Häussermann R
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart.
Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr. 1996 Oct;45(8):280-5.
In cases of mere suspicion, interference with the civil rights of the suspect or of another person are justified only for the purpose of clarifying the suspicion. Interference intended to climinate the alleged threat are prohibited. In order to establish facts without a hearing, a medical and psychological examination of the child in question needs to be considered. Separation of the child from its family, or interruption or even termination of contact with the person having custody of the young children is generally forbidden during the period of investigation. If the child definitely refuses contact with the suspect while the facts are being investigated, a supervised right to access to the child is the least intrusive intervention that can be considered. The supervised right of access is adequate if it is limited to the time necessary to establish the facts. Intervention by the court during the period of investigation is allowed only within the limits indirectly inferred in the civil rights provided in Article 6. The court must consider the interests of the entire family, particularly the well-being of the other underage children who are members of that family.
在仅有怀疑的情况下，只有为了澄清怀疑，才可以对嫌疑人或他人的民事权利进行干涉。旨在消除所谓威胁的干涉是被禁止的。为了在未经听证的情况下确定事实，需要考虑对相关儿童进行医学和心理检查。在调查期间，一般禁止将儿童与其家庭分离，或中断甚至终止与年幼子女监护人的联系。如果在调查事实时儿童明确拒绝与嫌疑人接触，那么有监督的探视权是可以考虑的侵入性最小的干预措施。如果仅限于确定事实所需的时间，有监督的探视权就是足够的。在调查期间，法院的干预仅允许在第6条规定的民权中间接推断出的范围内进行。法院必须考虑整个家庭的利益，特别是该家庭中其他未成年子女的福祉。
