CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 juillet 1988

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }      Application No. 11373/85       Cecilia and Lisa ERIKSSON   against   SWEDEN                   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 14 July 1988)       TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                 page   I.    INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) .........................      1        A.   The application          (paras. 2-4)   ...................................     1        B.   The proceedings          (paras. 5-10) ....................................    1        C.   The present Report          (paras. 11-14) ..................................... 2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 15-84) ...........     4        A.   The particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-59) ..................................... 4        B.   Relevant domestic law          (paras. 60-84) .................................... 19           a.   The 1960 Child Welfare Act (paras. 60-61)....... 19           b.   The Social Services Act and the 1980 Act             with Special Provisions on the Care of             Young Persons (paras. 62-79) ................... 20               aa.   Compulsory care (paras. 63-71) ............ 20               bb.   Prohibition on removal (paras. 72-79) ..... 22           c.   The Parental Code (paras. 80-83) ............... 23   III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 85-180) ............ 26        A.   The applicants          (paras. 85-119) ................................... 26            a.   Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 85-103)..... 26            b.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention             (paras. 104-106)................................ 29            c.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 107-116) ... 30                   aa.   The proceedings concerning the prohibition                 on removal (paras. 107-109) ................ 30               bb.   The request concerning access to the child                 (paras. 110-113) ........................... 30               cc.   The withdrawal of the appeal (paras. 114 -                 116) ....................................... 31            d.   Article 13 of the Convention (para. 117-119) ... 32        B.   The Government          (paras. 120-180) .................................. 32            a.   The facts (paras. 120-129) ..................... 32            b.   Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 130-151) ... 35            c.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention             (paras. 152-155) ............................... 42            d.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 156-175) ... 42               aa.   The proceedings concerning the                 prohibition on removal (paras. 156-158) .... 42               bb.   The request concerning access to the                 child (paras. 159-168) ..................... 43               cc.   The withdrawal of the appeal                 (paras. 169-175)............................ 45            e.   Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 176-180) .. 47     IV.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 181-263)............. 48        A.   Points at issue          (paras. 181-182) .................................. 48        B.   The first applicant (the mother)          (paras. 183-262) .................................. 48            a.   Article 8 of the Convention             (paras. 183-222) ............................... 48               aa.   Whether there was an interference with the                 mother's right to respect for family life                 (paras. 186-191) ........................... 49               bb.   Whether the interference was "in accordance                 with the law" (paras. 192-201) ............. 50               cc.   The aim of the interference (para. 202) .... 52               dd.   The necessity of the interference                 (paras. 203-222) ........................... 52              b.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention             (paras. 223-227) ............................... 55              c.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 228-258) ... 56               aa.   The proceedings concerning the prohibition                 on removal (paras. 231-239) ................ 57                   i.   The applicability of Article 6 para. 1                    (paras. 231-233) ........................ 57                   ii.The compliance with Article 6 para. 1                    (paras. 234-239) ........................ 57               bb.   The request concerning access to the child                 (paras. 240-253) ........................... 58                   i.   The applicability of Article 6 para. 1                    (paras. 241-248) ........................ 59                   ii.The compliance with Article 6 para. 1                    (paras. 249-253) ........................ 60                cc.   The withdrawal of the appeal                  (paras. 254-258) .......................... 61                    i.   The applicability of Article 6 para. 1                     (para. 254) ............................ 61                    ii.The compliance with Article 6 para. 1                     (paras. 255-258) ....................... 61              d.   Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 259-262) .. 62        C.   The second applicant (Lisa)          (paras. 263-267) .................................. 62        D.   Recapitulation          (para. 268) ....................................... 63     Dissenting opinion of Mr.   H.G. Schermers ................... 64   Concurring opinion of Mrs G.H. Thune ....................... 68     APPENDIX I       HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................. 69     APPENDIX II      DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY ........... 71     APPENDIX III     MEDICAL CERTIFICATES ...................... 109     I.     INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The first applicant, Mrs.   Cecilia Eriksson, is a Swedish citizen, born in 1942 and residing at Ulricehamn.   She is a child-minder (dagbarnvårdare) paid by the municipality.   The second applicant, Lisa Eriksson, is the first applicant's child and a Swedish citizen.   Lisa was born on 24 February 1978 and has, since March 1978, been living in a foster home at Oskarström.   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mrs.   Siv Westerberg, a lawyer practising in Gothenburg.   3.       The Government are represented by their Agent Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates to the prohibition for the first applicant (the mother) to take the second applicant (her child) from the foster home after the public care had been terminated.   The applicants complain that their right to respect for their family life has been violated.   The applicants furthermore complain of lengthy and unfair proceedings, absence of effective remedies as well as of not having had access to court.   They invoke Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 7 December 1984 and registered on 31 January 1985.   On 16 May 1985 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 6 September 1985 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were dated 5 September 1985 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated 25 October 1985.           On 11 December 1985 the Commission decided to invite the Government to submit before 14 February 1986 supplementary written observations on certain questions relating to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.           The Government's supplementary observations were dated 12 February 1986 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated 21 March 1986.   6.       On 16 May 1986 the Commission decided that legal aid should be granted to the applicants.   7.       On 5 March 1987 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           At the hearing, which was held on 11 May 1987, the applicants were represented by Mrs.   Siv Westerberg.   The first applicant was also present at the hearing.           The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, and as advisers Mr.   