New Normal German Court Strips Parents of Custody Because of…Homeschooling

Their 'crime™' was that parents did so to avoid masking and testing requirements for their 7yo--hence the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe took away parents' rights

The below comes to us via the great people of www.covid-justiz.de who document, tirelessly, both the utter insanity of the Covid years—and the even larger depravity of ‘the Judiciary™’ who issue rulings like the one below.

So, without much further ado, translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

Parents Protect Child from Masking, Testing Obligations: Custody Withdrawn

This case has the number ‘OLG Karlsruhe, Beschluss vom 25.08.2022, Gz. 5 UFH 3/22’, and I found the below quotes on this website.

Summary

Due to compulsory testing and masks obligations, parents temporarily stopped sending their 7-year-old child to school. Instead, they taught the first-grader themselves [i.e., homeschooling]. This had consequences: the Youth Welfare Office [orig. Jugendamt, which is roughly the equally Orwellian Child Protective Services in the US] partially withdrew custody of their child. The parents challenged the Youth Welfare Office’s decision in court, but the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court rejected the parents’ claims.

Yet we are supposed to consider this is all ‘normal™’ and ‘how this should™ be’. In reality, this ruling is an abomination, and this is also, quite clearly so, spelled out in the commentary offered by www.covid-justiz.de:

Everyday school life in 2021: class pictures taken with a distance of 1.5 metres between the children whose faces are hidden behind masks [neither ‘social-distancing’ nor masking was grounded in evidence]. Corona tests several times a week, compulsory masks for hours during lessons [I’m getting more angry as I go through this list]. This was accompanied by constantly repeated admonitions to the children about the alleged danger of death for the grandparents, which they also posed because of the virus.

As treating children in this way is not only disrespectful but also dangerous to their health, countries such as Sweden have taken a completely different approach to children. In Germany, too, politicians were very late to recognise what was already known very early on, namely the harmfulness of such measures for children [perhaps because their offspring was either no longer in school or benefitted from a host of exemptions…do as I say, not as I do].

In order to explicitly protect their child from such behaviour, a couple from Baden-Württemberg did not send their 7-year-old son to school. To ensure that the child was still required to attend, they taught him themselves. Nevertheless, the school authorities demanded compliance with compulsory school attendance. The case went to court.

The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court ruled in August 2022, among other things:

• Parents are partially deprived of custody

• The home may be entered to search for the child

• The parents must hand over their child to a supplementary carer

If the parents refuse to do so, they face a fine of up to €25,000 or imprisonment for up to six months for each individual case of refusal.

The decision is remarkable because it does not even begin to address the parents’ concerns. The court does not even address the reason for the absence from lessons, namely the health risks associated with the measures. For example, the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court does not address the fact that some rapid tests contain toxic substances, which is even pointed out in the instruction leaflets, and why gloves must be worn.

Some federal states had already ended the use of tests for over a year…over a year before the decision…

Instead, the court used a conspicuously long and wide-ranging explanation using the tried and tested text module technique to explain how important school lessons are in principle and how children would be at risk if they did not attend. It is debatable whether this applies to ordinary school lessons. But as we all know, there can be no question of such lessons in the coronavirus era. The court’s statements are therefore meaningless, as they only concern a fictitious case, but not the specific case to be dealt with.

And then the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court goes one step further and resorts to statements that seem to have fallen out of time, quoting the court:

‘For according to the constitutional principles set out above, the legislature can interfere with parental rights in this respect. Compulsory schooling does not only serve to impart knowledge and social skills that can possibly also be learnt in the family setting. Rather, compulsory schooling also serves the state’s educational mandate and the public welfare interests behind it.’

In other words: the state demands access to the child and the parents must submit to this.

Consequently, the court ignores whether such pandemic schooling pose a risk [sic]. It achieves this with a clever trick: it simply claims that this aspect is not decisive because this is not the reason for the absence from lessons—which is astonishing, because the parents explicitly argued in this direction.

My blood is boiling, for this is such a kind of (child) abuse by the government, underwritten by the Judiciary™, that is boggles the mind.

[I’ll bring this up because the child in question was born in 2014—and he’s as old as my older daughter; my contempt for these judges is beyond anything you could possibly name.]

