CSLI

Das Versagen der Jugendwohlfahrt

Believe it or not !

But it is true !

One more, the Youth Care Organization failed again !

 

The LAZARUS UNION cares about issues world-wide which are beyond the powers of individuals, often already exceeding their financial possibilities.

All actual news you can always find at the end of this page!

 

A new deplorable case must be reported regarding the work of the youth welfare centre in Hallein, Salzburg/Austria, which is of general interest (especially for fathers).

The youth welfare centre Hallein/Salzburg, represented by Mrs. Ursula K. and Mrs. Natalie V. (names withheld by the editor),, by presumably acting without necessary objectivity provided sole child custody for both children (son and daughter) to the children‘s mother (name withheld by the editor), a woman with a diagnosed personality disorder. So they are jointly responsible for the fact that the children have been brought to the USA by their mother with unknown whereabouts and that their father has been denied his legal rights.

The current impacts and the imminent endangering of the children‘s best interest

Without any actual information on the whereabouts of the children and their life situation, if they can attend school, if they do have medical insurance, if they are still in their mother‘s custody, yes even if they are still alive, the youth welfare centre instead of concentrating all its forces on the research on the whereabouts of the two minor children or at least supporting the children‘s father in doing so, bothers the him with lawsuits and demand bills although he does fulfil his obligations to best of his abilities.

As of today the children‘s father has not even been officially (i.e. In writing) been informed that the children currently seem to reside in the USA  although the youth welfare centre knows about the fact because the children‘s mother already failed to appear in court.

While the youth welfare centre, especially Mrs. K., still rigorously enforces the alimony payment without considering applications or pending lawsuits they now feel no more responsible for “the further best interest of the children and enforcing the visitation rights,“ they only consider themselves responsible for enforcing alimony payment which goes into a special “alimony account“ accessible only by the children‘s mother. Yet there is no way to make sure this money will actually be used for the children. Any and all statements regarding the father‘s actual income situation are permanently disputed, although all the documents requested were produced.

On the other hand the youth welfare centre despite several written demands never took into consideration the financial situation of the mother (which they actually would be requested to do by law) who, according to her own words, has a solid income, rented a house, and owns always large cars (Land Rover, etc.) while the children‘s father does not even have a car. All this also is a gross negligence of objectivity but obviously seems to be “normal“ for the youth welfare centre.

The lies and false testimonies by the children‘s mother were always believed blindly without ever giving the children‘s father a SINGLE chance of giving his side of the case. By the youth welfare centre supporting a false testimony by the children‘s mother in court sole custody for the children was granted to the mother. She now tries to use this (like the years before) to extorsively extortionate amounts of money from the children‘s father in exchange for allowing him to visit his children, sums he simply cannot afford at the moment and which would largely exceed all legal requirements.

Is it thus possible that the originators of this chaos and thus at least partly also responsible institutions can just dodge their responsibility by declaring that the case is “not under their jurisdiction“ any more? The youth welfare centre allegedly cannot even assist in finding out the whereabouts of the children or even enforce the visitation right of the father he does have according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which in fact is a right of the children), so they concentrate on reinforcing the money. They just point to the possibility of “… to take court action …“

Youth welfare centre shortfalls the editor has knowledge about

Here some facts are listed the editor considers important and relevant, in no particular order.

Already during the first dispute about children custody the youth welfare centre neglected any serious research on which would have been the better habitation for the children. For that one needs to know that the children‘s mother changed her address five times within four years with the children every time having to attend new schools resp. kindergarten and also having to find new friends. In Vienna they would have had their own room each in a very large house, rooms still awaiting them. This was noted also by the authorities.

The father of the children was never asked to see a psychiatrist together with them although it is evident that children are biased when influenced by one parent only.

Expertise by well-known psychiatrists were dismissed as “favour for the father“ although he never had any contact with those experts before.

Child custody was granted to the mother (with personality disorder according to a diagnosis by Prof. Dr. P. F. – name withheld by the editor), by the youth welfare centre without summoning the father personally even once or speaking to that doctor. This hold true for the youth welfare centre as well as the Court of Youth Welfare. The father only did not appeal because the mother assured in court that her domicile is in Salzburg as she earns money there and has no plant to move to the US. So the children‘s father believer her (written) statements with the well-known results!

There was some valid reason indeed for those fears by the father as the children‘s mother already once took the children to the US (while she and the father were still married) and threatened him with the statement that he will never again see his children if he does not pay her money (quote: “… if he doesn‘t have any, his parents shall pay…“). Only after a lawsuit had been filed based on the Hague Conventions, she returned back to Austria with the children. After this the marriage was divorced. The by then three years old boy was so shocked by these events that he repeatedly refused to return to his mother, under tears clinging to his father literally at the end of every visit! This has been recorded and handed over to the court but to no avail.

This has been known by the youth welfare centre (even in written and in court records) as the children‘s mother expressed such threats repeatedly but neither Mrs. Mag. K. nor Mrs. V. nor the youth welfare centre took this seriously.

The harm that has been done to all those involved is incredible. To the children, their father, but also the grandparents. Obviously the youth welfare centre staff are completely out of their depth. The act of believing only the children‘s mother and permanently plague their father with (unnecessary) harassments is second to none.

As the whole affair seems now to get out of control, also because of the lapses and joint guilt of Mrs. Mag. K. and Mrs. V., the children have been brought to the US with unknown whereabouts, the youth welfare centre has no idea about their condition, all persons responsible for this fiasco try to dodge their responsibility by stating that the case is now outside of their competency. If they can succeed this would once more be an “extra“ scandal or a big failure of the courts not to act at such events.

Although the regional court Salzburg stated on March 7th, 2003, that “it must be noted that in the case that there can be ascertained a concrete intention of the mother to move to the US and in the case a new request to move the child custody, appropriate ascertainments regarding the (future) environment of the children would have to be taken to have sufficient factual reasons regarding a relevant decision in the interest of the jurisdiction“ (10 Ob 25/00z),

the youth welfare centre did not act in the best interest of the children although they would have had the chance – in the eyes of the editor even the OBLIGATION – to do so. They instead considered it more important to enforce alimony payment although they were not even able to tell the father where the children stay at the time being. In fact they did not even know it themselves!  They deliberately connived at the permanent warnings by the children‘s father, ignoring all petitions and evidence until it was too late and they have no more information about the whereabouts of the children.

This too is simply a scandal!

Acting of the children‘s mother regarding visitation right and the preliminary events

It has to be noted that the children‘s mother is a US citizen. She met the children‘s father in the Dominican Republic in 2002. They married in 2003 and at that time also lived in the Dominican Republic.

Even then she stated that she did not want to live in the US but was careful not to give the true reason. She had significant financial problems in the US although it cannot be stated with certainty if she went bankrupt there. So she had to wait for the limitation of her liabilities in time. The happened in 2007, when she at the first opportunity refused to come back from a visit to the US where she had the children taken to, such trying to extort money from their father.

Because of this the boy was slowed in his development. At school he had to stay down a year twice, being a second-grade at the age of nine with marks of “E“ in German. Upon instigation of the youth welfare centre the school did not inform the father about this! The boy was in dire need of support and coaching but the youth welfare centre failed in enabling this. He is a normal intelligent child who is handicapped in his development by circumstances. Did the youth welfare centre ever ask itself how all this will influence his further life as he has to learn to write in another language (English) now? Obviously not!

To put the visitation right and the get-together with his beloved children not in any danger their father abstained from going to filing a lawsuit against the children‘s mother for child abduction and blackmail. Yet the marriage failed and they got divorced.

It shall also be noted that generously support was provided for the Children‘s mother as well as the children. She got a completely furnished 110 sqm apartment, a car and money and of course also the alimony payments for the children. On top of that she received EUR 815 monthly for a living although she earned her own money, too. Unfortunately the alimony amount was calculated based on the father‘s gross income and also this amount was paid to her. Together with the official family allowance by the state she hat a net income of about EUR 2.000, earning additional money by giving lessons in English language.

After losing his job and subsequent unemployment because of permanent emotional pressure and horrendous costs for visiting the children (the mother moved to Salzburg with them after a few months) the children‘s father had to request lowering the rate for alimony payment.

This was reported to the youth welfare centre but they ignored all presented balance sheets and tax bills. They wanted to have „… proof that no auxiliary earnings do exist“ (how is one supposed to give proof of this?) and on request of the children‘s mother they continued to pay way too high alimony amounts without examining the papers presented. They not only ignored the changed income situation of the children‘s father but also stated that the fact that his brother allowed him to stay at his house for free has to be considered as an additional monetary income for calculating the final alimony sum. Yet the ignored completely the enormous costs the father had every other week to see his children in Salzburg (3000km motorway every month). So he had to lend large amounts of money to be able to see his children at all and he got more and more desperate.

But the youth welfare centre did not care at all and the court acknowledged their demands without any further examination of the documents presented. Only the appeal court put this to a stop and shed some light on these shortfalls. Now the courts take more that one and a half years to calculate the new amount for alimony payment. Yet the youth welfare centre continues to pay the too high amounts to the mother and issues one court order after the other. No compromise was possible so far although the children‘s father regularly pays the sums he is obliged to pay according to his income situation. No the former wife of his and the youth welfare centre even demand extra payment (for school and health insurance in theUS, something which is free for the children inAustria) and they give as reason that they are “… only caring for the best interest of the children!?!“

The father of the children has spent his complete money for support of the children, owns no car, no house or apartment and has to lend large amounts of money just for alimony payments.

Despite of all this he tried hard all the time to enable right of residence for his former wife (also via third party guarantees). In a period of four years she changed her residence five times (once even staying in a basement without youth welfare centre intervening). During the appealing session in court she agreed neither change residence nor schools until the children‘s 10th birthday. Shortly after that she again moved to Hallwang, where the children once more had to change school. Youth welfare centre again showed no reaction. The daughter has to attend FIVE different kindergartens. It should be well known what the position of the laws regarding children is, in the eyes of the editor this is a grave violation of the duty to act in the best interest of the children!

During one of the few internet contact the father wad with his son he had to learn that the mother allured the nine years old boy into moving to theUSby promising him that his father will always visit him and during summer vacation he and his sister can fly to their father. Meanwhile he gets forbidden to even talk to his father over the phone because “… the money is not here yet!“ Also earlier the issue was always money he had to pas if he wants to see his children. Finally their mother demanded an additional 6.000 Euros on top of all the money she still gets from youth welfare centre, arguing with “additional costs for the children.“

Is THIS the best interest of the children the youth welfare centre has to maintain?

Final remarks from the editor’s point of view regarding these incredible facts:

When one looks at the actions of Mrs Mag. K. one could well come to the conclusion that an unacceptable biased “chasing“ of the children‘s father has been going on and still is.

As of today there is (still) no official statement to the children‘s father that the mother together with the children resides in the United Sates of America with unknown whereabouts (consider that it is practically impossible to find them there as there is no obligation to register one‘s residence with the police in the US).

The youth welfare centre obviously has now idea if the children are fine, attend school, have sufficient food, it is even just unknown if they are still alive!

This is OUTRAGEOUS!

In the light of all this it is almost “apparently common practise“ of Mrs. Mag. K. that the youth welfare centre does not to care about the father‘s visitation rights (a right granted to BOTH parents). So this is how the responsibility for the best interest of the children is interpreted.

Mrs. Mag. K. apparently considers herself just as the collection agency for the children‘s mother and her needs (as it is NOT at all granted that the money is used for the children‘s benefit. Mrs. Mag. K. is not at all interested (any more) in the residence of the children, their well-being (etc. etc, see above) and she obviously has no idea of these facts. Mrs. V. does not care about the case any more as in her opinion the colleague from Hallwang is in charge of the case now.

The files are passed around to and from, nobody is informed about the details and the responsible administrator is so busy that he cannot get on the phone. The district court Salzburg which is responsible for child custody now and where the application to transfer child custody to the father has been filed has sent the files to the county court Hallein. What is going to happen there has not been verified as of yet.

In the meantime the children have disappeared to an unknown residence with a physically ill mother for eight weeks now and not even the youth welfare centre is able to get in contact with the children‘s mother.

The mother currently not only refuses the visitation right but any contact of the children with their father. But all this obviously does not interest Mrs. Mag. K. resp. Mrs. V. (any more). Even the already very rare telephone contacts are made dependent on extra payment by the children‘s mother even though Mrs. Mag. Kramml sends the monthly alimony payments. Mrs. Mag. K. also does not take any note of the fact that this approach by the children‘s mother comes very close to assumed blackmail or coercion and she does absolutely nothing to stop these practices or at least inform the children‘s mother that this action is against the law (maybe Mrs. Mag. K. would even do this but she has no possibility to contact her). The children‘s mother has continuously changing partners and the children have to permanently “share“ their mother with strangers.

The issue here is ONLY to improve the best Interest of the children, (which the editor considers grossly violated) and to make the best of a bad job. And NOTHING else!

