Wohlverhaltenspflicht

 

 

Wohlverhaltenspflicht

Is such a lovely word in German

It is a sort of code of conduct mandatory. A silly reflection of abstract values. Hilarious in every expect is the human being that takes himself serious and tries to turn a thought into a system by which others should live and obey.

This wohlverhalten-thing is mostly and specially focused on families and children (whom are the outcome of an affair or love relationship).It is such a contemporary nonsense word.

Every now and then I go to a courtroom just to look at how ‘behavior, law and reality’ dance.

It is human stupidity in full life theater. Take your school class there and they will learn a lot. Ask if you can tape and analyse it.

This time it was a family court. I always bring my lunch and hot coffee so I can sit in on several cases.

As I live in Germany I am confronted with this wonderful word Wohlverhaltenspflicht.

It was used 9 times in 1 session. I joined 3 sessions so Hussle a bit with the ‘facts’.

The duty to behave yourself is of course the joke of the week. Who is telling who and what? Questions in court are not to be asked.

 

Humanity has a lot to learn. Each and every case stands on its own.

Milton Erickson: Not the therapeutic model should be leading,

but the needs and desires of the individual

J.H. v.d. Berg in Metabletica stated: ‘The mistake psychology made was that one person (Freud, Breuer ect.) obviously did something that brought some light in a situation of a patient and directly they turned it into a method and gave it a name. So not the relationship (read patient) but the method became important… how funny.

 

Obviously in court they were looking and talking in generalisations. Amazingly enough. This goes for all, even the judge so I noticed.

We have a place of conduct, parents -mostly the kids are not there. A Judge. And there are in these cases also lawyers. So not the parents talk, no the lawyers do. Strangely enough I might say. Because not all lawyers are people with ethics. Even if it harms children, they are willing to bent the truth and tell lies just to ‘win a case’.

An other party, mostly there is ‘jugendamt’ represented by an ‘erzieher(in)’ an sort of ‘educator’ with vocational school reference. Not the smartest kids on the block, unlikely packed with street wisdom. In my opinion this time a dumb jerk who wants to be liked by the judge.

If parents want to play hard the hire a psychologist, who of course is on the hand of the parent who hired him or her. There is in no way any Socratic truth to be found.

All people are payed let that be clear.

If it is somebody somewhat more well-known, then the journalist is also there. Again payed for a certain opinion.

Sometimes there is the family who cannot control the emotions. Influencing the circus in many ways.

In some cases the mother cries and plays victim or the other way around the father is the crying look at me I am a victim one.

It is a scary but fun place to be. Is not it fabulous? This is about the wellbeing of children… their future life.

Mostly it is about money, or who is allowed to raise and see the kids… or both.

The art of makings kids is well know, the art of raising them another issue.

Rousseau failed with his Emile as many others.

 

The judge is so called neutral, but is often judge (in Germany and is open about it…) for ‘financial security’. We are talking about his job. Whilst it should be a passion to stand for justice.

If Judge and lawyer are more or less from the same region they might build up a friendship or at least ‘understand’ each other better then the lawyer from further away.

It is the deep tragic inability of humans to communicate that brings them to the theater that is called court. A court has so many bugs that in no case a computer would function.

The movie

12 Angry Men (1957) by Sydney Lumet

Illustrates it all. Again: entertainment!!!

It would be dangerous to be specific about the cases I visited.

A few extra observations I would like to share: more than once the judge and one of the lawyers were privately, between cases laughing and talking…. therefor knew each other.

More then once the judge shouted without looking in the eyes of the person he was talking to. Loosing is control and dignity.

More than once the judges stated: ‘I do not want to spend time on ….. ‘, ‘We cannot discuss this for hours’ (again this is about the wellbeing of children)

More then once the judge openly insulted one of the parents

The judge refused consultation of a group session neutral psychologist with all parties.

In 2 of the 3 cases there had been no involvement of childcare as mediator before going to court.

The cases, all 3 were about ‘the right to see a child’. A strange question as I see it. In Holland, where I come from mostly there is agreement: half and half. Just because of the fact that a child has 2 parents. And can learn that also people who do not have a sexual relationship (but had one) can be nice to each other.

For me it was sheer observation of a theater as seldom seen in a civilised world.

That 2 people, the parents do not have the control or decency not to involve a child in their disappointment in life, is terrifying.

That lawyers who not prepare or over prepare. In all cases obviously only working for the money and to be right, not looking at what is true or good for a child.

That a judge is not well documented, rude, far from neutral is scary.

I know it all are my observations. I mix up different judges and lawyers. It was not 1 person. It seemed to me structural.

but most of all

A child has right to affection of both parents. We all know that.
It is the solomon’s judgement mostly that makes one decent parent step back.
I find court a killing joke and certainly for the child.
The ‘wohlverhaltens-thing’ is an absurdity that shows the inability of people to behave.
Nore Plato nore Steven Covey or any other guru could manage values or believes.
The solution, that has been proven by many things like ‘apartheid, feminism, segregation law…’ is the people who notice involve themselves. So it lies outside the court.
You just cannot stop and stare, knowing what harm is done to a child and

act as if you are unable to do a thing.

 

A Jewish saying … ‘Whoever saves one life, it is written as if he has saved all humanity.’”.

The real influencers of behavior are always the entertainers. People who know how to touch and inspire your senses. Who’s art has a soul and inspiration in it. Makes you feel and think.

That is why books, music and art are the best friends of children.