Sayings To Put On Bubbles At A Wedding

Federal Constitutional Court: Family Court opinions may not be enforced

The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 02.04.2009, 1 BvR 683/09, the Court finds: fear

[...]
because the message reveals that the district court of a commitment by the child's mother to take part in the assessment proceeds. This would be inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Then there is a lack of the associated with the exploration operation in the protection of personal rights (article 2 paragraph 1 related with Article 1 para a GG ) justifying constitutionally required clear and unambiguous legal basis (BVerfGK a , 167 \u0026lt;170 et seq. "The
court therefore has no authority to investigate the complainant a )
to . force

concerns also met the notice the court may at the lack of involvement in the assessment according to the principles of evidence frustration assume that the child's parent education unfit and incapable is. Because this suggests that the District Court of the character of this
custody proceedings as a method voluntary jurisdiction has missed with official establishment principle. As a result of the related investigative obligation of the Court of the parties is not a subjective burden of proof (proof load) is imposed (see Briesemeister, in:. Jansen, FGG, 3rd edition, 2006, §

12
para 13). In addition, the district court is obviously assume the child's mother incumbent the burden of proof for their educational suitability and capacity. This does not reflect the legal situation. Although judge the consequences of Nichtfeststeilbarkeit a fact in the official investigation by the principles of substantive burden of proof (establishing load) (see Briesemeister, in: Jansen, FGG, 3 On
2006, § 12 Rn 13!..).

Can a proceeding under § 1666 BGB, but the legal event for the infringement of fundamental rights, namely the risk to the child and the absence of risk aversion will and ability of the parents, not identified appropriate measures must be omitted (see
Briesemeister, in: Jansen, FGG, 3 to 2006, § 12 Rn 15!..).

binding decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, all courts and authorities:

§ 31 BVerfGG

66 laws refer from 67 products to § 31

(1) Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court are binding on the constitutional authorities of the Federal and State and all courts and Authorities.

(2) In the cases of § 13 No. 6, 6a, 11, 12 and 14, the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, the force of law. This is also true in the cases of § 13 No. 8, when the Supreme Court declared a law with the Basic Law or incompatible or invalid. As far as a law with the Basic Law or other federal law to make them compatible or is revoked, the decision formula is to be published by the Federal Ministry of Justice in the Federal Gazette. The same formula applies to the decision in the cases of § 13 No. 12 and 14

Source: http://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?a = 31 & g = BVerfGG short = & ag = 6165 & SCC


CONCLUSION: any court shall be allowed to a person against their will "zwangsbegutachten" to be as long as there is no legal basis for this. The emergency assessment is an intervention in the general right dar. The new FamFG offers no legal basis for a compulsory examination.



The Federal Constitutional Court with this decision again, that not for your parents' parenting skills evidentiary requirement (which is anyway not be established with serious scientific methods), but that youth services available in the burden of proof if they believe that parental education endangers the child's welfare

way. The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are binding upon courts and authorities.