Seoul Gazette - Noosha Aubel and Dietmar Woidke: How Potsdam Is Letting Down a Young Child with Profound Disabilities

An Unconditional Entitlement to a Daycare Place
Book Eight of the German Social Code guarantees every child who has reached the age of one a legal entitlement to support in a daycare facility, based on the child’s individual needs pursuant to Section 24 of the German Social Code, Book VIII.

As early as 2018, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg made clear that this entitlement does not exist merely “within the limits of available capacity.” The state must create the necessary places and may not invoke a shortage of qualified staff as an excuse. The judges gave the state five weeks to provide a place close to the child’s home and ruled that travel times exceeding 30 minutes were unreasonable.

The child and youth welfare authority remains responsible. Integration-assistance benefits under Book IX of the German Social Code may not be used as a pretext for shifting that responsibility elsewhere.

Inclusion as a Human Right
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the European Convention on Human Rights require Germany to provide inclusive education.

In G.L. v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a state in 2020 for the first time for having denied an autistic girl the individual assistance she required. The judges emphasized that children with disabilities have a right to the support necessary for them and that a lack of financial resources does not relieve the state of its obligations. Disadvantaging a child solely because of a disability constitutes discrimination.

The parents and their lawyers have already told media representatives that they intend to initiate state-liability proceedings and take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. In light of the relevant ECtHR judgment described above, this could potentially result in the Federal Republic of Germany being found in violation and incurring related costs—costs that would ultimately be borne by the public as a consequence of political action.

Authorities’ Duty to Provide Information to the Press
Freedom of the press is also protected by law in Brandenburg. Section 5 of the Brandenburg Press Act, or BbgPG, requires public authorities to provide journalists with “information that serves the performance of their public duties.”
Statutory exceptions—such as pending proceedings or confidentiality obligations—are narrowly defined and do not permit a blanket refusal to provide information. General instructions prohibiting the disclosure of information as a matter of principle are expressly unlawful. The Brandenburg state government itself points out that press inquiries must be answered promptly and that a written response is standard practice.

March 2024: Approval Followed by Delay
In March 2024, following medical assessments, the City of Potsdam officially approved funding for eight hours of inclusive daycare per day, together with one-to-one assistance. The parents’ relief was short-lived, however. The child and youth welfare authority refused to provide an actual daycare place. Instead, caseworkers demanded that the parents find a suitable assistant themselves—an inversion of the authority’s statutory responsibility.

November 2025: The City Refers to a “Contract” That Does Not Even Exist
In an internal letter dated November 21, 2025, a municipal employee informed the parents that, according to a contract, the assistant could be paid only on an hourly basis and that the parents would still have to arrange for a suitable helper themselves. The parents pointed out that, under Section 24 of Book VIII and Section 4 of Book IX of the German Social Code, the city was required to “provide an actual daycare place together with individual one-to-one assistance.”

December 2025: Supervisory Complaint and Petitions
Because of the continuing obstruction, the parents submitted a supervisory complaint against Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel to the Interior Minister. In the complaint, they documented in detail that the city was withholding the approved care and placing the burden of arranging the necessary assistance on the parents. The complaint reiterated the obligation arising from Section 24 of Book VIII of the German Social Code and from Section 4(3) of Book IX, which requires inclusive care to be provided close to the child’s home.

At the same time, the parents contacted both the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag and the Petitions Committee of the Brandenburg State Parliament. The petition emphasized that the city had already failed to offer the older daughter, Hedda-Maria, a daycare place in 2022 and called for legislative reform to strengthen the rights of children with disabilities.

January–April 2026: Urgent Court Proceedings and Press Inquiries
When the Potsdam Administrative Court also sought to sever the claim for personal assistance and refer it to the Social Court, the parents—represented by Potsdam attorney Axel Kapust, who has fought tirelessly on behalf of the young child with profound disabilities—filed a motion seeking the judge’s recusal on grounds of apprehended bias.
At the same time, the family pursued urgent interim proceedings aimed at compelling the city to provide the daycare place immediately. Meanwhile, journalists attempted to bring the intolerable situation to public attention.