I’ll cite some more from the court records now:

The parents explained the lack of school attendance

• with the compulsory testing (in particular: the tests would cause cancer [there are toxic substances in these mandatory tests]),

• the obligation to wear masks (alleged suffocation attacks; certificate from a dentist convicted of false certificates) and [also, masks don’t do anything to prevent spread, transmission, or infection]

• the risk of compulsory vaccination by the school (keyword: vaccination bus; the parents demanded an affidavit from the head teacher in this regard) [note peer pressure here, to say nothing of teachers inappropriately—and illegally so—pressuring a 6yo]…

Due to the lack of school attendance, the school contacted the Youth Welfare Office, which initiated proceedings in accordance with Section 1666 BGB [Germany’s Civil Code] in a letter dated 22 Dec. 2021 (1 F 334/21). The guardian ad litem [a temp guardian] appointed by the family court was allowed to have a single conversation with the child in the presence of the parents. An attempt at mediation between the parents and the school failed. According to the written statement by the guardian ad litem [i.e., a claim made by the temp guardian], the parents refused further contact with the child. The parents filed an application for recusal against the guardian criticising the guardian’s approach of trying to get the child to attend school and go for a walk with her alone [would you let your 6yo alone in the room or walking around with a stranger?]. This application was rejected [WTF, if you’d like to know my opinion].

The parents have three other children; she’s a stay-at-home mother, indicating that they know a thing or two about child-rearing.

There’s also a few more aspects I’l summarise here: parents submitted Covid-critical testimonials; the court wished to speak to the child in March and April 2022, which the parents prevented by submitting medical notices of illness. There was no hearing that involved the child, but then this happened:

In parallel temporary injunction proceedings (1 F 74/22), the family court issued the parents with a temporary court order to ensure regular compliance with compulsory school attendance. The order dated 7 April 2022, issued the next day, could not initially be served to the parents’ lawyer despite a complaint dated 9 May 2022. It was then served with a certificate of service on 15 June 2022, i.e., after the decision in the main proceedings (1 F 334/21). The parents’ appeal of 21 June 2022 against the temporary injunction was dismissed as inadmissible by the Senate in its decision of 8 August 2022 (5 UF 127/22).

On 21 April 2022, the adult parties were heard by the family court in the main proceedings [re-read the date in the preceding paragraph: the temporary injunction was issued before the hearing]. The parents stated that they would send the child to school after the Easter holidays (i.e., from 25 April 2022), as the coronavirus measures had been lifted. However, they would consider enrolling the child at the primary school in Nesselried in future [which the child didn’t do as the parents kept him out of school for the remainder of the school year]…

The parents declared that they would not accept a child hearing in the presence of the guardian ad litem.

As a result, the family court cancelled the date for the child hearing in the main proceedings.

In an order dated 18 May 2022, the family court ordered the parents to ensure that the child regularly attends school. The order was served on the parents on 20 May 2022.

The parents filed an appeal against the order (5 UF 120/22). This refers to the obligation for children to wear masks, which is harmful to their health.

The guardian ad litem and the Youth Welfare Office opposed the appeal.

At this point, I merely note that we’re firmly in Lala Land: the arrogation of parental responsibilities by both the Youth Welfare Office—and in particular by the appointed temp guardian—are so patently absurd that it boggles the mind.

Then there’s the issue of the Court simply ignoring all the objections submitted by the parents and instead citing, at best, technically related rules. It’s a kind of parallel universe or dimension in which the Court argues this on behalf of the Youth Welfare Office and the temp guardian.

The parents did not appear at the hearing on 10 Au. 2022, to which they were summoned via their lawyer on 30 July 2022, nor was the child brought to the hearing [no surprise there]. They subsequently stated that they had not received the summons due to relocation and illness of their authorised representative…

In the meantime, the family has moved to A. They now explain the lack of school attendance by stating that T. was able to develop ‘fantastically’ through ‘free learning in homeschooling’; the child wanted to continue in this way. His level of education could be checked at any time; however, he was not questioned in the proceedings at first instance. Both the head teacher of the school and the youth welfare office, as well as the guardian ad litem had proceeded so uncompromisingly that the parents had lost trust in these persons. They were still interested in finding a solution with empathetic parties so that A. could slowly find his way to school. The parents intended to enrol him at the community school at the new location in A., which was currently not possible due to the holidays.

The detailed statement of reasons announced by the court-authorised representative has not been received.

There are so many red flags in these paragraphs, I merely delimit myself to noting that this is a fraudulent procedure if there ever was one, as comes to the fore powerfully in the perverse argumentation used by the Court:

The interim injunction is to be issued ex officio...[no way of filing a complaint vs. anyone as ‘the Office’ issues this]

In accordance with Section 1666 Para. 1 BGB, the family court must take the necessary measures if the physical, mental or emotional well-being of a child is jeopardised and the parents are unwilling or unable to avert the danger. The child’s welfare is jeopardised if it is sufficiently likely that the child’s mental or physical welfare will be significantly harmed [so, handling of toxic substances is a-o.k., but homeschooling is ‘dangerous™’], whereby the more serious the impending harm, the lower the requirements for the likelihood of harm occurring (BGH FamRZ 2019, 598, juris para. 18)...

