If a couple has children is determined in case of separation of the couple a so-called "rights". Ideally, the couple agrees, if necessary, it is determined judicially.
It's not just about that father and mother have a right to see their child to take it, "deal with him." No, it's about the right of the child to deal with his father and mother ( § 1626 paragraph 3 BGB).
You say you probably already there now as the dog comes into play. ;-)
Like any animal shelter can attest, the separation of a pair for the family dog is often a problem. Or is the dog in case of separation, a problem? No matter if he at least not at the shelter lands but can stay with one partner, often the other parent has the desire to hit the dog on.
wants Again, of course, any sane person, would the two former lovers at a mutually agreed-to find an acceptable solution for all. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Increasingly, judges on dealing with the former Family dog decide (see, eg, dogs 04/2008). For a judge of the dog but "household", and with furniture, there's no deal.
A woman then tried a right of contact with the common dog to ride first. Twice a week at certain times they wanted to get the dog to him.
The court rejected this scheme now - what I find interesting as a non-lawyer for the reasoning: An analogous application of § 1684 BGB come out of the question, as this one on the welfare of a child's service-oriented rights and not about the emotional needs of other spouse. " ( OLG Hamm, Az II-10 WF 240/10, decision of 11.25.2010 ). Already
In 1997, another court, citing Civil Code § 90a (after the animals are not objects) a right of set with a dog. For this purpose, even a psychological report commissioned pet and the dog in the courtroom of a lead left to examine his affection for his master. The verdict tried seems to have been about the welfare of the dog.
The underlying question seems to be: To whose account will the (ex-) partner that does not live the dog, continue to have contact with the dog? Is he here for his own needs, or the dog?
latter would then determine to well under some effort, with experimental designs and expert advice ... as a complete layman, I have the impression that the works have in determining the child is not really good. Here, as there prevails the idea that you can not child and dog from a working environment should tear out wantonly. I think epistemologically difficult - but that would be another matter ...
In counseling sessions, I ask my customers like, "Why have you actually bought a dog?" - The answer to satisfy my own emotional needs, "I have not heard yet. It is certainly true of the vast majority of dog owners! But it is not the only one.
If we take seriously our dog as animal partner as a special Friend, the relationship with him is not so simple that one could thus talk about them. It's like when someone is asked "why do you love me?" Or as my husband asked me: "Why are you with me?" clearly, the "fulfillment of my own emotional needs." But since Sun is much more!
A dog is a dog, not human. But no wolf, no wild animal. A dog is a partner of a person. And this partnership is, is one of my most important beliefs, complex. It contains the age-old common history of dogs and humans, a successive growth of both species from which a special, unique in nature and content Interaction increases (by which I mean roughly the designated what Donna Haraway as companionship species). This partnership can not break down on the unilateral fulfillment of needs. That would mean the essence, to misunderstand the essence of this partnership.
0 comments:
Post a Comment