The German juvenile police is going to take a child right from a maternity ward
Daniel and Angelina de Meyer from Paderborn (North Rhyne-Westphalia) are the latest victims of the German juvenile system. Angelina de Meyer (nee Angelina Kviring) was born in 1992 in German Ethnic District, Altai Krai, Russia. Her mother, Elena, decided to take an opportunity to come back to her historical homeland when Germany started a program of repatriation of Germans living in former USSR republics. Several years later, Angelina met Daniel de Meyer. Young people fell in love, had children, and all was going well until October 2014, tragic for the young family.
Modern legal theory and practice both in the West and, unfortunately, in Russia is becoming to depend on crime prevention. This approach is being introduced, as a rule, in child protection. Why? Because, with such cases, it is easy to show its effectiveness and start applying it to other kinds of crimes. For all sane people are very sensitive about the issue of child protection. We are not calling it children’s rights protection on purpose. Introducing this term was the first step to denial of legal capacity of all mankind.
All international conventions, recklessly signed by our diplomats, have long ago had such notion as “children’s rights”. Who will object to children’s rights? Nobody! As nobody objects to the crime prevention approach. Until these legal improvements touch one or another particular family.
In brief, the term “children’s rights” introduced, the term “family rights” was legally abolished. Now children have their own rights. Well, that’s great. But a child is small. And a question arises: who’ll be vested with the rights instead? Parents? That’s what foreign ministry diplomats of all countries thought when signing such “logical” UN and UNIСEF documents, along with MPs who ratified them. Not at all! Parents can be vested with the rights, too, but the government has seized these rights. For governments spend money on children’s education. Yes, they do. The issue is getting more serious here. The government should watch if children’s rights are abused by their parents. “It kind of should”, you’ll answer positively, though with lesser certainty. So one step was made to destroy the family.
The next step is the notorious crime prevention. MPs and parents are asked: “Do you want the government to have the right to prevent a crime in advance, before it’s committed?” No one seems to object. What does it mean in practice? As a matter of fact, it totally abolishes the ultimate norm which has existed for centuries – the presumption of innocence. Before, school, police, attorney office, anybody used to prove that one or another parent commits assault against their children, don’t participate in their education or maybe underfeeds them. No evidence is needed now. Because there is crime prevention. You may not yet have committed an offence, but merely a suspicion that such offences may have taken place in the past or may happen in the future is enough. That’s all. They will take your child.
Such an approach has yet again successfully worked in Paderborn with the de Meyer family. Somebody from child services thought Abby, two months old, was injured. No evidence, even indirect, for the alleged beatings was presented. But it sufficed for taking not only the girl but also her senior brother without charge or trial. On 17 October 2014, Paderborn court deprived Russian citizen Angelina de Meyer and her spouse Daniel of parental rights.
Photo: Julian Stratenschulte/DPA/TASS
The most terrible thing is that this is happening in Germany, with its, according to public opinion, best police forces and incorruptible courts.
“Action of the child service were illegal from the very beginning”, President of EIM in Vienna Harry Murray states. “Besides that the children were taken before the final ruling of the court, it was done against results of a police investigation which closed the case and stopped prosecution of the parents for failure of evidence. Secondly, the court ruling has no handwritten signals of judges, which renders them invalid.” But child services don’t care about such details.
The right activist notices one more factor, a political one. “Thirdly, animosity and sometimes sheer hatred towards the Russian-speaking minority has been recently expressed from government bodies and civil servants”, Murray explains. “Of course, the level of russophobia in Germany has always been among the highest in Europe, but it is now going through the roof. How the Russian-speaking minority is treated in Germany reminds more and more of the policy of apartheid enforced by the South African government in the middle of the 20th century. But here the family of ethnic Germans is involved whose one member happened to be born in the USSR and live there for three years.
After two years of litigations, de Meyer, exhausted and hopeless to find justice in Germany, said to the child service that she decided to appeal to the President of Russia, due to abuses of her family and danger to life of her unborn child (Angelina is in the 4th month of pregnancy and is expecting a baby).
It literally pissed off child safety officers. They promised immediately that, if the family complains to Vladimir Putin, they will take a new-born baby right from a maternity ward without delay and any court decision. Amid this hatred the child service won another lawsuit on 9 February. A district court affirmed the Paderborn court decision.
EIM President Harry Murray insists that “the court wasn’t governed by legislation in force, but acted in the interests of the state’s machine which takes illegally children from their parents.” Not only did the court infract the German constitution, but it put well-being and life of the family’s children in jeopardy when placing them in child services. They, according to Murray, are little or no different from Lebensborn, the organization founded in 1935 by Himmler.
“German judicial authorities with malicious intent render a judgement on Russian immigrants, ignoring The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and The Declaration of the Rights of the Child”, Murray notes. Not only Russian-speaking German citizens, but members of communities from other former USSR republics are affected. Hundreds of complaints and appeals from Russian-speaking compatriots from all around the country show this.
This court ruling is, without any doubt, outright discriminatory. EIM lawyers are going to petition the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, as required by law. Besides that, petitions to the European Commission in Brussels and to the European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs are being prepared. A corresponding complaint will be sent to President Vladimir Putin. Besides that, the family is preparing an address to Valentina Matvienko, who is not only the third person in the Russian government, but also a chairperson of the Coordination Council under the President on the National Strategy of Actions in the Interests of Children. Daniel and Angelina are going to appeal for help from archpriest Dimitry Smirnov, who is a chairperson of the Patriarchal Committee on Family, Protection of Motherhood and Childhood. De Meyers say that they only rely on Russia, where motherhood is not an empty phrase.
RP is going to watch the developments of affairs..Далее в рубрике «Нож должен работать»Кузнец Геннадий Добрецов — об особенностях костромского оружейного дела и о том, как делать качественные ножи