A social worker is said to have abused her position and pressured a pregnant welfare recipient to have an abortion. The evidence at the District Court of Uster is poor.
It was obvious that the welfare recipient and the social worker had argued violently, says the single judge (symbol image).
The accused worked as a clerk in a Zurich rural community for a 27-year-old Bosnian social security recipient who was three months pregnant.
The pregnant woman already had two children. The accused is said to have told her in a telephone conversation at the end of 2018 / beginning of 2019 that it couldn’t be the case that you could still have children if you were receiving social assistance.
It is anything but a clear case: the responsible public prosecutor had already discontinued the proceedings in September 2020 because no suspicion could be substantiated. In May 2021, however, the Supreme Court lifted the order to discontinue and ordered further hearings and the gathering of evidence. The prosecutor then formulated an indictment in February 2022. The alleged abuse of office is now being negotiated at the Uster District Court.
The 52-year-old social worker is the accused before a single judge. This raises two main questions: Can the facts of the case be substantiated, and even if so, is the criminal offense of abuse of office really fulfilled?
Dubbed as a “welfare parasite”?
The accused is said to have said to the recipient of social assistance that she and her partner at the time were “social welfare parasites”. Have you already thought about having an abortion?
The indictment also states that during a conversation in March/April 2019, the accused asked her client why she had still not aborted the child. She should go abroad, they can have an abortion there, and it’s not that expensive either.
The accused is also said to have said to the pregnant woman that if she does not have an abortion, a report will be made to the Kesb with regard to the future placement of all children.
A son was born in April 2019. Between June 2019 and January 2020, he had to be treated several times as an inpatient with life-sustaining measures at the Zurich Children’s Hospital.
In August, the social worker – always according to the indictment – called the welfare recipient and told her how selfish it really was to want to keep her child alive at all costs.
It’s crazy what your child has gone through in the last four months. As a mother, she expects her to tell the doctors in the children’s hospital that they should stop the life-sustaining measures. It would be better if her child died.
According to the indictment, the accused made all these statements with the intention of putting mental pressure on the welfare recipient to cause her mental suffering. The mother filed a criminal complaint with the cantonal police in August 2020 and is now a private prosecutor.
The public prosecutor does not have to appear at the trial in single-judge proceedings. In the indictment, she demanded a conditional fine of 40 daily rates of CHF 120 and a fine of CHF 1,300. She is seeking a conviction for abuse of office, possibly attempted coercion.
The accused makes no statements
The accused protested in the courtroom that the allegations were all false. She had already been questioned twice during the investigation and had answered all questions, so she is no longer making any statements on the matter. The single judge still has a catalog of questions for her. The accused also does not answer the accusation as to why the private prosecutor should invent such allegations.
With no prosecutor present, it is up to the Bosnian’s legal representative in the courtroom to demand a guilty verdict. She is also applying for compensation of 2,000 francs and 300 francs in compensation for the alleged victim. The accused was never able to credibly and comprehensibly explain why she was being wrongly charged by the social welfare recipient.
The mother’s statements are very credible, her partner at the time was also questioned and partially confirmed her statements. There is no reasonable doubt as to the clerk’s guilt. She put psychological pressure on her mother. It is an arbitrary abuse of power.
Where is the advantage, where is the disadvantage?
Defense counsel is requesting a full acquittal. There is no evidence to support the private prosecutor’s statements. Statements from her former life partner and from doctors are only second-hand statements from hearsay.
It is true that there were arguments between the welfare recipient and the clerk because the Bosnian had trouble “meeting the demands placed on her”. The private prosecutor had requested to be assigned to another clerk. This happened after she filed a criminal complaint.
Even if the allegations are true, the defender doubts that it would then be about abuse of office or attempted coercion. Rather, it would be insults. Abuse of office, Article 312 of the Criminal Code, punishes members of an authority or civil servants who abuse their official powers “in order to gain an unlawful advantage for themselves or another person or to cause another person a disadvantage”. There are no such advantages or disadvantages.
The single judge acquitted the accused in full. The claims of the private prosecutor are referred to the civil process. The judge states that both the statements of the private prosecutor and those of the accused are quite credible. It was also obvious that the two women had argued violently.
It is possible that certain statements made in the indictment were made. However, the allegations could not be proven, and a factual situation could not be created. With this outcome, the court could save itself explanations on the legal considerations.
Judgment GG220008 of July 19, 2022, not yet final.