Berliner Boersenzeitung - Noosha Aubel, CDU and SPD: The case of a severely disabled child in Potsdam is a political admission of failure

On 9 September, Friedrich Merz (70, CDU), as the 10th Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, promised children and grandchildren a new hope for the future in the German Bundestag. In Potsdam, according to reports, two-year-old Heidrun – who has multiple severe disabilities – has been unable to use an available nursery place for over a year due to a lack of necessary support. For a child with a 100 per cent degree of disability (severe disability) and care level 4, this means lost time for development and participation; for the acting Lord Mayor of the state capital Potsdam (aged 50, independent), this constitutes a political scandal that is likely to be unparalleled in Germany. This gap between political promises and reality is shameful, morally reprehensible and, in the case of a severely disabled toddler, intolerable.

The medical warning makes further waiting intolerable

In his written submission of 27 August 2026, Axel Kapust, a specialist lawyer in social law based in Potsdam, refers to medical records from the Charité University Hospital and the urgent warning of further irreversible developmental deficits without expert support in a nursery. According to evidence available to this editorial team, the medical warnings have been in writing and in the possession of the relevant authorities in the city of Potsdam for months. Nevertheless, as of today, 9 September 2026, the necessary support for the child, who has multiple severe disabilities, was still lacking. It has not yet been established whether further harm to the child’s health has already occurred; however, given the entrenched positions on both sides, the family is currently having several specialist solicitors review the possibility of bringing a claim for damages against the City of Potsdam.

An administration that handles such a request without providing any useful assistance completely fails in the purpose of its actions. The parents must now also fight to have the rights they have asserted implemented. For Lord Mayor Aubel, the question arises as to why citizens should continue to accept such administration – even in the slightest – in the sense of a failure to provide adequate care for a child with multiple severe disabilities?

The lack of proof of receipt weighs heavily on the city council

At issue is the City of Potsdam’s claim that the assistance decision dated 4 September 2025 was allegedly received by post, which must be distinguished from the childcare placement decision dated 6 August. According to documents available to the editorial team, as early as 15 June 2026, solicitor Kapust wrote to the Social Court on this matter: “The defendant confirms that it cannot provide proof of receipt.”

The criticism is directed in particular at Kathleen Manecke-Otto (Legal and Insurance Department) and the legal arguments set out in her case summary. In the absence of any assistance, Manecke-Otto’s ‘submissions’—when viewed objectively by the editorial team, without any polemic—come across as helpless pamphlets from a musty office; the crucial point remains that a claim of dispatch does not replace proof of receipt.

The court’s notice of 31 July is therefore addressed to the relevant department of the city and, in itself, constitutes not only a scathing legal rebuke directed at those responsible at Potsdam City Council. In case S 17 SO 69/26, the Potsdam Social Court clearly and unequivocally objects to the fact that the internal post office note provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to when the letter left the authority. It demands proof of receipt “in the sense of conclusive evidence”, which those responsible at Potsdam Town Hall, under the supervisory authority of Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel, have so far been unable to provide.

The Potsdam Social Court also announced that it would itself obtain the administrative files from the Higher Administrative Court and forward a copy to the claimant, “which the defendant could have arranged itself”. The court anticipates an admission of liability from the City of Potsdam and has granted the city two weeks to submit its response. Politically, this ruling carries significant weight and, viewed objectively, is a blow to the authority of a Potsdam administration plagued by structural failure. A court is willing – or indeed obliged – to make up for what the Potsdam administration could have done itself. This is a clear and unambiguous, devastating indictment of administrative inadequacy, a scandal to the detriment of a severely disabled child – one which puts the state capital, Potsdam, in the pillory not only within the Federal Republic of Germany but far beyond Germany’s borders.

The allegation is one of misrepresentation and distortion of the facts

A final letter, dated 26 August 2026, from the Petitions Committee of the Brandenburg State Parliament – chaired by Udo Wernitz (58, SPD) – which is in the possession of this editorial team, relies on statements made by the Lord Mayor which, on closer inspection, prove to be false. The letter states that the necessary decisions were issued within approximately one month; there is no evidence of a refusal to provide a nursery place. The letter does not address the aforementioned objection raised by the Potsdam Social Court regarding the proof of eligibility. In this context, the Petitions Committee must urgently clarify whether this information was available to the committee when the final letter was drafted; anything else could give rise to very serious suspicions regarding the Petitions Committee of the Brandenburg State Parliament! At the same time, the Committee acknowledges the failure to provide childcare, yet closes the petition and refers the matter to the courts; on closer inspection, this is also questionable.

