Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
Social Welfare Office of Burgenlandkreis Demanded Over 10,700 Euros from Severely Disabled YouthUnlawful conduct is part of everyday business in the district administration of Burgenlandkreis under the supervision of the chief administrative officer, District Administrator Götz Ulrich. It's important not to give up as someone affected and to take action against it. One should never shy away from going to court. 
A child in a wheelchair – as repeatedly confirmed by the Burgenlandkreis Social Welfare Office – unquestionably has a right to integration assistance so they can attend a regular school. The overarching principle here is inclusion and equal participation in public life and education. There are two ways to finance an integration assistant – the person who accompanies and supports the child at school. One option is the so-called personal budget. The child or their parents receive money from the social welfare office, with which they can employ and pay an integration assistant (standard employment costs must be covered from this budget), or they can hire a service provider and pay their invoices. This is intended to ensure that the child and their parents can decide who provides the integration support, thereby ensuring the right to self-determination. The other option is the professional service. In this case, the welfare office assigns a so-called provider, who in turn provides the integration support. There is virtually no influence over which person takes on this role, as the provider makes decisions primarily based on cost-efficiency. It was the year 2019. We had once again applied for a personal budget for our daughter’s schooling. As usual, the social welfare office took its time. According to the law, a goal agreement is supposed to be negotiated with the welfare office to allow those affected to influence the design and goals of the integration support. This did not happen in 2019 – in fact, it never had since 2010. There were no discussions, nothing was negotiated. The welfare office simply drafted a "goal agreement", sent it over, and stated it had to be signed as-is – otherwise, no personal budget would be granted. With the start of school imminent, there was no time to argue. Without a personal budget, integration support couldn't be financed. The only alternative the welfare office offered was assigning a provider. A textbook case of coercion, one might say. But who cares about that in social authorities? The "goal agreement" even dictated the service provider who would deliver the integration support. In my view, that disqualifies it as an agreement under public law and instead makes it an administrative act. Combined with the coercion to sign, I concluded the agreement was not only unlawful but null and void. We wanted to retain the freedom to choose who should provide the support – because sometimes changes are necessary. The agreement also demanded we provide proof of payment to the social welfare office. The personal budget was a fixed monthly amount, paid regardless of school days, holidays, or illness. The service provider invoiced us accordingly, and the bills were paid. However, I did not submit these receipts to the welfare office, because – in my opinion – the agreement was void and therefore no obligation to provide proof existed. Unsurprisingly, the welfare office saw things differently. Then came a string of sick days, and in early 2020, the pandemic hysteria began. As of April, the service provider could no longer provide staff for integration support. Somehow, this was communicated to the welfare office. In its usual "social" fashion, the welfare office simply informed us that payments of the personal budget would stop from April 2020. I filed an objection – which has a suspensive effect, meaning the payments should have continued. But the social welfare office ignored that completely. Legal foundations? Irrelevant. They interpreted my objection as being against their *notification*. But one cannot appeal a mere notification, they said – only administrative acts. I had clearly objected to the *termination of payment* and stated that repeatedly. But they insisted the termination was not an administrative act either. The "social" staff tried to take us for fools. I filed for interim legal protection at the Social Court in Halle to ensure payments would continue. How else were we supposed to pay for integration support? We couldn’t finance it ourselves. The procedure dragged on. My objection was also rejected by the social agency. They went as far as to retroactively exclude the suspensive effect in their objection notice. Can they do that? At the State Social Court hearing, the judge said judges were divided on this. But he found something: "Ex tunc, ex nunc!" By June, the school year was basically over – no money paid. The lawsuits were also dismissed by the State Social Court. The courts believe retroactive payment of personal budgets is not possible as a "sanction" against authorities. In other words: social authorities can withhold benefits as they like, ignore the suspensive effect of appeals, and get away with it. I sometimes wonder if I could use the same argument when it comes to fines or taxes. Just don’t pay, and years later, argue like the social courts do. Retroactively pay as a sanction? Nah! The Demand for Over 10,700 EurosAt a meeting at Agricola-Gymnasium Hohenmölsen about our daughter, the school administration informed the welfare office about her sick days. And, true to their "social" nature, the welfare office decided to reclaim the personal budget for every sick day, totaling over 10,700 euros. We didn’t have that money – it had already gone to the service provider. Sure, I could have sent the receipts. But again, I saw no obligation, since the agreement was void.I filed an objection against the demand and applied for suspension of enforcement. The social agency dismissed the objection, so I filed a lawsuit. During the court process, the agency eventually withdrew the notice. Strike! Victory! Tschacka! Or not?The court then informed us that since the notice was withdrawn, there was no longer a need for legal protection. The case could be dropped. I hadn’t yet responded to the court, when suddenly the Burgenlandkreis welfare office issued a *new* notice – identical in content, again demanding the 10,700 euros. The wording was practically the same. One must wonder if anyone at the welfare office still knows what they’re doing.I informed the court about the new notice, assuming it would simply replace the previous one in the case. But even the court wasn't sure if the new notice could be part of the existing lawsuit. To be safe, I filed a new objection – which the social agency also rejected – and a new lawsuit followed. In my filings, I demanded that it be established that the agreement was both unlawful and void, and that severe data protection violations had occurred. If you represent yourself in court, you learn a lot. You tend to argue more with judges than with the agency reps – who are often poorly prepared. But they don’t have to be – because the courts are often on their side. At the oral hearing, I raised the issue of coercion regarding the signature again. The agency representative couldn't have cared less. Her answer: We signed it. Period. The judge stated that, legally speaking, the repayment claim didn’t hold. If such benefits were granted while the child was still a minor, they cannot be reclaimed from the child. That should have been a signal for the agency to withdraw the notice. Of course, they didn’t. The Court Hearing on November 18, 2024At the hearing on November 18, 2024, the agency was represented by two young women, likely in their late 20s. One of them, clearly inexperienced, was to argue the case. A third woman sat in the audience.The case was explained again. I reiterated the coercion regarding the agreement. The representative said, "That's how we always do it." The judge replied that this clearly violates the principle of self-determination – the very thing the law seeks to protect. The agency’s reaction? A shrug. That’s just how it’s done. If no agreement is signed, a provider is assigned. Period! The court contacted the service provider, who confirmed the invoices were paid. In my view, the welfare office could’ve asked them directly ages ago, which would’ve saved everyone the trouble. Why didn’t they? No idea. Also, our daughter has no income or assets. Paying 10,700 euros was never an option. The authorities surely knew that – they just didn’t care. I’m sure they would’ve even tried garnishment. Just because they work in "social" offices doesn’t mean they’re social. Perhaps being cold-hearted is a requirement for the job. Regarding the repayment, the judge explained the legal position again. The agency representatives held firm. They *could* have withdrawn the notice in court – but didn’t. Very "social", right? What About the Repayment?The court annulled the repayment notice. The amount does not have to be repaid. The ruling states that, under personal budget law, the welfare office assumes the risk that "paid-out funds may not actually be used to meet needs." The law does not provide for repayments due to sick days.This hearing was also about showing that the goal agreement was not only unlawful but void. Yet again, the court refused to address this. The judgment dedicates a full page to explaining that this would fall under a declaratory action – which courts are not obliged to hear. If the main goal was overturning the repayment notice, no need to address other points. I believe the same page could’ve easily served both purposes – but it wasn’t clarified. Once again, the authorities can carry on as they like. Another point: the welfare authorities still refuse to provide a full copy of the case file. There's this thing called the Freedom of Information Act. But the court apparently doesn’t care. If the offices don’t comply – oh well. And the data protection breach? It was separated from this case. A new lawsuit is pending. We’ll see how that plays out. What Do We Learn From This?Social authorities don't care about the law or those affected. One would expect that staff at the welfare office and agency understand legal basics. Either they are ignorant/incompetent, or – as I believe – they deliberately act unlawfully, tolerated or even encouraged by District Administrator Götz Ulrich. This unlawful conduct, in my opinion, always aims to pressure, coerce, and subjugate the affected. Those who don’t comply are left to fend for themselves. Disabled people and their families are made to suffer more than they already do. The right to self-determination is constantly undermined. And that fits with the paternalistic behavior shown by many politicians.You have the right to make your own decisions – as long as they match what the authorities want. Otherwise, you’ll be forced to comply!I hope these lines from our lives can encourage others not to give up, to resist arbitrariness and injustice. See it as a challenge. You learn tricks and insights that help in other parts of life, too. Yes, you don’t have to revere a district administrator. Yes, you may lose in court. When you sue the “state”, that’s likely. But if you don’t fight, you’ve already lost. You gain confidence – and with every experience, you're less likely to let them walk over you. That makes it harder for administrations and politicians to impose their will. The more people go through this or hear about it, the less support those politicians get who work against the citizens, against the people, the voters – the sovereign. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 20.12.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Deceptive Packaging = Bogus Packaging - The CDU's Trickery in the Weißenfels City Council ElectionOnce again it proves true: A deceptive or bogus package does not contain what it says on the label. That’s why it’s called a bogus package. The same trick works on the ballot p... zum Artikel |
 | The Few Who Want Peace – Demonstration on September 2, 2024, 5 PM at the Market Square in WeißenfelsOn Monday, September 2, 2024, a peace demonstration will take place at the market square in Weißenfels. The posters and slogans are clear: “Create peace without weapons. Raise y... zum Artikel |
 | The Bogeyman Called Peace – Some Naumburg Residents Are Not Afraid of ItThey have been present every Monday for many years. And they continue to show up, even though attendance has declined significantly — because politics still does the opposite of ... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |