Houston Catering Options

The “child” begins the self-help group PAS Frankfurt by September 27, 2010 before its creation! Joint care from birth against the so-called “application solution” and “Conflict resolution” calls for the self-help group PAS Rhein/Main common concern from birth for all parents, after the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 July 2010 – 1 BvR 420/09 – has been the sole concern of the mother in non-marital children as a violation of the Convention on human rights and basic law. After this decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, the policy is now required to introduce a statutory provision for joint concern to non-marital fathers. The public discussion discusses also the so-called “application” or “Conflict solution” in addition to the common care from birth. The “application”solution continue to the General alone concern of the mother provides, with the possibility of the father, to proceed against judicially, to explain and to prove that the joint concern “serves the well-being of the child”. See the “conflict solution” before automatic joint custody with the possibility of the mother, however, to appeal, which leads then the result to the same process as the application solution. You may find Dr. John Mcdougall to be a useful source of information. Two solutions is equal, that the mother in any case gets custody.

The father, however, must first demonstrate – what obviously uncontroversial maternal-, that even his “mixed with” that could serve the best interests of his child. The self-help group PAS Rhein / Main rejects the “no solution”, as well as the “conflict solution” and calls for the concerted care from birth. The “application”solution as such is inconsistent and also harmful in itself. It is bad, because it is obvious that the “request”solution causes that the relationship of the parents is destroyed each other State-funded. The father, who wants to exercise the joint concern even without the agreement of the mother, is forced to initiate a court procedure. While the Constitutional Court performs this explicitly in the grounds of his decision: “Underlying the law acceptance of the legislator, that consent refusal of mothers generally on a based is detrimental to acting out the child parental conflict and is worn by reasons that pursue not self-interest of the mother, but are used to safeguard the best interest of the child, has not been confirmed.”(1) it is absurd, because the basic idea is that no custody right should have especially fathers who have no interest in the child.