Seit Jahren ist eine Wiener Familie im Besitz eines Grundstücks in einer Gartensiedlung im 10. Bezirk. Da der Garten vor allem in den Sommermonaten als Zweitwohnsitz genutzt wird, beantragte die Grundstückseigentümerin die Ausstellung eines „Saisonparkpickerls“. Laut Auskunft des Magistratischen Bezirksamts erfülle das Grundstück jedoch nicht die erforderlichen Voraussetzungen – der Antrag wurde abgelehnt.

Anspruch auf ein zusätzliches „Saisonparkpickerl“ hätten nämlich nur Kleingartenbesitzerinnen und -besitzer („Schrebergärten“) mit Wiener Hauptwohnsitz, im Übrigen auch eine Ungleichbehandlung gegenüber beispielsweise Kleingartenbesitzerinnen und –besitzern aus Niederösterreich, die die Volksanwaltschaft bereits in Berichten an den Wiener Landtag kritisiert hat.

Für die Wienerin war die Entscheidung der Behörde nicht nachvollziehbar. Sie richtete daher ein Schreiben mit Fragen an die Bezirksvorstehung und brachte darin auch ihr Unverständnis zum Ausdruck. Als das Schreiben auch Wochen später unbeantwortet geblieben war, wandte sie sich an die Volksanwaltschaft.

Volksanwalt Fichtenbauer kritisiert, dass die Behörde nicht auf das Schreiben der Frau geantwortet hat: „Diese Vorgehensweise widerspricht dem Grundsatz einer bürgerfreundlichen Verwaltung. Positiv ist anzumerken, dass sich die Stadt Wien in einer Stellungnahme mittlerweile für das Fehlverhalten entschuldigt hat.“

The 21st century family no longer relies solely on sexual or blood relations, but on how people choose their co-habitation. Marriage is not the only form of family. Ombudsman calls for a unified understanding of the concept and protection of the family included in the Constitution (Satversme) and to provide a legal framework for recognizing various forms of family in Latvia.

The modern family is a social and economic unit, where the aspect of sexuality or gender is no longer pre-dominant. The state should respect and establish a legal framework to protect both its marriage-based families and those where people choose to live together for economic, social or sexual relations without marriage.

Article 110 of the Constitution provides that the state shall protect and support marriage – the union between a man and a woman, the family, the rights of parents and children. Consequently, the Constitution already separates marriage from the family in its broadest sense.

Ombudsman’s call to create a legal framework for various forms of the family is aimed at respecting the objective reality and the adjustment of the legal framework, which would have a positive impact on many residents of Latvia. That in no way focuses on the abolition of the notion of marriage, the union between man and woman, enshrined in the Constitution.

“I think it’s time for politicians to respect the fact that a significant part of society is experiencing the need to arrange the concept of family at a national level. I call to view this broader – it is not merely the issue for same-sex couples, it affects a significant part of society. The reality of Latvia is that more than half of the children are born in families where parents are not married. There are situations where people choose to build a family, if you want, call it a household, because it is more economically viable. For example, two ladies came to me for a consultation, explaining, that to ensure decent living, they had started living together in an apartment that belonged to one of them, but lived on the means obtained from selling the apartment of the other lady. And there are more than one such example. One of possible solutions for a legal framework of a family could be a notarized act with a public statement in the official publisher “Latvijas Vēstnesis” that these two people have identified themselves as a family,” suggests Ombudsman Juris Jansons.

Currently, several legislative acts consolidate a wider concept of “family”, but the content of the concept varies. Already in 2012, the Ombudsman sent to the government and the parliament recommendations on the necessary amendments to the law that would address issues related to the understanding of the term “family” in various areas, for example, in social rights, in relation to procedural norms – the right to not testify, etc. However, the proposed amendments have been left without consideration.

The Senate of the Supreme Court in its judgment of 2012 has also indicated to the need for the legislator to decide on the lawfulness of a recognized partnership, in other words, whether the actual co-habitation of two persons has the same legal consequences as marriage.

El Defensor del Pueblo (e.f.), Francisco Fernández Marugán, ha pedido a la Comunidad de Madrid que posibilite que un alumno con autismo pueda asistir al aula especializada que necesita, en el centro donde está escolarizado.

El menor asiste a un centro concertado de atención preferente de alumnos con un trastorno de espectro autista (TEA) y recibe atención educativa específica en régimen de integración. Sin embargo, en febrero de este año el Equipo Específico de Alteraciones Graves del Desarrollo emitió un informe de evaluación que dictaminó que el niño necesita, a causa de su trastorno, de apoyos extensos y generalizados que deben prestársele en un aula TEA.

Dicha clase ya existe en el colegio pero, según han comunicado los responsables del centro a los padres del menor, no quedan plazas libres ni para este curso ni para el que viene.

El Defensor del Pueblo recuerda que la Ley Orgánica de Educación (LOE) reconoce a los alumnos el derecho básico “a recibir las ayudas y los apoyos precisos para compensar las carencias y desventajas de tipo personal, familiar, económico, social y cultural, especialmente en el caso de presentar necesidades educativas especiales, que impidan o dificulten el acceso y la permanencia en el sistema educativo”.

Además, la Convención de la ONU sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad –ratificada por España y vigente en nuestro país con el rango formal de ley- establece que el derecho a la educación en igualdad de condiciones con los demás, comprende el derecho de estos alumnos y alumnas a asistir al mismo centro al que acudirían si no tuviesen una discapacidad.

Estas circunstancias avaladas por la legislación vigente concurren en este caso, por lo que el Defensor del Pueblo ha sugerido a la Consejería que “se adopten las medidas necesarias para dotar al centro docente en el que los padres desean que continúe escolarizado, de los medios precisos para proporcionar a este menor la atención específica que se contempla en el último informe de evaluación que se le ha practicado”.

En collaboration avec Ouest-France, le Défenseur des droits vous explique cette semaine les échéances en matière de concessions dans les cimetières municipaux.

La chronique est à retrouver dans la page « Vie quotidienne – Droits – consommation » de Ouest-France ainsi que sur internet.

Cornwall Council made a host of significant failings when it accommodated a vulnerable 17 year-old boy in a tent and caravan over a summer, a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigation has found.

The boy spent five weeks in a tent, four weeks in a static caravan and several nights sleeping rough after approaching the council for help. Following his ordeal he was left emaciated and was detained in a psychiatric hospital for 11 months.

The Ombudsman’s report found on numerous occasions the council, provided accommodation that was inappropriate, it didn’t properly assess the boy’s ability to make decisions about his own safety, and didn’t do enough to protect him from sexual exploitation or ill health.

Throughout the Ombudsman’s report, evidence suggests the council tried to place responsibility for the situation on the boy, because of his actions, rather than provide the right support to a vulnerable child who was suffering from drug addiction and mental ill health.

The investigation also found the council didn’t properly plan for having enough accommodation for young homeless people, and didn’t coordinate well with other local services such as mental health.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Michael King, said:

“There is a long list of failures in this case which had dreadful consequences for the boy. But the starkest, and most worrying, element is the attitude shown towards his situation. I would have expected an unequivocal response that it was simply wrong to accommodate the boy in this manner.

“It is true the boy in this case showed difficult behaviours. However, this is exactly why the Children Act exists to support the most vulnerable in our society and councils should not apportion blame when help is needed.

“I now hope Cornwall Council will take this investigation fully on board, and use it to learn where it can improve things so it doesn’t let other young people and their families down in such a way again.”

The events in this case took place over the summer of 2016. The boy had a history of cannabis use and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) had previously noted concerns about his mental health.

After having been arrested for drug dealing, he was not allowed to return to live with his father so the council housed him in supported accommodation in another town. He was evicted from this placement for breaching conditions of his stay and became homeless.

The boy refused an offer from the council of supported accommodation 30 miles away from the area he knew. A social worker then bought the boy a tent and helped him pitch it. Council records show the boy’s mother, who lived a long way from Cornwall, challenged the decision to place her son in a tent. The council said no options were available because the boy did not want to come into care. The council asked the mother whether she could accommodate her son, but she could not do so because of the risk to the other children she fostered.

Over the coming weeks the boy asked the council for accommodation on a number of occasions. It also received two calls about his welfare, once after he had been found in an abandoned building having set fire to a mattress to keep warm. Case records show the council said if he could show he wanted to make some changes, his options would increase. At one point the council bought the boy a new tent after the first one started leaking.

Around five weeks after first being given a tent, the council decided the boy was at such risk that it moved him to a static caravan on a different site. The following week he reported being sexually assaulted by a man in a car. There is no evidence the council considered whether to take any action, under section 47 of the Children Act, to safeguard him following this report.

Around a month later, the council moved the boy to bed and breakfast accommodation. Government guidance says bed and breakfast accommodation is never suitable for children. Shortly after he was moved to appropriate supported accommodation. Two weeks later he was detained under the Mental Health Act, which lasted for 11 months.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services.

In this case the council should pay the, now young man, £2,500 for the effects of its actions on his mental health, lost opportunities and placing him at risk. It should pay the boy’s mother £1,500 for the severe distress and frustration it caused.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve a council’s processes for the wider public.

In this case the council should review its policies to ensure its procedures for accommodating 16 and 17 year-olds comply with statutory guidance, and ensures it properly considers whether the wishes of young people are rational if they refuse accommodation.

It should also draw up an action plan to ensure there is sufficient accommodation for homeless young people. It should train staff working with homeless young people on the right accommodation to provide, and how to properly record instances of safeguarding referrals.

Article date: 30 October 2018