I've just seen the news and had one of these moments...
It's been in the news all day, but always as a footnote, because Russian fires and oil at the American coast are more important. However, the report I saw made an extra about that subject and I'm a bit disappointed about the commentators.
Finally, the highest German court announced that - according to the Basic Law, the Human Rights and earlier decisions from Brussels - unmarried fathers have the right of their fatherhood. So far being an unmarried father in Germany meant to need the allowance of the mother to make decisions, rise or (in extreme cases) even see their own children. The court says now, that this is not right. It's basically discriminating fathers and violating the children's rights to be raised properly (by its mother and father) as well as the fathers to do his duties as a father. Therefore new legislative projects were announced and a new degree of righteousness declared. And while everyone - all political parties, as well as those who where involved in the process - stated how pleased they were, came from the president of the Verein alleinerziehender Mütter und Väter (Allience of single mothers and fathers), Mrs Edith Schwab, a comment that frustrates me. This person was basically saying, that not all men are willing or (self-)responsible enough for being a father and that the best for the child has to be kept in mind.
I can agree on the last bit. However, can anyone explain to me the connection between being female and being naturally a good mother? Or let me explain it the other way: Following the logic of the old understanding, parents have to be recognized as responsible persons before being given the right to take care of their child. So just marriage and an official allowance can give you this right. Pregnancy however, seems to be a shortcut to that.
The right for fathers to rise their children - she moved on - could lead to unnecessary arguing. Wonderful! As if married people were always in complete agreement. On the contrary: When a court has to decide between two disagreeing parties and for the benefit for the child, what can go wrong? What are these people afraid of?
Actually there are more than enough fathers out there, who have to process against the single mothers of their children and loose against all odds, because courts tend to decide for the benefit of the mother. This doesn't need to be wrong in all cases, but it leaves a bad taste.
Even though this new development gives way to changes, they won't come over night. Instead there will be another discussion about rights and duties parents have.