The measures taken must be suitable for eliminating the dangers threatening the child and must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the dangers [yes, that’s what the Court argued]. This applies in particular to the physical separation of the child from its parents against their [orig. deren, i.e., both child and parents are meant here] will, as this represents the greatest interference with the fundamental parental right...

Specifically, in the case of school refusal, the constitutionally protected educational right of parents is limited by the general obligation to attend school. The legislator is authorised to impose this restriction. This serves as a suitable and necessary instrument for the legitimate goal of enforcing the state's educational mandate. This mandate is not only aimed at imparting knowledge and educating children to become responsible individuals. It is also aimed at the education of responsible citizens who participate equally and responsibly [sic] in the democratic processes of a pluralistic society…

Reading this boilerplate BS is sobering, isn’t it? This is contradicted by so many things that happened during ‘Covid™’, and to illustrate this I’ll post the below screenshot compilation of (Germany’s extra-dumb) foreign minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens), followed by a link to one of my ‘footnotes’:

[left image] Baerbock Advocates for General Vaccine Obligations

[right image] No public prosecutor, judge, or politician has the right to determine what goes into a women’s body. It’s as simple as that: #MyBodyMyChoice. Instead of criminalise those who are involuntarily pregnant, they should be advised & supported in the best possible way.

Footnote: 'getting vaccinated = freedom'

So, civil liberties and esp. a woman’s right to chose, to use US lingo here, are paramount, except if vaccines, parental rights, and children’s rights are involved.

Yes, this is utterly depraved and contradictory to the extreme, but so were the Covid™ years. Hence, the subsequent part of the ruling will both infuriate esp. US readers and be totally incomprehensible to them:

In order to ensure compulsory school attendance, the partial withdrawal of custody and the arrangement of a guardianship can therefore be considered. In principle, these measures are suitable for counteracting the abuse of parental custody by parents who refuse to attend school [note that it’s not parents who do so, but they kept their child at home: this further diffuses responsibility, and while I believe this to be coincidental, I think the Court ruled thus intentionally]. The withdrawal of the right to determine the child’s place of residence and the right to regulate school matters, in conjunction with a guardianship order, creates the conditions for a guardian to take appropriate measures to ensure that a child is encouraged to attend a public school or a recognised alternative school in Germany and to prevent harm to the child that would be caused by exclusive home schooling. Such a guardian may be authorised to enforce the child’s return, if necessary by using force and by entering and searching the parental home and calling on the assistance of the bailiff or the police.

At this point, I merely point to the suitability of the US 2nd Amendment. Sadly, this kind of libertarian tradition is very alien to Central Europe. The above paragraph then continues:

This applies if less intrusive means of effectively protecting the child from the abuse of parental care and enforcing the state’s educational mandate in the best interests of the child are no longer available [this is why I think the Court did this intentionally because the Court refused to countenance any of the parents’ claims]. The partial withdrawal of custody and the ordering of guardianship are also not disproportionate to the interests of the child pursued by these measures [another BS claim without evidence, hence it fits nicely with the entirety of the Covid régime]; they are necessary for the exercise of the state’s guardianship mandate [nuff said, I suppose] (BGH of 17 October 2007 - XII ZB 42/07, juris para. 15; OLG Celle of 2 June 2021 - 21 UF 205/20, juris para. 22 with further references; OLG Nuremberg of 15 September 2015 - 9 UF 542/15, juris para. 13; OLG Cologne of 2 December 2014 - 4 UF 97/13, juris para. 4; OLG Frankfurt a.M. of 15 August 2014 - 6 UF 30/14, juris para. 14)…

Compulsory education not only serves to impart knowledge and social skills that can possibly also be learnt in the family environment. Rather, compulsory schooling also serves the state’s educational mandate and the public interest behind it. The general public has a legitimate interest in counteracting the emergence of religiously or ideologically motivated ‘parallel societies’ and integrating minorities [note that this is applied very selectively, as even the briefest consideration of Moslem vs. ‘Right-Wing™’ citizens drives home]…

According to these principles, on the factual [sic] basis described above and having exhausted the possibilities for clarification available in the summary proceedings for interim measures, it is necessary to take provisional measures after weighing up all the circumstances to be taken into account…[this is so painful to read as the Court held that the child was never heard, the parents’ arguments were ignored, and although parents offered to assess their child’s educational progress, this was never followed-up on by anyone]

