Children are legally entitled to nurturing - Germany

It all started when the John left contraception to Mary. Joe was born, John recognized Joe as his, paid child support and refused to see him. For several years. Mary took John – married and father of two other children – to court to force him to visit Joe, stating that Joe has a right to know his father and interact with him.

Based on the simple case stated above, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe yesterday felled a verdict (German links throughout) whose shock waves may change German society forever. The Court refused to enforce paternal visiting duties; however, it did not follow the defendant’s argument that visiting his illegitimate child would subject his legal wife and children to harmful emotional stress and be a burden to his marriage. Au contraire, the Court dismissed this claim as irrelevant and a fallacy. No, the Court’s main concern was Joe’s emotional well-being and the negative influence of enforced visits by his reluctant father.

The Court decided that the executive must practice great tact and restraint in enforcing a child’s right to spend time with its biological parent. However, it did not dismiss the fines (up to EUR 25,000) imposed on John for not obeying previous court orders to visit Joe. So far, so case specific.

But the Constitutional Court took its argument that a child has a right to its parent’s attention and constructed a vice-versa duty of the parent to pay attention to the child. It constituted an inherent right for every child to receive nurturing and upbringing from its parents. It has requested the legislative to impose laws enforcing these rights, laws empowering state authorities to monitor their enforcement, laws facilitating the removal of children from families where such care is not provided, laws to punish parents who do not provide sufficient care.

Headlines about neglected, abused and battered children who died as a result of their treatment have dominated the newspapers over the last few years. Kevin, Lea-Sophie, Alexander – anyone who has followed German news recognizes the names and remembers their short, wretched lives. Laws requiring their parents or foster parents to present them at the pediatrician at regular intervals may have prevented further harm. But just how far should the State go to ensure sufficient care? Is removing children from their families the best solution? What will the long-term effects be? And: How much care is enough?

I have brought up two children and am likely to be a grandmother soon. Still, I can look back and pick out various mistakes that I have made over the last 23 years. Was I just lucky that my son got his act together without outside help? That my daughter was not taken away after spending three weeks in the hospital due to a psychosomatic intestine disorder? Or did the State just not care because they looked well-nurtured and didn’t turn up with bruises, broken bones and burn scars?

Just how far should the State act as nanny?

good story. i heard this on the radio and was a wee bit shocked. at least john paid for his son. but can you force him to love or wanna see his child? no. so joe grows up knowing he has a father who wants nothing to do with him and john's family and friends look at him and wonder how he can be so cold-hearted and careless, yet responsible, yippee. the best thing is that joe not know his father at all - i think it is worse knowing he is out there, but wants ntohing to do with you. i hope the mother can still instill in him enough self-esteem and we don't read about joe in 15 years when he's done a columbine-style rampage.

Actually, the verdict says that such meetings should not be enforced, except when the child explicitly wishes for it, the child "is capable of breaking the parent's resistance" and the meeting is beneficial to the child.

Official press release for the verdict (German, far longer than the stuff on the news agencies): http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pre.../bvg08-044.html

Who is this guy s wife? He says he doesnt want to see his chilld because it will upset his current marriage and family, This causes me to assume that the child was made out of wedlock? Well, if his current wife was capable of forgiving his affair, how can she not also accept his responsibility to attend to the child he created? He s scared his current wife will leave him if he insists on seeing the child, so actually, it is she who is harming this innocent child!

If he created this child before being married to his current wife, then she has no right to say anything, she should have thought about the fact he had a child before getting into a relationship with him in the first place.

If it was an affair, and she has decided to forgive him and stay, then she should also accept the child. Its not the kid s fault! I think she sounds like a proper, heartless cow ... she should either leave him totally or accept his reponsibilities and not deny this innocent child a father. Just a horrid story

I know someone in a similar situation with a 6 year old child who was the product of an affair with a married man... Married man went back to wife and 3 kids...and promised wife he would never see the love child again. Pays for the child of course, but the child desperately wants their father in his life and still asks for visits. Transitioning from school to kindergarten has been hard as while a lot of children come from "broken homes", not many children have a father who only held them a few times as a baby, who lives in the same city, with half brothers and sisters who don´t know of their existence. Its hard for this child to hear about other kid´s Dads.

Not sure if forcing visits is going to help at all though...

@ sterling1 - Did you ever consider that it could well be the guy's own decision not to see his child? I know nothing about the background but consider it fair to capture both possibilities in one post.
Just goes to show, condoms can spare you a lot of agro.

Men can often be very weak in these types of situations...and there is the weakness that got them into trouble in the first place.

