Dresden( jur).A former employee of the Youth Welfare Office Leipzig is not responsible for the death of a two-year-old boy due to dehydration. This has the higher regional court( OLG) Dresden in a Friday, April 1, 2016, pronounced verdict and thus acquitted a former employee of the youth charge of negligent homicide( Ref.: 2 OLG 21 Ss 835/15).According to this, a drug addiction of the mother does not automatically justify taking the child into custody.
Specifically, it was about the painful death of a two-year-old boy in June 2012. His drug-addicted mother had died because of an overdose. The boy still in his cot did not come out and died of thirst.
The prosecution accused a former employee of the General Social Service at the youth welfare office of the city of Leipzig, not to have helped on time. He had violated his official duties because he had not taken the child into state custody. He should have recognized the endangerment of the child. He was guilty of negligent homicide.
The Leipzig district court had sentenced the man to a fine of 90 daily sentences, the district court said he was free.
- More about:
- Acute Addition Prohibited by Court
- Court: No Before-After Photos of Cosmetic Surgery
- Addict in charge of Careless Killing in Court
This ruling now confirmed the Higher Regional Court. Just because the custodial mother was a drug addict, does not automatically follow a threat to the welfare of the child, which commits the youth welfare office to intervene. The "state guardian office" limited itself to the defense against dangers for the welfare of the child;the parenting rights of the parents should not be ignored.
Although it must be checked in principle whether a dependent person can not take care of a child properly. However, this abstract risk alone is not sufficient for the assumption of a risk to the child's well-being, which justifies the removal of the child from the mother, according to the Higher Regional Court.
The mother said goodbye to the youth workers in April 2012 and announced a move from Leipzig. There was no concrete risk situation for the child or negligence to be expected. The accused therefore did not have to intervene.(fle / mwo)