A father loses the fight against the kesb

The Federal Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. (Photo: Christian Brown / Keystone)

Sepsook "Sepp" Imhof traveled from Lostorf to Solothurn until Lausanne in the hope that the Federal Supreme Court would regulate the authority for the protection of children and adults (Kesb). He was expecting a landmark decision because the court had called one of his rare public consultations.

The meeting is disappointing for Imhof. Judges lead an unusually moving debate. But not to the question for which he came. They agree that Kesb Olten-Gösgen did everything right. This deprived Imhof of the right of residence over her 16-year-old daughter after she refused to return home. She wanted to stay with the new partner of the deceased mother. When Imhof did not agree with that, Kesb opened a lawsuit and deprived the physical father of rights to the girl. He had to pay for her now, but had nothing more to say. Arbitration judge Felix Schöbi (BDP) states: "15-year-olds can not decide for themselves how to interact with their parents." However, Kesb must take into account the girl's will and attach great importance. When asked if the Kesb should have exhausted all the possibilities of a friendly solution in the beginning, he did not answer

A judge wants transparency

Schöbi is an expert in the field. Prior to his election as a federal judge, he pursued a career with the Federal Office of Justice, where he was co-author, under the leadership of the then Minister of Justice, Christoph Blocher (SVP), of the Kesb law. As a judge, he defends them now with passion. But on one point, Schöbi does not agree with his colleagues. He wrongly finds that the Administrative Court of Solothurn, as the previous instance and first instance, dismissed a public hearing on the case. This not only excluded the public. Imhof also did not have the opportunity to explain his concerns to the court. He was only allowed to speak with an instructor. Usually, federal judges do not change arguments when they are arguing. But Schöbi is angry. Because he sees nothing less than the control of democracy in danger. He emphasizes that the principle of the judiciary is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Schöbi says: "The Kesb is strongly criticized and this can only be countered if the courts openly negotiate the Kesb decisions." The Solothurn Administrative Court saw its verdict in the quiet little room to protect the girl's privacy. From Schöbis' point of view, the lower instance could have taken this request into consideration in another way. So, she could have excluded the audience only during the girl's hearing. Schöbi becomes after Imhof the second loser of the day: his request is rejected by the other four judges. However, Schöbi wins a partial victory: he can convince his colleagues that Kesb decisions must basically be negotiated publicly and exceptionally – as in this case – can be used differently.

After the verdict, Imhof asks that he understand the lessons learned in public education. "For me, as a father, the verdict is a disaster," he says. He would prefer to challenge it before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg: "But I do not have the financial means." Even with a victory in Strasbourg, his fight would not be won. He has chances only in the public of denied justice. If he was to get by, the Solothurn should start a new trial. But you could decide again soon. His daughter would have grown up a long time ago.