The family accuses those responsible at Potsdam Town Hall of communicating untrue facts, distorting crucial circumstances and shifting the blame for their own failings onto the parents. The father speaks of “brazen lies”. The family is demanding an investigation into possible deliberate misrepresentation. Should it be confirmed that those responsible attempted to conceal their own failures through deliberate misrepresentations at the expense of a severely disabled child, this would be a moral admission of failure, possibly extending from Aubel through to Woidke and right up to the Petitions Committee.

The factual core remains indisputable: the issuing of a decision, effective notification and the actual provision of assistance are distinct processes. Under Section 37(2) of SGB X, the authority must, in cases of doubt, prove receipt; Section 39(1) links the validity of the decision to its notification. Subsequent inspection of the files does not prove earlier receipt by post. Anyone who overlooks these distinctions paints a misleadingly exculpatory picture. An official letterhead does not turn an unsubstantiated claim into evidence.

The attribution of responsibility to the parents also requires clarification. According to their account, they themselves found the ‘Sonnenkinder’ nursery and proposed an assistant. The fact that the Petitions Committee nevertheless adopts Aubel’s position—that the failure to name a further service provider precludes care—could be commented on in Baden-Württemberg with the harsh words

“...that smacks of something”. The family regards this as a distortion of their cooperation. According to documents available to the editorial team, on 27 August 2026, solicitor Kapust made it clear in writing that the professionally trained carer found by the parents is, after more than a year, no longer available. A suitable and available carer is now being demanded for the severely disabled toddler.

The city must explain which viable, funded solution the parents are alleged to have rejected; according to the documents available, those responsible at the state capital, Potsdam, will be unable to do so in court. Politically, it remains appalling to cite the right to choose and express preferences as a baseless excuse for the continued failure to provide care. There must be serious doubts as to whether the moral compass of such an administration is even remotely pointing in the right direction; the Potsdam scandal is therefore nothing short of repugnant. The victim is a severely disabled child.

Possible damages and liability on the part of the City of Potsdam?

The family accuses those responsible in the state capital, Potsdam, of having caused serious harm to little Heidrun, who is severely disabled, by failing to provide effective assistance, and intends to pursue possible claims for damages. Whether there have been breaches of duty giving rise to liability and resulting damages will, if necessary, have to be clarified by the courts. If the conditions are confirmed, the city of Potsdam – which is already in a financially catastrophic situation – faces the threat of further claims and thus potential costs for the public purse.

The counter-statement illustrates just how entrenched the positions are: the father describes his reaction to Aubel’s conduct in office as “abysmal disgust” and “lifelong contempt”. This expresses a bitterness and revulsion verging on hatred regarding the described treatment of his severely disabled child, which is understandable to any objective observer of the Potsdam scandal.

Aubel’s failure of leadership demands political consequences

Complaints had already been made regarding gaps in care and a lack of transport for Heidrun’s sister Hedda-Maria, who is also severely disabled. Aubel was in charge of the youth department from January 2019 until the end of February 2023; the independent politician has been Lord Mayor since 24 October 2025. The recurrence of these issues demands an explanation as to what lessons Aubel has learnt and why, once again, a workable solution is lacking.

Under Section 60 of the Brandenburg Local Government Constitution, Aubel heads the administration and is responsible for its organisation. In doing so, Aubel must clarify the gaps in the evidence, have the information provided to the committee verified, and ensure that the relevant authorities implement a reliable transport solution without delay. Judged against the standard of practical, effective assistance, the leadership failure described here is devastating. Such conduct in office places a heavy burden on Potsdam, the state of Brandenburg and the Federal Republic of Germany, raising the question: “Is Noosha Aubel capable of leading the administration of Potsdam as its Lord Mayor?”