If he doesn't want to be the parent to the child it's his choice and the government should stay out of it. He's fulfilling his financial obligation and the Government should enforce that, but the Government has no business in deciding personal relationships.

In these situation there have to be rules for all concerned and the rules must be equal and fair.

Either the parent without custoday has the automatic right to access and the child has the right of access to the parenst.

or

No one has the right to see anyone and they can work it out themselves.

We should avoid the way it is in the UK where they just chase the parent without customdy for cash while not bothering to enforce access orders.

Granted there will be times when a parent is not allowed customdy for whatever reason but if no grounds exist then either everyone has the right to access or no one.

The rules are not the problem, it is the assumption that the state is going to step in and use the worlds biggest erase button to clear everything bad away and make things right again.

While the letter of the law can almost always be enforced, adherence to it's spirit is much more difficult to prove and ensure.

How will the state balance it's need to incarcerate criminals with children to protect society as a group and it's infringement of a child's right to nurturing by it's criminal but otherwise loving parent?

(Last question possibly influenced by excessive espresso consumption, if such a thing exists.)

Think of it rather as high-intensity brain protection.

Actually, there are a number of measures for that in place. Mother-child places in semi-open prisons (mostly for toddlers and so on), parent-child groups for prisoners with children, regular contact (that btw has similar timings as with separated parents).

i know someone who desperately wants to see his daughter but the mother has left and moved to another country, the woman in question has done this to her 1st husband as well, had two children with him, told a pack of lies about him and his new partner left usa without telling the father where she was going took the kids? we all fell for her sob stories took her into our family she was given a roof over her head for her and the children she then became pregant with my brothers daughter, i know it takes two, when they had been together for 2and a half years my brother came home from work and they had all gone, no warning, just dissappeared, my brother through the courts was given rights to see his daughter then the woman left the country also with half the money from the sale of the house, my brother has been distraught even though the courts gave him rights the woman has taken them away illegally as well as his beautifull daughter, how do you stand on that one, each day you worry about the welfare of the children you miss them growing up you want to see them but the mother decides different and when shes in another country what do you do?
Can anyone give me a telelphone number of child welfare in halle-saale area? i would appriciate any help thankyou for your time.

The story was around last year:
The child was from a previous relationship, ie before his current marriage. I can only conclude that the child is an unlucky one - a stupid man too weak too see his child because his new wife tells him not to - where are your balls mate? We know you must have some. And a spiteful mum who drags this case through the court for years rather accepting life as it is and getting on with it - I mean, what benefit has the child gained from all of this?
It makes my blood boil...well OK, no. It leaves me rather cold.

How come a mother gets to decide she does not want to be a mother and has an abortion but yet a father cannot decide; legally, he does not want to be a father? inequality ???

Very true, I love children, but couldn't eat a whole one.

As it was pointed out above, thats what condoms are for. And failing that celibacy also works!

but not for women huh?

Of course, it goes for both sides, but as a guy you could never be sure could you?

Edit: Of course, a women can never be sure either, as unexpected pregnancies do occur. However, as pointed out above, men have no legal rights to force an abortion or disown a child in so far as not paying maintenance.

These men are paying maintenance though.
They, for whatever reason - we just do not have all the information here, have chosen not to be a physical presence other than their share of genes in a child's life. And it could be the same if a mother left, it does happen too.

This all gives me stomach-ache. Can't help but feel that someone forced to be present will be more negative than someone who can't/won't be there by choice. Who doesn't deserve to be wanted? I'm not sure if the law can force people to care.
Resentment is a hard thing to hide, yes children do not ask to be born, but it's a minefield, this one.

I fully agree with you Katrina, I don´t see how forcing contact even if the child asks for it is going to help. Perhaps the child thinks, if they see me, they´ll love me...

And that's heartbreaking. Because love isn't one-sided, is it?

It would be a worse kind of being picked last as the leftover for the netball team every single time.
Horrible.

In my extended extended family...there is a similar situation which I only recently found out about. The guy pays for, but refuses to see his 11 year old daughter as hates the mother (who apparently got pregnant on purpose). Has a wife and two kids now, has gone to great extent to make sure the daughter can not claim on his will etc. I heard about this recently and was a bit... at the denial of any responsibility for the relationship, but my opinion of said person was not high anyway.

Its sad, and every case is different.

Sorry, I was reading through this whole., very sad and complex post and it reminded me of the following story:

A couple got married and, when discussing children, came up the with the promise that they would never fight in front of them.

Sure enough, they had two kiddies, Briony and Malcolm, two years separated, and lived life as a couple does until...
One day the little girl, 6 years old came crying to her mother
"Mummy! Mummy! Malcolm just called me darling!"