Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
2018/2856(RSP) The role of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in cross-border family disputes
Lead committee dossier: PETI/8/14590
Legal Basis RoP 123-p2
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | PETI | WIKSTRÖM Cecilia (ALDE) | VALLINA Ángela (GUE/NGL) |
Legal Basis RoP 123-p2
Activites
-
2018/11/29
Vote in plenary scheduled
- 2018/11/15 Debate in Parliament
Documents
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 63 |
2018/2856(RSP)
2018/10/04
PETI
63 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Citation 8 — having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIa)1 and especially its Articles 8, 10, 15, 16,21, 41, 55 and 57, _________________ 1 OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1
Amendment 10 #
Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the Jugendamt plays a central role in the German family law system as it is one of the parties in all family disputes involving children;
Amendment 11 #
Recital A b (new) A b. whereas in family disputes involving children the Jugendamt delivers a recommendation to the judges, whose nature is practically binding, and can adopt temporary measures, such as the ‘Beistandschaft’, which cannot be challenged;
Amendment 12 #
Recital A c (new) A c. whereas the Jugendamt is responsible for the implementation of the decisions taken by the German courts; whereas the broad interpretation of these decisions by the Jugendamt often resulted detrimental to the effective protection of the rights of non-German parents;
Amendment 13 #
Recital A d (new) A d. whereas the German family law system, and in particular the role of the Jugendamt, must be carefully assessed taking duly into account its unique legal, administrative and cultural background in order to put forward effective solutions to all issues experienced by non-German parents in family disputes having cross- border implications involving children;
Amendment 14 #
Recital A e (new) A e. whereas non-recognition and non- enforcement by German competent authorities of decisions and judgements taken by other EU Member States’ judicial authorities, in family disputes having cross-border implications, can represent a breach of the principle of mutual recognition and mutual trust amongst Member States, thus jeopardising the effective protection of the best interest of the child;
Amendment 15 #
Recital A f (new) A f. whereas petitioners denounced that in family disputes having cross- border implications the protection of the best interest of the child is systematically interpreted by the competent German authorities with the need to ensure that children remain in the German territory, even in cases where abuses and domestic violence against the non-German parent were reported;
Amendment 16 #
Recital A g (new) A g. whereas the procedures adopted by the Jugendamt officials in cases of supervised parental access implied for the non-German parents the prohibition of the use of their mother tongue in their communication with their children; whereas conversations between non- German parents and their children held in a language, other than German, were harshly interrupted by the Jugendamt officials and contacts between parents and children were banned;
Amendment 17 #
Recital A h (new) A h. whereas non-German parents denounced in their petitions the insufficient or lack of counselling and legal support by national authorities of their country of origin in cases where discriminatory or disadvantaged judicial and administrative procedures were adopted against them by German authorities, including the Jugendamt, in family disputes involving children;
Amendment 18 #
Recital B B. whereas all the EU institutions and all EU countries must fully guarantee the protection of the rights of the child as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; whereas the best interest of the child is a fundamental principle that should be respected as guiding rule for all decisions related to childcare issues at all levels;
Amendment 19 #
Recital B B. whereas the best interest of the child, primarily and best realised within its own family, is a fundamental principle that should be respected as guiding rule for all decisions related to childcare issues at all levels;
Amendment 2 #
Citation 8 a (new) - having regard to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union notably its rulings of 22.12.2010, Mercredi, aff. C-497/10 PPU and 02.04.2009, Procédure engagée par A., aff. C-523/07,
Amendment 20 #
Recital C C. whereas increased mobility within the EU has led to a growing number of cross-border disputes on parental responsibility and child custody; whereas the Commission must step up its efforts to promote in all Member States, including Germany, the consistent and concrete implementation of the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all EU countries;
Amendment 21 #
Recital D D. whereas scope and objectives of the Brussels IIa Regulation are based on the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality between citizens of the Union and on the principle of mutual trust between the Member States’ legal systems;
Amendment 22 #
Recital D a (new) D a. whereas the provisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation should in no manner allow for any abuse of its underlying aim to provide mutual respect and recognition, avoid discrimination on the grounds of nationality and foremost truly protect the best interest of the child in an objective manner;
Amendment 23 #
Recital E Amendment 24 #
Recital E a (new) Amendment 25 #
Recital E b (new) E b. whereas the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a court can ask to hear a child who is almost 3 years old at the time of the decision; whereas in other EU countries children of this age are considered too young and not mature enough to be consulted in disputes involving their parents;
Amendment 26 #
Recital F a (new) F a. whereas the case law of the CJEU establishes the autonomous notion in European law of the "normal residence" of the child and the plurality of the criteria on which the national jurisdictions must determine the habitual residence;
