Reply to Ambassador

Thank you for writing to your Ambassador. quill

Most people have received identical replies from Austrian ambassadors in their country of residence. We have written an open letter in response which you should feel free to use in your own replies. Alternatively, if you wish to formulate your own and email them directly, please do so.

 Dear Your Excellency,

I am most disappointed that you have failed to address any of the most disturbing points I raised with you about the custody proceedings of the Schlesinger Twins .

Perhaps you could explain how it is in the children’s best interest to endorse the original separation of the children from their mother on the grounds of a psychological report 3 years out of date which has been thoroughly discredited?

Perhaps you could explain how it is the children’s best interest to have only minimal contact with their mother and not be allowed to even stay the night with her?

Perhaps you could explain how it is in the children’s best interest for their mother to be denied all knowledge of their health, growth and educational progress?

And perhaps you could account for the many anomalies in the court’s proceedings?

In the absence of answers to these and other questions, an increasing number of legal experts around the world cannot accept that the court’s procedure has been proper and fair, or conducted with the children’s interests at heart.

Please be aware that it is not just the safety and welfare of two little boys that the court has overlooked, but indeed the standing of the Austrian judiciary as well as Austria’s credibility as an EU democracy, are now in jeopardy.

Your offhand, formulaic response to widespread concern only exacerbates this situation. It is sad, and a source of great concern, that you are prepared to see the good standing of the Austrian legal system, and even the integrity of the Republic of Austria itself, traduced in this manner.

I look forward to a fuller explanation of the bizarre circumstances in this case.

Yours sincerely,


Original Reply From Ambassadors Offices around the World

Dear Sir / Madam,

Referring to your e-mail about the case of the Schlesinger twins I may inform you as follows:

All authorities in Austria are aware of the fact that custody conflicts bear tragic components and are always troublesome to the child´s  best interest.

It is the duty of the courts to act and to give judgment in the best interest of the child. This judgment can be subject to appeal and second appeal to the Supreme Court.

Following national and international rules of jurisdiction and constitutional provisions about the independence of the courts, the outcome of a Court’s proceeding has to be respected.

Yours sincerely,

Ambassador of the Republic of Austria



Reply to Ambassador — 1 Comment

  1. Seems “the best interests of the child” are not the best way to express the needs that these very important small beings have. The Austrian diplomats responding so unoriginally to the petitions they were sent clearly failed to consult the right kind of people before composing their pro-forma reply. Charles Pragnell, a renowned child protection expert in Melbourne, wrote the following on Facebook last week:

    Nov 22, 2013
    The term, `the best interests of the child’ was first brought into common usage by the Third Reich regime in Germany as an almost euphemistic distraction for the atrocities that regime committed on children.
    It was then adopted by the United Nations in 1948 for more common usage in international convention on human rights, but because different nations had different ideas about what was in children’s `Best interests’, then it was left imprecise and to whatever the interpretation each country chose to make.
    The term `Best interests of the child’ does not therefore have any form of precise definition nor criteria by which such determinations can be made. When it is included in laws it is not given any legal definition and it is left to individual judges to determine at their absolute discretion what they consider appropriate in each set of circumstances.
    The consequences are, and will continue to be, that such determinations will be highly subjective and reliant on the personal beliefs, values, and attitudes of each judge, who is not required to state how such decision was reached or how the child’s best interests will be served by the judge’s determinations. Everyone has personal biases, prejudices, and idiosyncracies and judges are no exception. However they lack the knowledge of children’s growth and development and the importance of how their needs are best met at different life stages.
    This is the fundamental issue which is resulting in so many irrational and illogical decisions being made in Family Courts regarding the future care and welfare of children and the risks of harm which they may face.
    I would suggest it is long overdue that the “Best interests of the Child’’ be abandoned and be replaced with more precise criteria and definition and I would offer the following for discussion:-
    “That decisions concerning the future care and welfare of children must demonstrably and measurably meet each child’s Emotional, Physical, Psychological, Intellectual, Social, and Spiritual Needs and the child’s emotional attachment to a parent must be the paramount consideration in determining where the child will live and whether, or not, the child continues to have a continuing relationship with a parent who has significantly failed to meet the child’s needs and to respect the child as a unique individual.”

    Nov 22, 2013

Leave a Reply