In court decisions, party representation must be kept strictly separate from judicial findings.
Documented role
The protective-marriage decision of the District Court of Münchwilen dated 17 November 2023 identifies the applicant as represented by MLaw Raphael Fisch. His professional role in the proceedings is therefore documented in the record.
The decision then discusses criteria relating to custody and care, including parenting capacity, ability to cooperate, geographical circumstances, stability and social environment. Those passages are judicial reasoning and cannot be attributed to Fisch merely because he acted as counsel.
Why the distinction matters
Lawyers advance requests and party positions; courts assess the material before them and make findings. Where a decision simply names a person as counsel, that reference is not enough to attribute every passage of the judgment to that lawyer as a personal assertion or responsibility.
LawReport analysis
The supportable relation is therefore: Fisch → counsel for the applicant → proceedings 22.2023.14. For the substantive reasoning, the District Court is the proper source.