I’ll close these long citations with the Court’s ‘arguments™’:

According to the principles set out above, there are sufficient factual indications [orig. Anhaltspunkte, i.e. clues] of a significant risk to the child’s welfare. The parents have not ensured that the child attends school for an entire school year, even though the obstacles they have formulated themselves have ceased to exist since the Easter holidays in April 2022 at the latest. As a result, they are jeopardising the child’s development into an independent personality as described above and the child’s equal participation in society. There is a real danger that the parents will continue to fail to ensure that the child attends school. This is all the more true as the parents no longer cite any substantive reasons for the child’s lack of school attendance [here you can literally grasp the Court’s disingenuous ‘reasoning™’: having refused to assess the parental arguments—which is given away by the use of the term ‘indications’ (i.e., not evidence, or Beweis)—the Court makes one astounding claim after another; line break added]

In their statement of 15 Aug. 2022, the parents claim that they have noticed how well the child can develop through free learning in homeschooling; this statement has no substance [remember: despite the parents’ offer to assess their child independently, this was never done—and the Court here claims, without any evidence, that the parents’ claim lacks substance]. The parents are simply substituting their assessment for the legislative decision on the significance of compulsory schooling. According to the legal principles outlined above, the legislator is entitled to restrict parental judgement in this respect on the basis of overriding considerations of the child’s welfare.

This is abusive on so many levels, that is, in addition to the twisted ‘logic™’ and ‘argumentation™’ employed by the Court:

This also applies in particular to the guardian ad litem, who has the legal mandate to speak to the child alone, i.e., without the parents. In child protection proceedings, it is generally not up to the parents to decide not to do so, but to prepare the child for this in a suitable educational manner.

I didn’t know this particular aspect of German ‘law™’, and I consider it an abomination, especially in light of the Court’s concluding musings:

These measures are also proportionate...

There are no other milder means of ensuring the child’s attendance at school [so the Court o.k’s the potential use of police]. In particular, offers [sic] of help and support to the parents have failed due to their resistance…[see, it’s the parents’ fault; also, remember Ronny Reagan: ‘I’m here from the government, and I’m here to help’ *shudder*]

According to the legal standard [sic] described above, this applies firstly to the partial deprivation of custody, but also to the accompanying measures. It is true that the forcible removal of the child for school attendance can lead to considerable traumatisation of the child [but, you need to understand, that if this is what it takes to do to ensure compliance, it’s fine], who may already be damaged anyway [this is how the Court seeks to assuage its ‘conscience’]. However, this consequence is proportionate in view of the risk to the child’s welfare [the beating will continue until morale improves] described above. In any case, the Senate assumes that a daily forcible removal will not extend over several weeks of school attendance, as either the parents will now accept and implement the child’s school attendance or a complete removal of the child from the parents’ care will have to be considered [is it just me or are these concluding lines both massively intrusive and violent at the same time; if you ever wanted to consider the origins of the portmanteau ‘lawfare’ as deriving from warfare, it’s not wrong].

Let that sink in for a moment or two.

Bottom Lines

Analytically, it’s clear and obviously in line with what the (German) state thinks of schooling: it’s a disciplining institution/device.

And the judiciary is the handmaiden of the state whose violence is meted out at parents and children alike.

This is what ‘the rule of law’ has become.

Yet, I’d argue it’s actually worse if we re-read the final lines I reproduced above:

the Senate assumes that a daily forcible removal will not extend over several weeks of school attendance, as either the parents will now accept and implement the child’s school attendance or a complete removal of the child from the parents’ care will have to be considered

Let’s break this apart, shall we?

• In the first part, we learn that parents are expected (assumed) to eventually relent because it might be ‘traumatising’ to the child to such degree that parents’ submission will occur

• In the second part, there is always a clear and present danger—for parents, that is—that the state will otherwise conduct ‘a complete removal of the child from the parents’ care’

Who are we? Are we sovereign citizens or are we subjects or virtually unaccountable authorities?

It looks more and more like the latter, and these authorities™ will not relent. Nor will they ever voluntarily give up the authorities™ laid claim to during the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’.

Doing so requires much more than sustained civil disobedience.

It also requires raising awareness about these notions among both parliamentarians and the judiciary, that is, if one wishes to avoid an ever more tyrannical régime to assert ever more powers over you and your life.

As all such tyrannies eventually ossify and crumble, the main question, to me, appears to be this: once these régimes fall, will we get a violent, Jacobin-esque revolution or a peaceful transition of power.