Arizona Tribune - Noosha Aubel: Scandal in Potsdam over severely disabled child

However, the fine words of those responsible at Potsdam City Council, under the personal responsibility of Mayor Noosha Aubel (50, independent), remained just that. Despite the clear legal situation (§24 SGB VIII, §22a SGB VIII), the city continues to refuse admission to this day. The proceedings before the Potsdam Administrative Court (Ref. VG 7L 1336/25) have been dragging on for months.

In a letter to the president of the Administrative Court dated 13 February 2026, the parents complain not only about the inaction, but also about a violation of the fundamental right to a lawful judge (Art. 101 GG). Meanwhile, the new mayor of Potsdam, Noosha Aubel, presents herself as a social moderniser. In reality, her administration is continuing the ‘tradition’ of her predecessor. The extensive documentation shows how letters, registered mail and emails remain unanswered and how the Potsdam Administrative Court merely confirms receipt with interim replies without yet deciding on the urgent application.

The recent history of Potsdam shows that this behaviour is not an isolated case. In April 2021, the digital magazine reported that the city had failed to provide a disabled transport service for another severely disabled child for more than 18 months; despite a medical report, those responsible ignored the procurement of a child seat for over 73 weeks, with the child also having to fight for an inclusive nursery place for more than a year. In May 2025, the then SPD mayor Mike Schubert (SPD - Social Democratic Party of Germany) was voted out of office by an overwhelming majority. Schubert's defeat was a cry for democracy, but the city of Potsdam has apparently learned nothing from its scandal, even under Mayor Noosha Aubel.

In the meantime, the parents felt compelled to file disciplinary complaints and criminal charges, as well as motions for recusal against judges and a chamber of the Potsdam Administrative Court. Against this backdrop, we will shortly be reporting on those responsible in a series of articles, for which we will be submitting official press enquiries to the city administration of the state capital Potsdam, the Potsdam Administrative Court and the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court, with reference to the criminal charges and motions for recusal filed by the parents of the severely disabled toddler.

Reports on preliminary investigations and criminal proceedings must be free of prejudice in this context. In this context, the parents make it clear to representatives of the press that the complaints do not constitute a prejudgement, but serve to clarify the facts. (The reference numbers of the criminal complaints are available to the editorial team).

In front of the historic Nauener Tor in Potsdam, citizens expressed sharp criticism to members of the press today: ‘How antisocial and morally depraved must a society be if it denies a severely disabled child the nursery place with individual support that he is entitled to by law?’, said a passer-by. Many see Aubel's administration as a continuation of the failed social policies of her SPD predecessor.

The parents of two-year-old Heidrun have announced that they will exhaust all legal avenues, including the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), with the help of their solicitor Axel Kapust, who fights daily for the severely disabled toddler, and will make the case public. They base their case on the prohibition of discrimination in the Basic Law, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and numerous court rulings. At the same time, they are calling for disciplinary measures against those responsible in the administration and judiciary, including state liability and damages, because, as Charité Berlin certifies, with each passing day, the toddler loses valuable time in the fight against her severe disability. State liability: Federal Court of Justice press release 2016 + decisions III ZR 278/15 et al.

It is high time that Mayor Noosha Aubel and the state government took action. Inclusion is not an empty buzzword; it is a fundamental right. The state capital Potsdam and the federal state of Brandenburg cannot afford to make headlines again as a city and state of ignorance and discrimination. A democratic society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Heidrun's case shows that Potsdam and the state of Brandenburg are currently failing miserably in this test.

Editor's note:
Our article complies with applicable law, in this case Article 5(1) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany – ‘Freedom of the press and freedom of expression’ – and the Berlin Press Act of 15 June 1965 (GVBl. Berlin p. 744), which states in § 3 Public duty of the press, paragraph 3: ‘The press shall pursue legitimate interests within the meaning of Section 193 of the Criminal Code when it obtains and disseminates news, expresses opinions, exercises criticism or otherwise contributes to the formation of opinion in matters of public interest.’

Press articles on this topic:
- Article: 21 April 2021: ‘Mike Schubert, Dietmar Woidke, Ursula Nonnemacher and Jenny Armbruster – 18 months in Potsdam without a transport service for severely disabled children’
https://digital-magazin.de/kein-behindertenfahrdienst-fuer-schwerbehindertes-kind-in-potsdam

- Article: 25 May 2025: ‘Mike Schubert finally voted out – Potsdam rejoices: SPD scandal mayor must step down!’
https://www.Deutschetageszeitung.de/Politik/650572-mike-schubert-endlich-abgewahlt-potsdam-jubelt-spd-skandal-burgermeister-muss-hut-nehmen.html