Amendment 27 #
Paragraph 1 1. Notes with great concern that the
Amendment 28 #
Paragraph 1 1. Notes with great concern that the Committee on Petitions in the last decade has received more than 30 petitions on parental responsibility or child custody in cross-border family disputes and the role of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt), and that many of them
Amendment 29 #
Paragraph 1 1. Notes with great concern that the Committee on Petitions in the last decade has received
Amendment 3 #
Citation 12 — having regard to the
Amendment 30 #
Paragraph 1 1. Notes with great concern that the Committee on Petitions in the last decade has received more than
Amendment 31 #
Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Recalls that the Committee on Petitions held a fact-finding mission to Germany in 2011, and that this fact- finding mission found no reason to conclude that non-German parents in cross-border marriages are subject to any discrimination by the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt);
Amendment 32 #
Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Condemns all cases of discrimination of non-German parents by the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt);
Amendment 33 #
Paragraph 2 2. Points to the long standing work of the Committee on Petitions
Amendment 34 #
Paragraph 2 2. Points to the long standing work of the Committee on Petitions treating petitions on the role of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt); acknowledges the detailed responses given by the competent German ministry and by a Jugendamt official, present in the relevant deliberations of the Committee on Petitions, on the functioning of the German family law system but underlines that the Committee on Petitions continuously receives petitions concerning alleged discrimination
Amendment 35 #
Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the obligation, as provided
Amendment 36 #
Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Regrets that the Commission did not implement for years accurate checks on the procedures and practices used in the German family law system, including the Jugendamt, in the framework of family disputes having cross-border implications, thus failing to effectively protect the best interest of the child and all other related rights;
Amendment 37 #
Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Insists on the importance that Member States collect statistical data on the administrative and judicial proceedings concerning children custody and involving foreign parents, particularly including the outcome of the judgements, in order to allow for a detailed analysis of existing trends over time and provide benchmarks;
Amendment 38 #
Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Emphasises, following the case law of the CJEU, the autonomous notion of the "habitual residence" of the child in European law and the plurality of the criteria on which the determination of the normal residence must be conducted by the national jurisdictions;
Amendment 39 #
Paragraph 3 b (new) Amendment 4 #
Citation 12 — having regard to the
Amendment 40 #
Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that such determination of the normal residence of the child has been properly done by the German jurisdictions in the petitions received by the Committee on Petitions;
Amendment 41 #
Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Strongly criticises the absence of statistical data on the number of cases in Germany in which court rulings were not in line with the recommendations of the Jugendamt and on the outcomes of family disputes involving children of bi-national couples, despite the repeated requests for years to collect data and make them publicly available;
Amendment 42 #
Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Calls on the Commission to assess in the petitions whether German jurisdictions have duly respected the provisions of Council Regulation Brussels IIa when establishing their competences and if they have taken into consideration judgements or decisions issued by jurisdictions of other Member States; _________________ 1a OJ L 338, 23.12.2003., p. 01
Amendment 43 #
Paragraph 3 d (new) 3 d. Condemns the fact that, in cases of supervised parental access, failure by non-German parents to comply with the Jugendamt officials procedure to adopt German as language during conversations with their children, led to the harsh interruption of conversations and to a ban on contact between the non- German parents and their children; believes that such procedure adopted by the Jugendamt officials constituted a clear discrimination based on origin and language against non-German parents;
Amendment 44 #
Paragraph 3 e (new) 3 e. Is firmly convinced that in cases of supervised parental access, German authorities must permit all parental languages during conversations between parents and their children; asks for mechanisms to be put in place to guarantee that non-German parents and their children can have communication in their common language as its use plays a crucial role to keep strong emotional bonds between parents and their children and ensure the effective protection of children’s cultural heritage and welfare;
Amendment 45 #
Paragraph 3 f (new) 3 f. Firmly believes that a consistent and effective follow-up must be given to the recommendations of the final report of the Committee on Petitions’ Working Group on “Child welfare issues” of 3 May 2017 and notably on those related directly or indirectly to the role of the Jugendamt and to the German family law system;
Amendment 46 #
Paragraph 3 g (new) 3 g. Reminds Germany of its international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including Article 8 thereof; believes that major improvements must be made by all German competent authorities to adequately safeguard the right of the children of bi-national couples to preserve his or her identity, including family relations, as recognised by law without unlawful interference;