In light of these events, the call for Aubel’s resignation is politically justified. Should she fail to step down, a lawful recall procedure must be placed on the agenda. Her predecessor, Mike Schubert (53, SPD), was already removed from office by a referendum of the citizens of Potsdam. Aubel, too, must accept these democratic consequences; if the visible outcome for this child remains one of continued waiting, and in view of the suffering of the severely disabled child, Aubel – provided decency and morality held any value at Potsdam Town Hall – should already be drawing the political conclusion and resigning immediately.

Woidke owes effective oversight

Minister-President Dr Dietmar Woidke (64, SPD, the third Minister-President of the State of Brandenburg since reunification in 1990) has been repeatedly asked in writing for help via registered letters with acknowledgement of receipt, copies of which are in the editorial team’s possession. This has not resulted in any form of support whatsoever for the severely disabled toddler. Woidke must disclose here what specific action his government has taken. Under Section 3 AG-SGB IX, legal supervision of the local integration support agencies lies with the Ministry of Social Affairs. The state government therefore has a concrete basis for regulatory action.

A so-called ‘state leader’ must be judged by his record in protecting particularly vulnerable children. The outcome described here is more than just a shameful moral failure for Woidke’s leadership record. The SPD undermines its social promise if, whilst in government, it fails to provide effective redress for such a family. Passing the buck between departments falls far short of meeting this requirement.

Merz must be judged by his promise for the future

Merz’s CDU has been governing Brandenburg in coalition with the SPD since 18 March 2026. Gordon Hoffmann heads the Department for Education and Youth, whilst Jan Redmann heads the Department for the Interior and Local Government. The CDU therefore bears responsibility for Brandenburg’s state policy – in this instance, evidently to the detriment of a severely disabled child; it is hard to imagine a greater moral failure.

Merz and his ‘promise for the future’ must nevertheless be judged against this reality. For a family whose child is still being made to wait, even though they are clearly entitled to a nursery place with a dedicated support worker, such words ring bitterly hollow and seem downright contemptuous. A leadership style characterised by grand announcements coupled with inadequate oversight of state support deserves a ruthless withdrawal of trust. Merz’s credibility also hinges on whether his party demands results in those areas where it itself is in government.

Brinker and the AfD deserve credit for concrete scrutiny

Dr Kristin Brinker’s parliamentary questions from 2024 and April 2026 regarding the loan liabilities of state-owned Berlin companies demand transparent figures and make risks verifiable. This is concrete opposition work and a well-founded asset for her candidacy as Governing Mayor.

The AfD counter-report on the Berlin funding scandal dated 27 August, to which she was a co-signatory, addresses a genuine issue requiring scrutiny. The Court of Auditors had already sharply criticised the grant allocation procedure independently of this. This scrutiny deserves recognition, without this necessarily implying that all the parliamentary group’s political conclusions are set in stone.

In Brandenburg, Birgit Bessin (AfD) raised questions in 2019 about nursery care and waiting times for children with disabilities; the government’s response revealed gaps in the data. Even in the case of Heidrun’s sister, little Hedda-Maria, who has multiple severe disabilities, Bessin campaigned vehemently on behalf of the child in the Brandenburg State Parliament. For the committee meeting on 3 September 2026, the AfD requested reports on possible cuts to school support services and investment needs at nursery schools, schools and after-school care centres. Such initiatives should be commended.

Political responsibility must have consequences

In the summary proceedings S 17 SO 142/26 ER, a court hearing is scheduled for today, 10 September 2026, at 10.00 am before the Potsdam Social Court. Ultimately, only one thing matters now for little Heidrun, who has a severe disability: when the support begins; the judge presiding over the case at the Potsdam Social Court must also be judged by this standard.

At the same time, the discrepancies raised with the Petitions Committee must be clarified and inaccurate information corrected; for should the questionable statements made by those in charge at Potsdam City Hall prove to be true, it would not only be time for a motion to remove Noosha Aubel from office as Lord Mayor of Potsdam, but also for investigations by the Petitions Committee of the Brandenburg State Parliament. A political system that fails in this regard yet still demands trust must be democratically replaced.

For Aubel, this means resignation or, as mentioned above, a lawful recall procedure; for Woidke and Merz, as well as their governing parties, the CDU and SPD, it would mean facing the political consequences at the polls.

The continued wait endured by a child with multiple severe disabilities is a pitiful disgrace for the politicians in charge in Potsdam, the state of Brandenburg and the Federal Republic of Germany.

I.Hansen