Just as children are found by a court process on their own In this blog entry I access once again to the events surrounding the arrest / FFE through to my children in court proceedings. It is in this post about the conduct of the guardianship authority Bülach basis to set of files.
A textual and chronological account of events can be found in the blog entries from the 28th
January 2008 (specifically, the memorandum of 29 November 2000) and 22nd
August 2007 .
I was even invited on a voluntary basis with the clinic and the clinic Hard, Dr. Lanz to make contact with what I have done. (See
blog entry dated 28 January 2008 ). What
had made the report for a purpose, if so, Dr. Lanz had hardly made against his client?
not think too if I had gone out there on a voluntary basis, would you believe me or not and it would keep me because of "need for action," then just (those experiences, I've read on other sites).
On 29 December 2000, described Dr. Lanz of clinic Hard Francis Xavier Huber of the guardianship authority Bulach (blog entry by December 31, 2007
, link to
Scan ) the phone call.
As you can see below, I was already prejudiced, that I'm sick.
After Dr. Lanz has noted (see entry from January 28, 2008
, direct link to scan
) is that it has no legal basis for it, you went back to the fact that my Children did not go to school (see entry from
September 23, 2007, directly to the second last scan
), why is not mentioned.
As you can see in the above scan, had Dr. Lanz was the same but a solution prepared by me in an "excited state" was added. How the blog entry dated 28th
January 2008 see, this was also made Sun Dr. Nagel held out the exodus of the guardianship authority Bülach. When I began reading, he was aggressive. I said he should now just be quiet so I can read it in peace. Then he says, is now enough with the charade and I could read it in the clinic Hard. Dr. Nagel had for me and my children have picked up a FFE form filled out. At that moment then everyone rushed into the apartment.
It has never been prepared for a solution. I was also a round table refused to experts and spokespersons. And all the people who came from outside and have tried to convey to us, were dismissed as an instrument. You can see that in the previous blog that it no openness, no transparency has to us.
In the blog entry of
22nd August 2007 I pointed out how my children went through the courts alone. In the following, to the essential documents.
It is clear that the District Court of Zurich not to the absence of desire, because my children are not yet 16 years old. Within 2 days my own children had to submit an appeal. This they did, as you can see the following letter (only the cover letter to comment on the decision of the VB Bulach, see last entry).
knew Fortunately, my children do with the legislation, and above all, they knew they could rely on the Rights of the Child Article 12.1 and Article 12.2. This they did everything alone, without help of Mrs. Pente or anyone else. Use the following e-mail from Mrs Evelyne Huber Pente to Francis Xavier see that Evelyn Pente not Interests of my children and even took the proposal made to withdraw the appeal.
In e-mail to hear it, though friendly, but told my children that they strongly Evelyne Pente were affected. As my children got no help, they discovered the first one, only the lawyer who knew my older son from his scientific organization. Unfortunately, they could in the short time it does not identify him but had already given the higher court for safety reasons before. There was an antiquarian florhof / antique shop in the vicinity of the home, also at a the work of my older son helped, gave them the address of a lawyer. How
Mr. Huber of the VB Bulach, this situation but that, as if the first lawyer has renounced the mandate.
shy but that was not because he is not aware of it. In addition, Mr. Huber held very firmly, that my children have been without my signature to the new law the commission. But I am glad that my children also search me without help. At this time I was in the hospital Hard. The blog from the 24th
July 2007 /
22nd August 2007 you can still be supported, that the Higher Court of Zurich does not consider that my children because of lack of the 16 Birthday could not ask for a court hearing and relevant provisions of the UN Children's Convention were violated. In the 2nd
Scan in the blog entry from 20th
Feburary 2007 see that even the Supreme Court of Zurich, the contradictory attitude of Ms Evelyne Pente has noted.
It pretty bold Mrs Evelyne Pente is the lawyer of my children so as to . delude This she was by the lawyer said nothing about the Florhofaustritt and informed him that we will get no support (see entry from July 24, 2007
, link directly to the 2nd scan
). At the previous link you can also see that on the 21st decided September 2001, when five days earlier that my children are dismissed from the home. After leaving the home said Mrs. Evelyn Pente fact that the lawyer would have to write as if we were not cooperative. (See entry from
February 17, 2008, a direct link to the letter
). It is interesting that it does not take into consideration that if something affect my older son would, this was the lack of furniture that had been promised to us first and we were then refused.
Another addition to the furniture: If I had confirmed the Liberation note (see blog entry of August 22, 2007
, almost at the bottom) to the advanced date 31.12.2001, I have thus confirmed that Ms. Evelyne Pente did not know that We have no furniture. I would like to know how it is in the interest of the children when they denied that the furniture and they have to do homework on the floor and sleep on a thin mat on the floor must.
Once the trial of my children, which they independently led. In the following scan you can see an excerpt from the decision of the District Council Bülach 29 April 2002.
As in the 22nd entry of
August 2007 /
24th July 2007 shown, even the Supreme Court of Zurich has written to relevant provisions of the UN Children's Convention have been violated. It should be noted that these articles of the UN Children's Convention are directly applicable law (Federal Court decision of 22 December 1997). But the county council seems Bülach the relevant articles of the UN Convention on the Rights not to want to accept that he writes so that my children would have taken remedies, although they are not able to process Let (it is referenced on the age).
Conclusion The authorities remain still in the process that no mistakes were made and the data chaos persists. Also want the authority and the health insurance that my children have to retroactively pay for financial amounts for which they were not responsible and have never signed a contract. In my view must be taken Evelyne Pente responsible because she was the Beiständin my children and has taken the cup of tea. As soon as I've written anything on this subject, I will publish this in the blog.
I would again like to make it perfectly clear that I get no support of any kind, not even for departure to Canada. Therefore, I would be very grateful if you could help us in any way that we can leave.
Not only that 
