logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

Major Breakthrough for Parents in the European Human Rights Court


The European Human Rights Court decided with a 13 to four majority that denying a father access to his child is against human rights (basic family rights) but held unanimously that a father experiences no discrimination on account of being a father when he experiences such a violation of his human rights.  However, the court awarded him costs and compensation to the total of about US$40,000. (Whether the father now has access to his child is not known, but at least his son will have a better chance of seeing him.)
The following is a message in German and English that contains a press release (in English and German) pertaining to the history and the circumstance of the situation.
The full decision of the European Human Rights Court is available on-line, in English as an MS Word 7 RTF document.

Subject:  Durchbruch in Umgangsverfahren in Deutschland
    Date:  Fri, 14 Jul 2000 03:21:37 EDT
   From:  Tomnmartin@aol.com
Hallo
euch zur Kenntnis das EMGR-Urteil zu Umgangsverfahren und PAS (Elternentfremdung der Kinder) gegen Deutschland.
Darauf kann man sich z.B. in Umgangsverfahren und bei Gutachtenerstellung berufen.
Dies hat Folgen.
Grϋsse
Thomas Martin
Odenwaldstrasse 29
51105 Köln
+49-221-8370155 fon
+49-221-8302989 fax
0178-8370155 mobile
tomNmartin@aol.com

 

WICHTIG! EGMR - Deutschland *endlich* verurteilt

Wir haben Jahre gewartet und endlich ist es soweit: Der Europaeische Gerichtshof fuer Menschenrechte hat HEUTE Deutschland in einem Umgangsverfahren (mit PAS) zum Schadensersatz (DM 35.000) und  Erstattung der Gerichtskosten (DM 12.500) verurteilt.
Die Entscheidung duerfte auch fuer viele andere Faelle aeusserst bedeutungsvoll sein.
Sie erhalten hier in der Anlage zunaechst die komplette Entscheidung in englisch. paPPa.com bemueht sich, in den naechsten Tagen eine deutsche Uebersetzung zur Verfuegung zu stellen und ausserdem erste Hinweise, wie diese Entscheidung in laufenden Umgangsverfahren genutzt werden kann.
Wir geben hier ausserdem die heutigen Infos von Vater fuer Kinder e.V. weiter
Wir geben hier ausserdem die heutigen Infos von Vater fuer Kinder e.V. weiter
http://www.vaeterfuerkinder.de/vfkneu.htm
Deutschland wegen Menschenrechtsverletzung Art 6, 8 EMRK) vom Europ—ischen Gerichtshof verurteilt: Verweigerung eines Umgangsrechts.
 [Complete Court Decision in English]

Press Release — Pressemitteilung

JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ELSHOLZ v. GERMANY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Elsholz v.Germany.
The Court [of Human] Rights held by thirteen votes to four that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for family life), unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (freedom from discrimination in respect of the right to respect for family life) and by thirteen votes to four that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 35,000 German marks (DEM) for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 12,584.26 for legal costs and expenses ... (continued – in English...)
Es folgt eine Darstellung des Sachverhaltes und der Urteilsbegr—ndung. Der Sachverhalt ist uns allerdings aus aehnlichen Faellen leider sehr bekannt [vgl. dazu sogar den folgenden Artikel aus Le Figaro, insbesondere —ber die W—rdigung des "Kindeswillens" durch ,,germanische Gerichte", sowie unsere Informationen zu PAS und ,,Umgangsausschluss im Sinne des Kindeswohls?"]. Deshalb ist die Entscheidung auch f—r viele andere Faelle aesserst bedeutungsvoll: 
Mutter zieht nach 3 Jahren mit ihrem aelteren Sohn und dem gemeinsamen nichtehelichen Kind 1988 aus der gemeinsamen Wohnung aus. Vater hat noch etwa 3 Jahre lang haeufigen Umgang mit seinem Sohn, bis Juli 1991. Im Dezember erklaert der Sohn, gerade f—nfjaehrig (!!) dem Jugendamt, dass er keine weiteren Kontakte mit seinem Vater w—nsche.  Daraufhin werden Umgangsersuchen von allen Instanzen abgelehnt, mit den bekannten Begr—ndungen: Ein Umgang gegen den Willen des Kindes und des sorgeberechtigten Elternteils w—rde dem Kindeswohl widersprechen. Das war auch f—r das Berufungsgericht (Landgericht) so selbstverstaendlich, dass auch dieses die Einschaltung eines psychologischen Sachverstaendigen f—r unnoetig hielt, und sogar von einer weiteren Anhoerung der Eltern und des Kindes absah. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wurde nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen (1994).
Wir bringen aus dem Urteil hier einen Auszug zum Parental Alienation Syndrom, der uns besonders bemerkenswert erscheint.
[Anmerkung paPPa.com: Bitte unbedingt beachten, dass dies nicht die Argumentation des Europ. Gerichtshofs, sondern leider nur die Wiedergabe des Vorbringens des klagenden Vaters ist. Das ist bei "Vaeter fuer Kinder" leider missverstaendlich dargestellt.]
[...continued in English]
32.  In their decisions, both the Mettmann District Court and the Wuppertal Regional Court refused the applicant access to his son on the grounds that the bad relationship between the parents exposed the child to a conflict of loyalty, and that at the two court hearings the child called his father "nasty" or "stupid", adding that on no account did he want to see him. At the second hearing, the child, who was then almost six years old, said: "Mommy always says Egbert is not my father. Mommy is afraid of Egbert."
According to the applicant, this statement was made under the influence of the mother or one of her close acquaintances and with her approval. Another statement made by the child and recorded by the court showed that the mother had scared the child by running away when meeting the father by coincidence. 
33.  These statements by the child were, in the applicant's submission, extremely important because they showed that the mother programmed the child against his father, making him a victim of what was called the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). The child therefore totally rejected any contact with his father. If a report had been obtained from a competent family or child psychologist at that time, it could have shown that the child had been influenced or used by the mother against the father. For this reason, the decision of the two courts not to appoint an expert, as requested by him and recommended by the Youth Office, was not only a violation of the father's interests but also of those of the child, since contacts with the other parent were in the child's best medium- and long-term interests.
34.  By refusing to allow the father access to his child and by ruling in favour of the mother, who had been given sole custody, the German courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court, violated the State's constitutional duty to protect its citizens against violations of their rights by private individuals. The State must enforce the observance of human rights in its domestic legal order.
35.  The results of American research concerning the PAS had been available since 1984 and 1992. They very soon led to a large number of specialised publications and were taken into account by American and Canadian courts in their case-law.
If Germany had been prepared to adopt the results of the research carried out in the United States, where far larger research budgets were available, and to act upon them, the court could, at the time, have reached a different decision, because the judge who questioned the child could have interpreted differently the child's remarks rejecting his father. At the very least, however, the court should have appointed a competent expert familiar with the specific psycho-dynamics of family relations.
***
http://www.paPPa.com
[The full court decision is available on-line, in English – as an MS Word 7 RTF document.]

See also: Family Law — Table of Contents

__________________
Posted 2000 06 14
Updates:
2001 01 30 (format changes)
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents