Brussels, 10 November 2003
Dear Mr Heitland,
I was delighted to meet you at the Lecco conference on family law in
the European Union in October. Following our conversation,
I am now writing to you in my capacity as The European Parliament President's
Mediator on Transnationally Abducted Children, with regard to a number
of cases which are causing serious hardship and heartache for those involved.
I believe you are already familiar with the dossiers I am outlining here.
While there have been considerable improvements in Hague returns of
children abducted to Germany in recent months, there are still some
long-standing, well documented cases, where foreign parents are not
being granted visiting rights and even where visiting rights are recognised
they are unable to exercise them. This causes considerable distress and frustration,
and forces parents to seek alternative means of redress. It is clear that
there is a complete breakdown of confidence in the Jugendamt structure and
in the family court system in Germany as far as these foreign parents are
concerned. As Member States of the European Union we have all,
including Germany, signed up to new European Legislation in this field
which is due to enter into force in 2005 and yet no progress seems to be
occurring on the ground in existing cases.
I also wish to express serious concern regarding a recent trend on
the part of German mothers who following a divorce from a foreign national
and having successfully obstructed visiting and access to the children,
are now seeking to change children's surnames and succeeding without
the authorisation of the other parent. Several examples of this
are mentioned below and I am enclosing relevant documentation.
Could you please brief me on the legislation which seems to permit
a parent to change a child's name without informing or obtaining the consent
of the other parent, or without any action on the part of the authorities
to seek the other parent's consent? Frequently the child's name
is that of the non-custodial parent.
CASE I
Belgium/Germany (xxxx)
1 child: xxxx (born 4 May 1991) Divorce: 15 September
1998
Ms xxxx initially left Belgium without xxxx to return to Germany.
She subsequently returned to Belgium from where she abducted xxxx back
to Germany. The divorce proceedings took place in Germany, custody
was granted to the mother and no decision was made concerning visiting rights
at the time of the divorce. The apparent grounds for not discussing visiting
rights were that xxxx did not want contact with his father, I note that
xxxx was seven years old at the time of the divorce. Despite this,
to show good faith Mr xxxx to paid child maintenance for his son until
he had no address through which to make such payments. Ms xxxx
has also taken the ultimate step of seeking to change xxxx family name
from his given name of xxxx to his mother's name. She has done this without
the consent of Mr xxxx. At no stage has Mr xxxx been consulted about this
matter, despite the fact that the authorities have full contact details
for Mr xxxx, as his address has remained the same since the divorce. Those
details are on the divorce papers and on the the cheques sent to cover the
child maintenance. I am enclosing a copy of the details of the divorce proceedings
and the correspondence concerning the name change. I would be grateful for
positive action regarding the re-establishment of contact between father
and son given that six years have now passed since xxxx was abducted to Germany.
Furthermore what action is being taken concerning the changing of children's
surnames without parental consent from both sides given that the decision
was reached on the sole statement of the abducting parent, in this case,
the mother? I emphasize that Mr xxxx whereabouts have been known to the administration
and local authority in Frankfurt throughout these prolonged proceedings.
CASE II (UK/Germany) Mr xxxx
1 child: xxxx born 10 August 1989
This is a case of access rights for Mr xxxx. Following the divorce
Mrs xxxx was granted right of abode and chose to live in to Germany. Mr
xxxx currently lives in the UK. However as part of the divorce settlement
Mr xxxx was granted full access to his son. At present Mr xxxx does
not know where his son is living but believes him to be living with his maternal
grandparents as his mother had some psychiatric problems. Apparently some
meeting took place in the Family court in Heinsberg concerning the welfare
of xxxx on December 19th 2000 to which Mr xxxx was invited. However
the invitation was sent after the meeting took place as the letter was
dated 3rd January 2001. Mr xxx is not seeking full custody of xxx, he just
wishes to be able to remain in contact with his son and invite him for holidays
and get to know his English family as well. There is also a question
concerning the fact that Mrs xxxx has actually transferred guardianship
of xxxx to his maternal grandparents when he has a father in the UK who
is capable of looking after him. Mr xxxx has had no contact with xxxx since
1997. Mr xxxcan be contacted at xxxx Rugby, Warwickshire, CV23 RAN, UK.
CASE III
xxxx (Irish)/ xxxx (German) (unmarried)
1 Child: xxxx
born 27 August 2001
In this case both parents were resident in Germany until recently.
The relationship between the parents was over before the birth of their
son, however Mr xxxx acknowledged paternity of xxxx and had regular contact
2/3 days per week including overnight stays. However with the passage of
time this access had become more and more difficult coming to a complete
stop in January 2003. Mr xxxx has now been informed that Msxxxx has
requested that xxxy' surname be changed to xxxx, her surname from a previous
marriage. She has requested this on the grounds that xxxx is difficult to
pronounce. Mr xxxx is opposed to such a change. In July 2003
I wrote to Mr Merkens in the "Einwohner und Standesamt" in Bonn expressing
Mr xxxx's concerns and to date have not even received an acknowledgement.
Mr xxxx has since left Germany (August 2003) to take up a teaching post
in University College Galway. For the moment he has succeeded through direct
negotiation with Ms xxxx in seeing his son again recently and would hope
to be able to put this on a regular footing. He is determined to maintain
regular contact with Tadhg. As he is opposed to the name change,
it would be helpful if you could provide the necessary assistance in order
to prevent this from taking place. Mr xxxx can be contacted at xxxx
Galway, Ireland.
CASE IV
(UK/Germany) Dr xxxx
1 Child : xxxx born 30 January
1997
Divorce May 2002 in UK recognised by family court in Hamburg August
2002.
In this case joint custody was granted with xxxx living with his mother
and full access rights for his father.
Ms xxxx had left the United Kingdom without the consent of Mr xxxx
in 1997 with xxxx when he was six months old, he did not take a Hague case
at that time but filed for divorce. Following the divorce Dr xxxx
got joint custody of xxxx with Ms xxxx, he has agreed to the child's residency
in Germany with his mother. While Dr xxxx had financial means he paid maintenance
for xxxx(1997-98) to the Hamburg Jugendamt. It was when the Jugendamt in
Pinneberg sought maintenance payments that Dr xxxx realised Ms xxxx had
moved. At a court hearing in Pinneberg at the end of 2002
Ms xxxx sought to get sole custody on the grounds there had been no contact
from the father, although he had made fruitless attempts to make contact
since 1997 and the Pinneberg Jugendamt knew where to find him when seeking
maintenance. (Dr xxxx is completing a post graduate course following
a period of illness but once he has completed his studies and has obtained
work, he intends paying maintenance for xxxx again.) I was heartened
at the decision of the Pinneberg Court to uphold the joint custody arrangement
and to order that Dr xxxx be given access to his son. Dr xxxx met xxxx after
this hearing and has not been able to get access since. Ms xxxx has now apparently
moved again, this time to Flensberg, Dr xxxx has now been told to go
back to the district court in Flensberg to get access to xxxx as the Pinneberg
order does not apply. These delaying tactics are both obstructive and
costly . Surely a court order made in one court in Germany should be recognised
throughout the country? Furthermore Ms xxxx is now taking steps through the
courts in Flensberg to have xxxx's surname changed to xxxx. Dr xxxx
will be in Court again in Flensberg on 21 November to seek a new access order,
no doubt further obstacles will be put in his way. He is also opposing the
change in xxxx's surname. As in Pinneberg, the Jugendamt in
Flensberg has made no attempt to contact Dr xxxx either concerning access
or the name change. Dr xxxx can be contacted at Loughborough, LE12 5NA UK.
CASE V (South Africa/Germany) Michael Hickman
(South Africa) German mother (Germany)
2 Children: xxxx Hickman born 3 December 1989
xxxx
Hickman born 18 October 1993
Mrs Hickman abducted the children from South Africa to Germany on 29th
November 1995. At this stage there was not yet a divorce. A Court
in Wilhelmshaven, northern Germany, granted interim custody
to the mother in 1996 as father was in South Africa while informing him
of proceedings by ordinary mail . A letter can take between six and
eight weeks to South Africa. The decision on custody was confirmed
in the absence of Mr Hickman who sought to reverse the decision as
soon as he received the information, but by then his deadline for appeal
had expired. Since then he has been struggling to gain access to his sons.
The last meaningful contact between Mr Hickman and his two boys took place
in April 2000 when Mr Hickman's mother travelled from South Africa and
stayed with the boys in their own home, while Mr Hickman visited them
each day. These meetings were successful. The meetings were organised without
the intervention of the Jugendamt. However nothing has happened since
and Mr Hickman is still seeking assistance from the authorities in order
to re-establish good contact with his sons. Mr Hickman has made it
abundantly clear to me that his main grievance is with the lack of goodwill
on the part of the Jugendamt in Wilhelmshaven to work with both parents towards
a positive solution, thus providing the children with the opportunity
to know and love both their parents. At no stage did Mr Hickman intend
removing the children from their mother, even though they had been
abducted. At present Mr Hickman appears to be being put under severe
pressure to abandon his attempts to see his children, it is surely the role
of the authorities to assist Mr Hickman in his efforts to see his sons on
a regular basis? Mr Hickman is currently resident at Albrecht strasse
100, 26388 Wilhelmshaven. It is now eight years since the abduction
and three years since Mr Hickman has seen his children, although they
are currently living in the same area.
All these cases are of varying complexity. Some of them are well
documented in your services. I would be most grateful if at last something
could be done to in order to ease the situation and bring these long standing
cases to a close. My primary concern in these cases, as in all the
others I deal with, is that of the best interests of the children. In these
particular cases, the foreign parents have been left with a feeling
of deeply unjust treatment by the authorities, in particular with regard
to the adjudication and application of visiting rights and what seems to
be biaised activity on the part of the social workers in the various Jugendamts
in regard to the rights of access for foreign parents to their children
in Germany. In all these cases, the children have been alienated
from the non-custodial parent either consciously by the custodial parent
or by the mere fact of being unable to have any real contact with their
children, through lack of visiting rights or their enforcement. It is evident
that after such long time-lapses without any contact with the non custodial
parent, the children may declare that they do not want any contact.
However in these cases it is my view that the the obstacle course that these
parents have had to run is the root of this problem and therefore every
effort must be made to redress the situation for the benefit of all concerned
and the long term well-being of the children themselves.
My concern is such regarding this situation I intend sending a copy
of this letter to Chancellor Schroeder and to the Federal Justice Minister.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Banotti MEP
cc Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
Ms Brigitte Zypries, Federal Minister of Justice
Ms Evelyne Gepbhardt MEP
|