieve the objective? How is that possible?
If there is no reasonable legal basis for the return of the two girls to the Jugendamt by force – how can then the court rely on a so unfounded justification for such an elaborate police action? This “blasts each frame” (a German expression) and is completely disproportionate.
Anyone intervening in such a way in the lives of children, violating their rights and wanting to tear them away from their parents by force against their will, shouldn’t such a person make absolutely sure that this action is properly justified and useful to the children’s welfare?
Actually the child’s welfare should be paramount, and the current violent actions of the Jugendamt should be brought to immediate halt. If the Jugendamt (youth welfare office) would actually find concrete evidence of child abuse in individual families, it should investigate this. But trite, hair-raising stories of people who left the community, who manifest themselves notoriously hostile, can’t be used as reasonable evidence because they — as are scientifically proven — are implausible (see Willms, Bromley, Richardson, Palmer).
To separate children in a clan-detention-like action forcibly from their parents, reminds everyone in a creepy way of our past. Can Germany today not do better then this?
How twisted is someone who does not realize that police violence against the will of a healthy, normal, twelve-year-old girl who shows no signs of abuse, is not for her benefit? But the court and the district administration saw the so-called “professional psychological assessments” as a basis to take action!
The psychologist himself had come to the conclusion that a serious scientific report – due to lack of information – is not possible:
“[…] With the means of psychological science a serious assessment of the potential consequences of the use of direct force against Nechonah as part of the overall balance, […] on the basis of the available information is not possible.”
Yes, he was not even able to examine the concerned people. Is this a deliberate intent to mal-inform the public in this way — to create and spread moral panic?
Moral panic is spread when people pursue intentionally hostile efforts to foment distrust and fear towards religious minorities. Scientifically documented this syndrome is practiced by opponents of religious freedom.*
Therefore any reasonable basis for the court order of coercion against those two girls is missing, particularly in view of proportionality.
The same appraiser confirmed in his opinion that “a medical examination of the girl was carried out and has provided a consistently unremarkable result”
and although doctors sought after traces of abuse, no evidence was found.
The judge even states in her hearings that “The girl was friendly, open and willing to talk.”
For 10 months, the press and authorities have repeatedly been putting forward beating and ill-treatment allegations, which have not proved to be true in any way. In fact, we can look back on a seven-year cooperation with the authorities. On the basis of numerous proficiency checks, psychological and health research has repeatedly confirmed that our children were cheerful and happy with us.
What more do you need of “expert opinion”?
Does this not reveal this is not an unwillingness to hear the truth? Where does this pressure to destroy the families of the Twelve Tribes Community in Klosterzimmern come from, if really there is no child endangerment at all? But the court insists on its view that the children have to be protected from their parents. With whom can the two girls find protection from further violent assaults by the Jugendamt?
* Charles Krinsky defines moral panic as follows: