How To Clean Slippers Airwalk

Wuppertal Regional Court and Youth in City funds: Court clerks can not modify a court order guardianship!

motto LG Wuppertal has 6 T 201/10

• transfer a magistrate / judge a parental responsibility to a guardian, a guardianship bill is not to be initiated by a / an Legal Care Nurse.

legal bases - quote from the case:

"The decision on the selection of the new guardian was and is not the Legal guardian of the District Court - Guardianship Tribunal - appointed. Rather, the decision rests on the selection of the new guardian of the Judge / Judge of the Family Court. Because the judge of the Family Court from the order of 14 December 2007 - 3 F 307/04 - the transfer of the child's mother removed from parental custody to a guardian complete and under their jurisdiction (§ 1697 BGB aF) are parties to 4) (Note = Youth Department of the City funds) as guardian selected. "

The decision of the legal guardian of the Guardianship Tribunal replaces the decision of the judge offered / not the judge of the Family Court (§ 8 paragraph 4 RPFlG p. 1). That the . Selection of the new registrars to the guardian of the guardianship court through a judicial proceeding under § 7 RPflG would be assigned (§ 8 paragraph 4 p. 2 RPflG, validity of transactions), but you can "

See also: ( BGH) - case law on § 8 RPflG

This creates the district court of Wuppertal, where judges have been deeply involved with the legal bases of the powers of registrars, clarity, a happy trained, but apparently illegal practice of youth services and registrars will be there. like the "short" paths, bypassing the necessary hearings and legal checks modified by the court, the guardianship.

The circumvention of the law judge found frequently at first place at the level of youth services:
Instead, as in § 8a SGB VIII - Protective Order with child welfare risk and § 1666 Civil Code - Judicial measures in case of danger to the child (under the old and new law intended!), not the court, but the guardianship court is called.

There is then the / the - active judicial officer / legal guardian - the law keepers law jurisdiction.

really should take that right-carers - Refrain from such unlawful practice - given the small number in the section known as the Judicial Code of just 40 Clause.


And really you should have expected that youth services should know the § § 8a SGB VIII (= Children and Youth Services Act) and 1666 Civil Code.
Even before coming into force of FamFG, ie before 01.09.2009 was an alleged child welfare risk always! . the court and not to call the guardianship court Refer to the requirements of "old", ie before 01.09.2009 valid law:

§ 1666 BGB (old!)
Court actions in endangering the child.

• 3 (1) If the physical, mental or moral welfare of the child or his assets at risk and the parents are unwilling or unable to avert the danger, then the Family Court to take the measures necessary to prevent the hazard is necessary.

PS: The District Court of Kleve was mounted in exactly the same grandparents case under the temporary arrangement method of a different opinion (October 2007!).


The anonymous Judgement of the LG Wuppertal: