Holiday conflict May to September 2026: The complete documented chronology
Source-based reconstruction. Private family members are not identified. Officeholders and professionals are mentioned only in their documented function.
In the letter of 4 June it was offered to choose either the first or the second week of the autumn holidays; at the same time it was stated that the other week should take place with the mother. By letter of 9 June the letter of 4 June was responded to, the holiday registration was upheld and no waiver was expressly declared. The protective filing of June served to preserve the position as a precaution; it contained after…
Sources
What the files show
In the letter of 4 June it was offered to choose either the first or the second autumn holiday week; at the same time it was stated that the other week should be spent with the mother. By letter of 9 June the letter of 4 June was answered, the holiday registration was maintained and an express waiver was not declared. The protective writ of June served to preserve the position as a precaution; after the decision of 3 August it did not contain an application for judicial determination of the holidays. The petition of 30 July requested the immediate securing of the August week and the timely binding determination of the two October blocks; for the third block an alternative other seven-day period in 2026 was sought. In the statement of 26 August another full seven-day block in the calendar year 2026 was again sought alternatively and a waiver of one of the three holiday weeks was explicitly excluded.
Application and Opposing Position
For this aspect, no separate additional motion is determinative; the analysis compares the documented status of the file with the result.
The decision explicitly does not characterise this Christmas/New Year block as compensation for the cancelled August week, but rather as a second holiday week in 2026.
Checkpoint
For review, a strict distinction must be made between party submissions, the lawyer's request and the court's finding.
LawReport-Classification
The documents show several procedural stages: filing, protective brief, super-provisional request, submissions and the subsequent precautionary decision. For the assessment each stage must be distinguished; a party's submission is not a judicial finding and a later decision does not retroactively replace the state of the file at that time.
What does not follow from this
The documented proceedings substantiate the stated motions, statements and decision steps. They do not, without more, demonstrate personal motives, bias, abuse of rights or general unlawfulness. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual grounds.