Finally an excerpt from on of the last mails from the youth welfare centre of Salzburg, dated November 21st, 2013:

Dear Mr…….. !

It is very sad that you cannot see the children any more. I do have only an email the content of which I will copy into this mail further below.

Wish you much luck! Maybe something can be done via the international agreements and the UN charter of children‘s rights!

Best regards from Salzburg

In the opinion of the editor there‘s nothing more to be said even it these “encouraging“ words were meant seriously (which is assumed by the editor)!

Here is a reasonable suspicion of negligent breach of obligatory acting in the children‘s best interest and also a suspected abuse of office regarding the youth welfare centre and of suspected blackmail and unsworn false statements in court regarding the children‘s mother.

An almost identical presentation of the facts has been sent to the district public prosecution authority. It is their job to sort out who is guilty of what and how responsibilities are really distributed. The editor of this report was not able to do this as nobody was or wanted to be responsible.

It is unnecessary to point out extra that everything which was stated here can be proved and evidence provided. The investigation was done with the most possible journalistic responsibility and all fact have been verified in all conscience! Copies of this report have been sent to Mrs. Mag. K. respectively the youth welfare centre and a statement has been requested. It has to be stated here that Mrs. Mag. K.  is not the only representative of the youth welfare centre which has a responsibility in this case but the whole youth welfare centre concept of Salzburg is the target of these reproaches and so not one sole representative is to be held responsible but the youth welfare centre and the “system“ as a whole must be considered responsible!

Of course for all parties involved the presumption of innocence holds!

And we (jolly) proceed:

November 25th, 2013, the children‘s father again applied for child custody being transferred to him at the district court Salzburg as the youth welfare centre named this as the court having jurisdiction in the case. This court forwarded the case to the district court at Hallein. The latter court also but considered itself not having jurisdiction and forwarded the case to the district court Donaustadt (Vienna). So once more precious time went by unused which might in future prove detrimental to the children‘s best interest. But it should already be obvious to everyone that inAustria the “case“ is much more important that the “person.“ How shall a system of justice be able to function if not even the courts themselves do have a clear idea about responsibilities? Currently the case “rests“ at the district court Donaustadt. We will see how this is going to (jolly) proceed.

The latest facts (12/05/2013)

Mrs K from Youth Welfare, Hallein, was unable to give us any details of the current residence of the children today and, being unable to get in touch with the children’s mother, has had NO contact with her.

The children’s mother has also not allowed telephone contact between the children and their father for more than two weeks. This means that there has been NO sign of the children for two weeks.

Furthermore, we have found out that the children’s mother allegedly borrowed substantial amounts from the church in Salzburg, to which she always “made a pilgrimage”, without re-paying these loans prior to her departure. We learn that she obtained the loans on the grounds that she was receiving no payments and support from the children’s father.

It’s also pretty safe to assume that this is just the tip of the iceberg, because her permanent relocation could also be related to unfulfilled financial obligations to a Mrs Carlson. A complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of fraud is planned.

The “return” to the United States is also likely to be related to this as in the U.S. Mrs Carlson’s claim for personal bankruptcy is likely to be “time barred”.

And SO a person with two innocent children, whose place of residence is now unknown, has simply “cleared off” and NO ONE has taken any action (certainly not the Youth Welfare). It is also upsetting that there has been no mention of any “actions” or “assistance” for the children’s father, the ‘children’s welfare’ has been the only consideration.

In addition, application for custody was passed by the District Court, Salzburg, to the District Court, Hallein. I had to learn of this act but now the custody application has been forwarded from Vienna to the District Court, Donaustadt. Hopefully this court will now take responsibility, since in the opinion of the author the children are in “imminent danger”.

The children’s father is in despair, the children are nowhere to be found and the (minimal) telephone contact has been cut off by a suspected ‘con artist’, but apparently no one is really interested.

If  THAT is not a scandal, then what is?

We will continue to report on developments!

 

Breaking News, December 12th, 20113

 
Also the judge Mag. Andrea Milletich from the district court Donaustadt considered herself not having jurisdiction in this case (according to the judge no court at all does have any jurisdiction in this case any more regarding the best interest of the children and child custody (this is the legal situation! How can this be said in good conscience?) and recommended to file a lawsuit in the Unites States. The chances for a court‘s decision in the favour of the children‘s father are less than ZERO!) Result: Two minors went into hiding in the United Staes with their presumably mentally ill mother and NOBODY is in charge any more and NOBODY is responsible!
 
