“Today at noon: Youth Welfare Office steals newborn from postpartum bed-The Constitutional Friends”. It is clear that such claims and status posts will result in inquiries:
Who is writing this?
If you click on the article, you will end up at “The Friends of the Constitution. The truth about politics, society and health” Here the reader is presented with the following:
Youth Welfare Office steals newborn baby from postpartum bed.
In Saarbrücken today, April 28th, 2016, two employees of the Dudenweiler youth welfare office, xxxxxx and xxxxxx, committed an act that was unimaginable for mothers. They appeared at the young mother Andrea S.'s bedside at 1 p.m. to separate her and her son Ben-Luca, who had only seen the light of day at 4:41 a.m. that morning. A healthy, strong child.
It is impossible to say where this information came from. Unfortunately the author did not name a source.
We have contacted the youth welfare office!
The youth welfare office was already aware of the article in question. The Youth Welfare Office itself is not allowed to comment on the present case, for the protection of the child and for data protection reasons.
What we do have, however, is the following information
The taking into care in accordance with Section 42 SGB VIII is one of the so-called “other tasks of youth welfare” (in contrast to benefits that can only be granted upon application. It is a “provisional measure to protect children and young people” which is included in the is the sovereign responsibility of the youth welfare agency. The youth welfare office is entitled and obliged to take a child into its care if (and this is the only prerequisite that can exist here) an urgent threat to the well-being of the child or young person requires this.
An urgent danger is the possibility of significant damage occurring if events go unhindered. The affirmation of an urgent danger depends on the objective circumstances of the individual case, ie it is about the type and extent of the danger, the expected time interval for the danger to occur, the child's need for protection (e.g. also depending on age).
These prerequisites must be “subsumed” by the youth welfare office, i.e. the respective assessments must be based on objectively ascertainable facts, which must also be discussed as part of a “collaboration of several specialists”.
If parents object to being taken into care and the child cannot be handed over to them, the youth welfare office must contact the youth welfare office “immediately” (within the third month).
working days) to bring about a decision from the family court. The taking into care always has a provisional character (in addition to the primary protection aspect), meaning that the focus is on clarifying perspectives.
The taking into care ends with the handover to the legal guardians (if the danger no longer exists) or the decision on the granting of benefits according to the social security codes (i.e. if the danger can be averted through help).
Guiding principles in child protection:
- “Four eyes principle” (investigations, particularly in the lives of those affected, are not carried out alone, example: “home visit for two”)
- “Collaboration between several specialists” (risk assessment is not made alone)
- “Recipient participation” (parents and the child must be included in the risk assessment)
- “Protection through help” (obligation of the youth welfare office to offer support to avert danger to the family)
- Necessity, suitability and proportionality (use of the mildest means to avert a risk)
- “Ultima Ratio” (taking into care as a secondary measure to be taken as part of a social-educational crisis intervention)
- “Judge reservation” (involvement of the court if parents object)
- “Community of responsibility” (participation in family court proceedings through social-educational diagnostics and expertise, support in the implementation of court requirements)
Conclusion:
Only the youth welfare office knows the case exactly.
As an outsider, you shouldn't allow yourself to make any judgments about it. A case like this fills entire files, so you can't just take a single status post on Facebook and think that you know the case and can definitely say: This is cruel / unjust / arbitrary. Only those people who ultimately decide have the overview.
However, such an order is certainly not issued lightly here.
We are keeping an eye on the case and will add to this report if necessary!
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )