20th November 2010
opinion to the Administrative Court of Münster
Because of our bias application to us today, the Higher Regional Court Hamm an unloading for 23 November 2010 can get. The decision of the Family Court in Münster remains still not final.
In the opinion of the youth office Münster the Administrative Court in Muenster says on 8 November 2010: "The willingness to foster N. at the request of the person concerned judicial officer has been taken as v. has now lost parental care for their children. "
This is not applicable, because validity is not available. It also states in the opinion of the youth office: "Only concrete if the applicant can do what it from the youth welfare institution further sought to be taken in their comments."
This passage is particularly interesting, since as before intervention by Heinz-Peter Tjaden legal representation of v. the applicant in early October 2010 from Child Protection Services Munster has been notified by phone, she could her daughter N. do not see, because a foster family for N. had been found.
Then, Heinz-Peter Tjaden on 4 October 2010 with an urgent application to the court Münster responding. This urgent appeal is the youth of Muenster known. The youth welfare office know that is exactly what the applicant seeks.
this request on 21 October 2010 was also covered in part. V. allowed their daughter on 9 November 2010 to see again. A request may be that the siblings see each other again, but was not responding. There was no justification for it is not part of the Münster Youth Office today. The family court hearing findet am 29. November 2010 statt.
Nun sollte sich das Jugendamt entscheiden, ob es sich weiter hinter vermeintlichen zukünftigen Gerichtsbeschlüssen verschanzen will oder eigenständig handeln kann. Bei einem Gespräch im Jugendamt Münster ist am 19. Oktober 2010 eine Zeugin anwesend gewesen. Die wurde anschließend nach Aussagen, die sie gegenüber Heinz-Peter Tjaden gemacht hat, von dem stellvertretenden Jugendamtsleiter M. angerufen. Er sagte demnach, man müsse schon große Illusionen haben, wenn man meine, dass v. das Sorgerecht für ihre Kinder wieder bekomme. Das Jugendamt von Münster nimmt also munter Gerichtsentscheidungen vorweg, gleichsam so, als liege die Entscheidungsbefugnis für Sorgerechtsentzug to such authority. Behind the scenes is the youth office of Munster too often illegal.
sought, the applicant will continue to visit contacts with their two children, and as often as possible. Mr. T. and the Higher Regional Court Hamm received on 17 November 2010 by Heinz-Peter Tjaden the following mail:
youth of Muenster
Dear Mr. T.,
I urge you to tell the Higher Regional Court Hamm no more lies that are obviously only serve two children the right to refer to their parents (§ 1684 BGB).
by you claimed in the letter to the Higher Regional Court Hamm separation of mother and child, child's father gibt es nicht, auch wenn Ihnen diese Trennung wohl in den Kram passen würde. Der Kindesvater hat heute wieder die Kindesmutter besucht. Bei solchen Besuchen hat der Kindesvater bereits Angst, er könne vom Jugendamt Münster beobachtet werden.
Der Kindesvater will zudem in der Verhandlung am 23. November 2010 erst zu dieser Beziehung öffentlich stehen, wenn sicher ist, dass die Kinder zur Kindesmutter zurückkehren dürfen. Er fürchtet nämlich, dass er bei einem entsprechenden Bekenntnis seinen Sohn, der bei ihm lebt, verlieren könnte. Seitens des Jugendamtes Münster sollen nach seinen Angaben schon solche Andeutungen gemacht werden.
Eine Kopie dieser mail bekommt ein Redakteur, der sich gestern has reported back to me.
had on this day contact visit with her son v. J., whom she picked up from kindergarten. Also, that date was harmonious. That this was always so, v. 19 October 2010, at the interview in the youth of Muenster confirmed. When the contact visit was over, came the child's father, M. rage on the child's mother. He had been called according to his statement that is because of the mail by Heinz-Peter Tjaden Mr T.. Will these employees of this agency to drive a wedge in the family?
Is this due to a deal of the Youth Office of 23 June 2010? At the time, provided the attorney for the father of the child in consultation with the Youth Office of Munster a request for sole custody M. J. for those days there was not the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to strengthen the rights of illegitimate fathers. Work in the youth office of Munster prophets? The even believe still that a nichteherlicher father behind the backs of the mother of a foster family for N. may not agree?
the meantime, the assertion of the Youth Office of Munster, we have a foster family for N. found proved soap bubble. Potential foster parents are immediately jumped when they heard that the birth mother fights for her children.
We hope that the Act is the county youth office of the district of Osnabrück, not since disappeared. Even by the Youth Welfare Office of Munster claimed evidence will prove with access to the file as a soap bubble.
As assisted by v. I must say that I am confronted with conflicting claims of the Youth Office of Munster. The youth had taken office assistant R. by Mr T. on many days in October of 2010, the contact ban justified for v. is inconsistent with that one for N. a foster family was found, but with court orders!
this, a further example, the Administrative Court in Münster is told Mrs. Van should concretize their ideas, then one can by the youth office of Munster make submissions to the Higher Regional Court Hamm, however, Mr. T. on 12 November 2010 wrote: "Through our contract to the SKF to step up the search for foster parents, was Mrs. Van Informed in early September. They pointed out that under the initial contact of the foster parents and the integration of N. . Be interrupted in a Pflegefamlie her visitation rights is "
first one is checkmated a mother - and then suddenly they can play again? In a chess game would be impossible. But in the youth office of Munster, the court notifies each, which seems just as good move?
