Raising Children Is Serious Business – Especially When the Jugendamt Steps In

Parenthood is probably the most difficult and responsible job in the world. Many parents feel unsure about a great many things – for example, from what age a child may stay home alone, or whether children should be taken along on trips or appointments. Every family has its own rules and habits, but in some situations the law sets out how parents must act.

In Germany, parents have clearly defined duties towards their children as well as rights. One of them is to ensure that the child attends school regularly. Compulsory schooling (Schulpflicht) is governed by the school laws of the federal states: it generally starts at about six years of age and usually covers nine or ten years at a general school, often followed by a duty to attend vocational school (Berufsschulpflicht).

This rule may seem self-evident, but it is by no means universal in international practice. In many developed countries, including other EU states, there is no equivalent of compulsory school attendance in the German sense. There is a duty to receive an education, but where, what and how a child learns is left to the pupil or the family; acquiring a basic education is not necessarily tied to attending a state or state-recognised school.

What are the consequences in Germany if parents breach this and other important duties? What can happen if a child does not attend school regularly without a valid reason?

The legal basis for the work of the youth welfare office (Jugendamt) is primarily Book Eight of the Social Code (SGB VIII – child and youth welfare) and the Act on Cooperation and Information in Child Protection (KKG). Every town and district has a Jugendamt. It advises and supports families – not only disadvantaged ones. If it becomes aware of serious indications that a child’s welfare is at risk, it must assess the risk (§ 8a SGB VIII). In cases of urgent danger, it can take a child into temporary care (Inobhutnahme, § 42 SGB VIII); if the persons with custody object, it must obtain a decision of the family court without delay (§ 42 para. 3 SGB VIII). The Jugendamt also helps in emergencies – for example, if a single mother suddenly has to go into hospital and nobody can look after the child.

The Jugendamt’s work frequently concerns families in which the child’s care and upbringing do not appear to be secured. Whether there is a risk is first assessed by the Jugendamt’s specialists. Whether a child stays outside the family against the parents’ will, or whether parental custody is restricted, is decided by the family court (§§ 1666, 1666a BGB). In this article, we report on a case in which a child taken into care was able to return to his family.

A fairly young woman – let us call her Antonia – came to our firm. At the first consultation she told us the following story. About ten years earlier she had come to Germany from Kazakhstan under the ethnic German resettlers’ programme. Some two years later she met a man named Thomas (name changed), and a close relationship developed very quickly – so quickly that the young woman barely noticed she was pregnant. Having a child, starting a family or even living together had not been part of the couple’s plans. When Thomas realised that she was determined to have the baby, he “quickly disappeared from the radar”. All the work of giving birth to and raising her son therefore fell on Antonia’s shoulders. Despite all the difficulties, she was happy about the birth of her child, whom she named Mark (name changed). Coping alone, however, was anything but easy – state support alone was not enough, and Antonia took one job after another, so that the small family just about got by. Time flew, and Mark was due to start school. This is where the real problems began, which almost ended disastrously for the family. Because of job changes, Antonia moved to different districts twice during the school year, so Mark had to change school twice although he was only in the first year. Busy earning money for the family, Antonia did not pay much attention to whether the boy went to school. He very often missed lessons and compulsory school events – sometimes with a doctor’s note, sometimes without. This had a very negative effect on his performance. Since he did not speak German very well anyway and had attended school on only 30 days in half a year, Mark could hardly follow lessons or do his tasks. After a while, the situation came to the attention of the head teacher, who observed it himself and considered it his duty to inform the Jugendamt. Matters were made worse when Antonia met a new partner who had come to Germany from Armenia on holiday. She quickly became so attached to him that she persuaded him to stay in Germany until his visa expired, and when it was time for him to go home, she packed up and followed him to Armenia with the child.

That was not the end of the story: after a few months in Armenia, the young woman decided to return to Germany. She and her new partner decided to marry and then arrange for him to join her under the rules on family reunification. As a result of this “soap opera”, the child had not attended school in Germany for several months in a row – which was the last straw for the staff of the competent Jugendamt. The seven-year-old was collected directly from school by the authority’s staff and taken to a local children’s home. Withdrawal of the mother’s custody and its transfer to the authority was now on the agenda.

Antonia urgently asked us to help her get her son back. Our lawyer accepted the instruction and applied, in the proceedings before the family court, for the child to be returned to his mother. The main arguments were:

— the boy was still quite young, and staying in a children’s home among strangers could seriously harm his physical and psychological development;

— Mark’s absences from school had in fact mostly been due to illness, as confirmed by doctors’ certificates;

— while in Armenia, the boy had attended a school where lessons were taught in Russian, so he would be able to catch up quickly on the material he had missed in Germany;

— Antonia fully recognised her mistakes in bringing him up and undertook to ensure that the child lived in the family in compliance with all legal obligations;

— her older sister would shortly be moving to the town where our client lived in Germany and was prepared to help with the household and with looking after the boy.

The family court considered these arguments sufficient to allow the boy to return to his mother – but subject to conditions (§ 1666 para. 3 BGB):

— the mother could no longer decide alone on the child’s trips abroad; this authority lay with the Jugendamt, which kept Mark’s passport;

— the child was now required to attend two hours of additional lessons after school every weekday from Monday to Friday, to better support his learning of German, his socialisation and his integration.

The main goal was achieved: the boy returned to his mother, who can continue to bring him up. We wish our client strength and patience. If you are dealing with the Jugendamt or with proceedings before the family court, we will be glad to advise you.

Family Law

All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.