, ,

The Parents Present to the Federal Constitutional Court that:

They love their children, they always took care of their children, their children were healthy, happy, and intact in body and soul when they were violently taken away from them. Despite all efforts the court could not establish that the children had suffered any damage in the care of their parents.

The state power treats their children as objects for pieces of evidence against their parents in order to justify the seizure.

The parents wish to especially have the following questions answered by the Federal Constitutional Court:

In Germany is any corporal chastisement viewed as child abuse, even if it is for educational purposes, is moderate, does not leave any physical or psychological signs, and is done with dignity, the way Pope Francis recently talked about?

In Germany can the court’s assumption of future damages be enough to separate the children from their parents without any evidence of a sustained and concrete damage to the child’s welfare?

In Germany are the courts allowed to demand that parents give up their beliefs, this being the condition to their living with their children?

The parents complain to the Federal Constitutional Court about how:

1. the concerns of the OLG appeal court are based on the parents’ brutally torturing their children, without any common sense, with the purpose of damaging them.

If these concerns were true, then the 
children would have already manifested 
severe damages when they were seized. 
There were no such damages.

2. given these facts, the assumption of an endangerment of the child’s welfare is not constitutional, but arbitrary.

3. the OLG appeal court and the family court severely distort their beliefs and then derive severe behaviors from that by way of speculation.

Since no actual endangerment of the child's 
welfare and no physical signs of abuse could 
be established at any time, the German 
authorities don't have any basis to deprive 
the family of their right to at least leave 
Germany together. 

The assumption that children will not be protected elsewhere is ethnocentric (biased against a different culture) and arrogant, and violates the basic principles of the European Union.

It is not the task of the state to determine the parents’ child-rearing methods. If there is no concrete, sustained, and actual endangerment of the child’s welfare, there is no basis to interfere in the life of a family. The children were violently taken into care only because of the religious membership of their parents.

The mere membership of parents in a small, not mainstream religious community — what some people call a ‘sect’ — is not a legitimate reason to suspend their right of custody over their child…

Merkel Robbers

Chancellor Angela Merkel and Gerhard Robbers

(from Robbers, Gerhard, “Law and Religion in Germany” (2013), p. 105 C. Parental Care 137.)

The Basic Law of Germany

The Basic Law was composed by men “conscious of their responsibility before God and men.” The parents strive exactly for this, to lead their life in responsibility before God. They take this responsibility seriously, trying to raise their children in their responsibility before God. It is unbearable for them that this way of child-rearing entails a separation between them and their children, this being the hardest measure of the state.