On April 8, 2026, a written press inquiry was sent to the press office of the state capital of Potsdam and directly to Lord Mayor Aubel herself. The inquiry invoked Section 5 of the Brandenburg Press Act, referred to the relevant case law, described the child’s profound multiple disabilities—including KBG syndrome, near-total blindness, and additional physical impairments—and reiterated the child’s unconditional right to early intervention. The inquiry also addressed the scandal involving the older sister, which had already caused outrage throughout the state: (https://digital-magazin.de/kein-behindertenfahrdienst-fuer-schwerbehindertes-kind-in-potsdam)

April 30, 2026: Potsdam Press Office Refuses to Provide Written Answers
On April 30, 2026, Jan Brunzlow, head of the city’s press office, responded and refused to provide information in writing. His response stated: “The state capital will be pleased to answer your inquiry in a personal meeting. Please send us some proposed dates.” Brunzlow did not address a single one of the questions that had been submitted. He also appeared to suggest that press law required an in-person meeting—something that is simply untrue under the applicable press legislation.

This approach constitutes a flagrant violation of Section 5 of the Brandenburg Press Act, which imposes a duty to provide information. It is reminiscent of a public authority that would rather discuss uncomfortable facts behind closed doors. Here, too, questions arise about morality and decency—as well as whether the laws in force somehow do not apply to representatives of the state capital of Potsdam, or whether Potsdam City Hall is following the Pippi Longstocking principle: “I make the world just the way I like it!”

Reactions and Subsequent Developments
The family filed criminal complaints alleging bodily harm by omission and possible abuse of public office. The supervisory complaint calls for disciplinary action against the Lord Mayor. It is now clear that, despite the approved integration assistance, the child is still waiting for an inclusive daycare place. The case is damaging not only public confidence in local government but also the reputation of the new Lord Mayor, Noosha Aubel.
Aubel frequently attends events and celebrations and posts pleasant photographs on Facebook. According to the parents, when she is repeatedly confronted at such events about the scandalous circumstances affecting the young child with profound multiple disabilities, she evades the issue and then “makes an embarrassed retreat.”

Commentary: A Symbol of an Administrative Culture of Looking the Other Way
Noosha Aubel took office promising to strengthen families and promote participation. The fact that, under her leadership, a young child with profound disabilities has been denied a daycare place for more than a year is evidence of a glaring failure of leadership. The legal position is clear: the entitlement to early-childhood support is unconditional. A lack of capacity, a shortage of staff, or budgetary considerations do not release the city from its obligations. International human rights bodies have made it unmistakably clear that insufficient resources cannot justify discrimination.

Nevertheless, the child and youth welfare authority is delegating its responsibility to the parents and reducing an existing statutory entitlement to a mere “funding approval.” This reveals an alarming indifference toward the child’s welfare. The city’s assertion that it can pay only “by the hour” and that the parents must find the assistant themselves turns social benefits into a form of supplication—an act of audacity that is difficult to surpass.

The conduct of the press office and of the Lord Mayor, who was personally contacted by the press, is no less scandalous. Instead of answering legitimate press questions in writing, the press office demands “personal meetings.” This contradicts not only the Brandenburg Press Act but also resembles a shameful attempt at censorship—an attempt to stifle criticism behind closed doors. A democratic public administration must answer to the public. In Potsdam, however, that principle apparently does not apply.

The case is not an isolated one. The petition’s reference to the fact that the older sister was also denied a daycare place in 2022 points to systemic shortcomings within Potsdam’s child and youth welfare system. Lord Mayor Aubel must finally accept responsibility and remedy the structural problems instead of shifting the blame elsewhere.

On June 22, 2026, AfD party co-leader Dr. Alice Weidel, 47, Beatrix von Storch, 57, and Dr. Kristin Brinker, 54—the Berlin AfD’s lead candidate for the office of Governing Mayor—were informed of a case that is shocking in every respect and almost impossible to accept, either politically or morally.

They were briefed on the case during the launch of the Berlin AfD’s campaign for the election to the 20th Berlin House of Representatives, scheduled for September 20, 2026. The case concerns a young child with profound multiple disabilities from Potsdam in the neighboring state of Brandenburg.

