Instead the Youth Welfare Office repeatedly exploited the credulity of the mother of the child and obtained so dubious advice, which should make the education inability of the mother and a mental disorder of the small Niklas. Under these pretexts the youth authority wants to have also small bustling Niklas in a psychiatric hospital, whereas the mother defends itself. The Suddeutsche.de cited”- opinion in family courts have the greatest power that can ever have a paper about people, because it decides whether parents their children are or not accepted. By the same author: Michellene Davis. Even after our present evidence appraisers are not often ill trained and applied tests often deficient. The problem of the poor quality of advice is because everyone an expert that can become before courts. Not only psychologists, educators already University graduates without life or work experience can families with their judgment about the future all determine.
A Chamber that could monitor its correct functioning, do not exist in the cases. This is known to the courts for years. Review by A. Merten and her son is not just about what to read is often in such opinion but it should be pointed out also, systematically concealing what biased experts. The task of the Verifier is to provide ordered coercive measures not by the youth welfare office or family court a legitimacy to the incarceration. Rather, it must have priority to enable the children to remain with their biological parents or family members.
If required, there are appropriate families helps to provide, to support them in the performance of their duties or to improve their parenting skills. The opinion of the biased expert in the case of the mother of the child”is marked by numerous violations of the”guidelines for providing psychological advice”after verification. Is in particular a scheuklappenhafte Determination of the bases and a following not the principle of differential diagnostic reasoning or evaluation of the ascertained facts.