Administrative court: Ban on police officers in Dresden daycare is legal!

Administrative court: Ban on police officers in Dresden daycare is legal!

A controversial ruling has caused a stir in Dresden: The administrative court ruled that Christian employers, such as those running independent daycare centers, have the right to discriminate against their employees based on religious criteria. Less pleasant for many is the decision to ban a father from the AZ Conni children's store in Dresden Neustadt, who is a police officer, from entering the building in order to ensure a police-free space for children. The court explained this in a main hearing that took place in the last few weeks and considered the house ban to be legal. The judgment also means a cancellation of the children's store's previous operating license, which was revoked in December 2023 by the state youth welfare office due to an alleged endangerment of the child's welfare. Die Sachsen reported that the main hearing before the administrative court showed that there were no objective reasons for the withdrawal of the operating license or the closure of the children's shop.

The exclusion of the police officer is viewed particularly critically by many observers, as the role of law enforcement officers in society and their contribution to general security should not be ignored. In Saxony, around a quarter of the population is religious, which makes the context of this issue even more complicated. In this particular case, the ban was originally imposed because the AZ Conni website used a slogan such as “No Cops, No Nazis,” which was interpreted as equating police officers with Nazis. This extreme content caused confusion and concerns about whether daycare is truly an appropriate place for children. But the judges came to the conclusion that the father could not be held responsible for the danger he posed RDL.

Focus on endangering the welfare of children

Whether excluding a parent from a children's store actually endangers the child's welfare is a hotly debated topic. The state youth welfare office and the court had different opinions on this. The father initially complained about the situation, which ultimately led to the investigation. The authority found that the connection between police officers and a potential threat to the welfare of children could not be sufficiently proven. The administrative court even goes so far as to say that the father's rights may not be curtailed because of his profession Die Sachsen.

The topic of child endangerment is generally a sensitive and difficult area. Experts often discuss the effects of extremist attitudes on children, as can be observed, for example, in Salafist circles that are growing every quarter. This raises the question of what measures should be taken in the event of potential dangers and to what extent state intervention in parental rights is justified. According to the article in the Federal Agency for Civic Education, radical beliefs alone do not require all-encompassing interventions. Each case requires an individual assessment in order to address child safety and parental autonomy in a balanced manner.

This case in AZ Conni is an example of the tense relationship between social beliefs, legal regulations and the upbringing of children. Whether the administrative court's decision is the right shot in this debate remains to be seen. The State Youth Welfare Office has until June 15 to appeal the judgment to the Bautzen Higher Administrative Court. This means that the overall situation in the children's shop and the debate about the relationship between parents' jobs and child welfare remain tense and uncertain.