But also this judge took the decision WITHOUT hearing the father of the children! THIS is Austrian JURISDICTION and Austrian YOUTH WELLFARE! 
 
In such case, we cannot find further words! It is UNBELIEVABLE !

“Spectator“

 

 “Statement” of the leader of the departement at the first time:

(Sorry it is available in German only, due to the complicated translation)

 

 

Is this the end, finally?

 

On December 9th, 2013, judge Mag. Andrea Milletich from the local district court Wien-Donaustadt ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction in this case.

 (Sorry it is available in German only, due to the complicated translation)

 

This means:

Independently of a former statement by an appellate court given 7. December 2013

Quote:    “it must be noted that in the case that there can be ascertained a concrete intention of the mother to move to the US and in the case a new request to move the child custody, appropriate ascertainments regarding the (future) environment of the children would have to be taken to have sufficient factual reasons regarding a relevant decision in the interest of the jurisdiction (10 Ob 25/00z)“  end quote

a mentally unstable mother managed to mess everyone about, assisted by youth welfare.

To successfully perform her deliberate act (which was known to the youth welfare centre) she planned everything in secret. Two weeks before she disappeared she told everyone of her plans to marry again soon in Salzburg so that nobody had a chance to foil her plan, she even told the children‘s father that he need not be in sorrow to lose his children. As long as she and the children had had their residence inAustriathere would have been a chance to inhibit such a move.

Now with all consents and promises broken by the children‘s mother and her trying to extort money from their father by threatening him to cut any contact of the children with him, the case is withdrawn from “Austrian jurisdiction“ and the children are lost for their father.

Lost because if he would visit the United Stateshe would immediately be faced with a lawsuit (as queer as this lawsuit would be but this is possible and common under US jurisdiction). Once the writ would be served to him in the United States(containing all possible sorts of allegations and falsehoods) the courts could rule any judgement in absentia. Besides, a lawsuit is realistically without any chances considering the children‘s mother is a US citizen and both children do have US passports.

 

After all, what would the father of the children have to expect in a country where a six-year old boy is accused of “sexual harassment“ for kissing a girl‘s hand? (The claims where dropped, though, after a media outrage, according to a CNN report 12. December 2013.)

 

Some incredible side remarks:

Although the youth welfare centre did (since the begin of September) have the information that the children had left Austriathey continued to transfer alimony payment  to the mother, against Austrian law. When they were informed that this is against the law they simply answered that such remarks were “provocative“ and “destructive“ and refused any information on who was responsible for this new “fiasco.“ it should not be a surprise that the obviously completely clueless and over-challenged officer as late as 29. October 2013, vehemently demanded continuation of the payments (threatening with a lawsuit)! To avoid laying himself open to attack the children‘s father submitted the alimony payments for the months October, November, and December 2013. Despite a hint that any more transfers of money to the children‘s mother staying in the United States is not in alignment with the law the youth welfare centre INSISTED in further payments on 19. November 2013. Only after a MASSIVE notice on the existing laws the youth welfare showed a first (vague) reaction on 11. December 2013.

(Sorry it is available in German only, due to the complicated translation)

 

Any excuse from youth welfare? Negative!

A return of the money demanded wrongly? No Answer!

The only answer which was received was a (schoolmasterly) letter from the responsible administrator stating how “wrongful,“ “provocative,“ “destructive,“ and “inapplicable“ all these accusations are and he has “no fear“ of courts, prosecution, or the Ombudsman board (what a brave man) and he takes note of all this in complacency.

But (obviously) not any single word on the children‘s best interests being trampled under foot  or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child!

It is “quite some reassurance“ to know that (at least according to the self-concept of the responsible authorities) that Austria is taken care of and administrated by so “impeccable“ and “sedated“ officials and clerks, isn‘t it?

 

„Spectator“

 

That can not be true ! Is this REALLY possible in Austria ?

Here is the last email of the youth welfare from 12. December 2013 , 10:37 to a desperate child’s father (along with the reply to it). A comment is unnecessary, because what SHOULD  be said? Besides the main thing is that the money goes , the welfare of the children is not a further interested by the authorities! Let alone the youth welfare. MADNESS ! ! ! !

(Sorry it is available in German only, due to the complicated translation)

 

Pictures from the children:

 The mother of the children

 

image_print
Untitled Document