Amendment 47 #
Paragraph 4 Amendment 48 #
Paragraph 4 Amendment 49 #
Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Considers that in light of Article 81 TFEU the Commission can and must play an active role in ensuring fair and consistent non-discriminatory practices towards parents in the treatment of cross- border child custody cases throughout the Union;
Amendment 5 #
Citation 12 — having regard to the
Amendment 50 #
Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Regrets that the Commission missed a unique opportunity in its proposal for the recast of the Brussels IIa Regulation to address specifically the elements within its current provisions which, instead of protecting the best interest of the child in all cases as it is intended, allow for and de facto shield discriminatory administrative and judicial practices towards non-national parents, such as those depicted in the large number of petitions received during the past decade, of which the Commission was duly alerted;
Amendment 51 #
Paragraph 4 c (new) 4 c. Asks the Council to reach an agreement to duly amend the text of the Brussels IIa Regulation during its ongoing recast procedure, in order to incorporate the necessary mechanisms that prevent and redress any discriminatory practices within judicial proceedings and judgements concerning parental custody; urges the Commission to take this approach in any future legislative proposal in this field, including new revisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation;
Amendment 52 #
Paragraph 5 Amendment 53 #
Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Emphasises the importance of a close cooperation and efficient communication between the different national and local authorities involved in childcare proceedings from the social service to the jurisdiction and the central authorities,
Amendment 54 #
Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 55 #
Paragraph 8 8. Recalls the importance to provide
Amendment 56 #
Paragraph 8 8. Recalls the importance to provide parents at every stage of child-related proceedings with complete and clear information on the proceedings and on the possible consequences thereof; calls on the Member States to inform parents about the rules on legal support and aid;
Amendment 57 #
Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Stresses that the denounced instances whereby non-German parents are prevented from communicating with their children in their common mother tongue during visitations constitute not only a discrimination on the grounds of language, but are also contrary to the aim of fostering multilingualism and diversity of cultural backgrounds within the Union and in breach of the fundamental right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
Amendment 58 #
Paragraph 9 9. Expresses its concern on cases raised by petitioners about short deadlines set by the German competent authorities and about documents sent by the German competent authorities not provided in the language of the non-German petitioner; stresses the right of citizens to refuse acceptances of documents if not written or translated into a language the person understands as laid down in Article
Amendment 59 #
Paragraph 9 9. Expresses its concern on cases raised by petitioners about short deadlines set by the competent authorities and about documents sent by the competent authorities not provided in the language of the petitioner; stresses the right to refuse acceptances of documents if not written or translated into a language the person understands as laid down in Article 8 (1) of Regulation No. 1393/2007
Amendment 6 #
Citation 15 — having regard to the
Amendment 60 #
Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Calls on the Commission to verify the respect of languages requirements in the course of proceeding before the German jurisdictions in the petitions presented to the European Parliament;
Amendment 61 #
Paragraph 10 10. Reiterates its call on the Commission and the Member States to co- finance and promote the establishment of
Amendment 62 #
Paragraph 11 11. Reminds the Member States about the importance to systematically implement the provisions of the Vienna Convention of 1963 and to ensure that embassies or consular representations are informed from the start of all child care proceedings involving their nationals and have full access to the relevant documents; stresses the importance of a trustworthy consular cooperation in this field and suggests that consular authorities should be allowed to attend every stage of the proceedings;
Amendment 63 #
Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Reminds the Member States of the need to provide the child with necessary and justified foster care in accordance with the wording of Article 8 and Article 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular to enable continuous childcare that takes into account child's ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural identity;
Amendment 7 #
Recital -A (new) -A. whereas the child's best interests must be paramount in all decisions related to childcare issues at all levels;
Amendment 8 #
Recital A A. whereas the Committee on Petitions
Amendment 9 #
Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the Committee on Petitions has no powers to annul court rulings and in most cases can only consider these petitions without having access to their full text, but only on the basis of the position expressed by one of the parents, namely the one addressing the petition;
source: 628.512
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2018-12-05Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/docs |
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
2018-11-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs |
|
2018-11-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/type |
Old
Debate in plenary scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
2018-11-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
2018-11-10Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|