According to the circumstances described, the child—who has an officially assessed degree of disability of 100 and care grade 4—has become a distressing symbol, in Potsdam and throughout Brandenburg, of catastrophic administrative failure that should be neither explicable nor acceptable in a functioning constitutional and social state.

This is not an ordinary administrative delay. It concerns the treatment by public authorities of one of the most vulnerable human beings imaginable: a young child with profound multiple disabilities.

In view of the details presented to them, Dr. Alice Weidel, Beatrix von Storch, and Dr. Kristin Brinker were visibly appalled by the child’s fate and the events surrounding the case—particularly because they occurred in a state governed by the CDU, a party with the word “Christian” in its name, and the SPD, a party with the word “Social” in its name. Against this background, the reported treatment of a child with profound disabilities appears not only politically shameful but also deeply disturbing on a human level.

Conclusion and Demands Addressed to Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel and Dr. Dietmar Woidke
Minister-President Dr. Dietmar Woidke, 64—whose party, the SPD, as noted above, carries the word “Social” in its name—has, despite several demonstrably delivered registered letters with return receipts, still not felt called upon to act as the state’s “father” for the benefit of this young child with profound multiple disabilities. He must answer the question of whether morality forms part of the daily business of government in the state of Brandenburg.

The state capital of Potsdam, Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel, the responsible municipal department, Potsdam City Council, and the Brandenburg state government are called upon to investigate and resolve this case immediately, transparently, and in accordance with the law.

In our view, the following measures are particularly necessary:

1. The immediate provision of a genuinely usable, inclusive daycare place with the personal assistance required by the young child with profound disabilities.
2. A complete political and internal administrative investigation into why, according to the family, a young child with profound disabilities was left without the necessary care for such an extended period.
3. A legally compliant written response to admissible press inquiries, while safeguarding the child’s data protection and personal rights.
4. An investigation into whether this is an isolated case or evidence of a structural problem within Potsdam’s child and youth welfare system.
5. Clear political accountability—not at some unspecified point in the future, and not after further delays, but now.

A young child with profound disabilities must not become a pawn in disputes between public authorities over jurisdiction and responsibility. Parents must not be forced to fight for months or years to secure their children’s most fundamental rights. The city administration—and, ultimately, the representatives serving in the City Council—are required to enforce the law in force.

When senior figures in the SPD and CDU now express bewilderment about why voters are turning away from their parties in opinion polls, the case of this young child with profound multiple disabilities represents only the tip of the iceberg of scandals in Brandenburg and its state capital, Potsdam.

This is particularly true given that several Brandenburg state ministers—including Dr. Benjamin Grimm, 41, of the SPD—were contacted by registered mail with return receipt and have nevertheless remained inactive to this day.

The outrage in Potsdam and throughout Brandenburg is justified, and it should continue until little Heidrun, a child with profound multiple disabilities, finally receives the inclusive daycare place and personal assistant to which she is entitled under the law—or until Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel, like her predecessor Mike Schubert, 53, is voted out and removed from office as Lord Mayor of the state capital of Potsdam.

To our knowledge, the parents are ready at any time to appear in any courtroom, accompanied by both of their children with profound disabilities and in the presence of the press, to fight for their children’s rights. Whether this will benefit the reputation of the City of Potsdam, the state of Brandenburg, Lord Mayor Aubel, Minister-President Woidke, or the SPD and CDU remains to be seen.

In view of the current case, and in accordance with the press’s duty to inform the public, we will from now on report comprehensively every week on conditions in the state capital of Potsdam and on Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel’s conduct in office. The focus will be on providing the public with truthful information and contributing to the formation of democratic public opinion. We will begin by publishing the questions submitted directly to Lord Mayor Aubel and her press spokesperson. In our view, those questions were not answered properly in accordance with the applicable duties under press law. Instead, an attempt was made to divert them into a supposed “personal meeting.”
Such an approach raises serious questions regarding transparency, the proper understanding of public office, and the city leadership’s handling of critical press inquiries.

We will also continue to report on further deficiencies in Potsdam—from the deteriorating roads in the Babelsberg district and the financial position of the state capital to numerous other matters of significant public interest to the city’s residents.

U.Sellmer