Said letter to the Higher Regional Court Hamm has also received the Family Court in Münster. We hope that this letter not disappear from the youth official acts. An operation by the police because of conflicts with parents it never was.
But at least should take this story to claim that it has quite a few years under their belts.
to criminal charges: The case number is 2,010,102,600,010,003th Heinz-Peter Tjaden has this complaint on the basis of § 235 StGB refunded. Whether the prosecutor has the same opinion, is another question. The mental anticipation of decisions should remain the youth department of Munster reserved. It should be a criminal offense that is because it is with child custody order List is.
remains to be seen: The Bamberg in the statement complained of lack of professional supervision for youth services is proving to be a legitimate warning. Whether meant
Marcel Lubicki as Chairman of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament 2007, the Youth Welfare Office of Münster, alleging "brutal methods," said to be seen.
by fax as an attachment: the report of the Youth Office at the Cathedral of 19th meeting October 2010
The decision can only be: Both children return immediately back to the mother. The parents regulate the handling of their children! Finally, the family is under the special protection of the state ...
23rd November 2010
Family Court Münster influenced elections in Wilhelmshaven
So much so
24th November 2010
The Godfather
wrote to the court
Münster
wife, N.
PO Box 6165 48 136 Münster
57 F 106/10 including
at the Youth Office
the city of Munster
Mr. T.
Idenbrockplatz
48159 Münster
Embajada de Costa Rica
Chargé Elena Montero Meissner
Dessauer Straße 28 10963 Berlin
§ 1684 BGB
handling of the child with the parents
(1) The child has the right to access to both parents, each parent is obligated to deal with the child and justified.
§ 1685 BGB
(1) grandparents and siblings have a right to contact with the child, if this serves the best interests of the child.
prologue for those who do not know me
My name is Heinz-Peter Tjaden, born on 20 February 1949 in Wilhelmshaven, I'm an editor and writer and I have four siblings. For three years I looked after one of my nephew because my sister had problems with it. I did not have these problems. The boy has thrived and now 15 years old. Since 2008 I used for several parents whose children were taken into care. They all returned to their parents and also developed very well.
Since October 2010, I am assisted by v. Muenster. Their children, N. J. to 19 December 2010, baptized. I hope that the courts and authorities do not want this baptism in the way, for I am godfather to two children. Such sponsorship is linked to the rights and obligations that can perceive me only if I also meet the children. Rights and obligations I have as assisted by Mrs. Van and thus their two children.
an urgent application
I am from 29 November 2010 in Münster and hereby request a meeting with J. and N. in the presence of the mother. Against an involvement of the illegitimate child's father I would have nothing to object.
question to the Embassy of Costa Rica
the Civil Code (BGB) is regulated the right of parents to their children, children on their parents in § 1864th This right is in the process of women's v. been undermined for no apparent reason. Mrs. Van is a citizen of Costa Rica, their children will soon get the citizenship of Costa Rica. Then Meissner Ambassador Elena Montero, the Higher Regional Court Hamm (Az II-13 UF 83/10) indicated in writing.
decisions of German courts those involving a foreign fellow citizen more and more under the law in force in his home country. What is the § 1864 of the Civil Code provision in Costa Rica?
The right of children to their grandparents, which is governed by Civil Code § 1865, may be in the process of women's non bypassed v., because the mother of Madame de returns to Germany. What is the § 1865 of the Civil Code provision in Costa Rica?
also have the right to bear children to deal with people who have responsibility for them (also § 1865 BGB). I already took responsibility for J. and N., as I sit down for their return to the mother.
Express Order 2
I hereby request meetings with two children that take place as often as possible. These meetings should by me with the child's mother and / or the child's father and / or grandmother (when she is back in Germany) can be arranged. On an ongoing involvement of the youth office Munster should be avoided. For I would not - as the child's mother - experience that those authorities make promises and then breaking.
How, for example, represented the employees of this agency against two T. courts currently different views? So he wrote to the Administrative Court in Münster, the child's mother must substantiate their wishes just as he wrote to the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, the child's mother was notified in early September 2010, she could see her daughter anymore, because for N. a foster family would be sought. What does woman want v. for there called?
has also, in my involvement as counsel woman v. her daughter already seen her once, on 9 . November 2010 Mr M. Münster from social services promised: "This visit contacts I will not break off again." And where is the second reunion?
For weeks, we are committed to a reunion of the siblings. Then to this day no one has responded. Is unknown in Münster in § 1865 BGB - or anyone seeking to rely on that J. (then two years old) allegedly a danger to his sister (then about three months old) is? I have often with my brother (and a half years younger than me) argued. If we had been separated in Münster for that?
Dear Madam Ambassador, I would be very grateful if you would apply in Costa Rica paragraphs would send as soon as possible. On 29 November 2010 will be held before the Family Court of Münster negotiations. Thank you!
Fewer Contact
0 comments:
Post a Comment