Leif Lindgren, legal adviser at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, and Mr.   Carl-Henrik Ehrenkrona, legal adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   8.       Following the hearing the Commission, on 11 May 1987, declared the application admissible.   9.      On 23 July 1987 the text of the decision on admissibility was communicated to the parties who were invited to submit any additional observations or further evidence they wished to put before the Commission.   The Government submitted further observations on 22 September 1987, and the applicants' further observations were dated 12 June 1987 and 24 September 1987.   10.       After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                         MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           H. VANDENBERGHE                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL                       Mr.   F. MARTINEZ           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 14 July 1988 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           (1)   to establish the facts, and           (2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose              a breach by the Government of their obligations              under the Convention.   13.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II. Appendix III contains various medical certificates.   14.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       Particular circumstances of the case   15.      The first applicant, Mrs.   Cecilia Eriksson, is a Swedish citizen born in 1942.   At the time of the introduction of the application she lived at Köttkulla near Ulricehamn.   She is now residing at Köping.   The second applicant, Lisa Eriksson, is the first applicant's daughter.   Lisa was born on 24 February 1978 and has, since March 1978, been living in a foster home at Oskarström.   The foster home is situated approximately 160 kilometres from the first applicant's previous home at Köttkulla.           The first applicant was married to Lisa's father, Mr.   E, until February 1986 when they were divorced.   They also have a son, Jonas, born in 1981.   The first applicant was entrusted with the custody of the son after the divorce.   16.      On 23 March 1978 the Southern Social District Council (södra sociala distriktsnämnden) of Lidingö decided that Lisa should be taken into care pursuant to Sections 25 (a) and 29 of the 1960 Child Welfare Act (barnavårdslagen) on the ground that the conditions in the home were unsatisfactory.   She was placed in the foster home at Oskarström.           At that time the first applicant had personal difficulties. She had been convicted for dealing with stolen goods and for possession of narcotics and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.   Later during her stay in prison, the first applicant went through a religious conversion and she is now a member of the Philadelphia congregation (Pentecostal movement).   17.      In May 1980 the first applicant applied to the Social District Council that the care of her daughter be terminated.   On 8 May 1981 the Council rejected the application.   The first applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Stockholm, which on 22 October 1981 rejected the appeal.   The first applicant submitted a further appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm which, on 11 March 1982, rejected the further appeal.   18.       On 1 January 1982 the public care of Lisa under the 1960 Act was transformed into care pursuant to Section 1 (1) of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga) as a result of the new legislation which entered into force on that date.   19.      In March 1982 the first applicant again applied to the Social District Council requesting that the care be terminated.   She also applied for permission to meet Lisa in the first applicant's home.   Both requests were rejected by the Council.   The first applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court.           On 3 November 1982 the Court decided, as regards the question of care, to reject the appeal since preparatory contacts between Lisa and her natural parents had not taken place to a sufficent extent.   As regards the question of contact with Lisa, the Court referred the case back to the Social District Council for reconsideration.   20.      The first applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   21.      In the meantime, on 21 January 1983, the Social District Council, considering that there were no longer any reasons for care under the 1980 Act, decided that the care of Lisa should be terminated.   In these circumstances the Administrative Court of Appeal found no reason to examine the further appeal.   22.      In its decision of 21 January 1983 the Social District Council decided:      -     that the care of Lisa should terminate in accordance with         Section 5 para. 1 (a) of the 1980 Act and that the decision         should be effective on 15 February 1983;      -     to prohibit the natural parents Mr.   E and the first applicant,         until further notice, from taking Lisa from the foster home.         This decision was made pursuant to Section 28 of the Social         Services Act (socialtjänstlagen);      -     to request from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric         Clinic (barn- och ungdomspsykiatriska kliniken) of Halmstad         recommendations as to the contacts between Lisa and the         natural parents against the background that the long term         aim of the Social District Council is that Lisa should return         to her natural parents' home;      -     that the said recommendations should also contain the Clinic's         view on a possible stay for Lisa with her natural parents         during the holiday period in the summer;      -     that the contacts between the natural parents and Lisa should         consist of one meeting before 1 March 1983, that at least one         of the foster parents should be present at that meeting and         that one other person should also be present.   23.      The decision of the Social District Council was taken on the basis of a report on an investigation dated 17 January 1983 in which it was stated that the reasons for continued care under the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons no longer existed.   The order pursuant to Section 28 of the Social Services Act concerning a prohibition on removal (flyttningsförbud) until further notice implied that the first applicant and her husband were not allowed to move Lisa from the foster home.   This decision was based on inter alia five medical certificates, all issued by the chief doctor Mrs.   EL and a curator, Mrs.   GT of the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Halmstad.   The certificates were dated 8 April 1981, 24 June, 4 October, 6 and 16 December 1982.   In these certificates it was stated, inter alia, that Lisa was deeply rooted in the foster home and that her transfer to her natural parents' home would jeopardise her mental health and development.   Further details on the contents of these certificates appear in Appendix III.   24.      A further medical certificate dated 24 February 1983 and signed by the same persons was obtained by the Social District Council.   It read inter alia as follows:   "As regards the question of how Lisa's access contact with her natural parents should be designed in view of your long-term aim that the girl should be returned to her natural parents we submit the following:   Our previous recommendation of access once every second month remains. The reasons for this position are indicated in our certificate of 6 December 1982 where we have also indicated the form of access.   We want to add that as long as Lisa, after these meetings, reacts with such clear nervous symptoms as so far, the contacts ought to take place in the foster home.   Length of time 3-4 hours per meeting. - We advise against a possible stay of Lisa with her natural parents during the holiday period this summer.   Our recommendation about the access is made having regard to what Lisa can manage at present.   Therefore we consider that it is too early for Lisa to stay with her natural parents this summer.   Even if our aims differ from yours we find it important that Lisa has contact with her natural parents. If this contact is reinforced we fear that Lisa's reaction can become so serious that the contact with the natural parents can be spoilt for a long time."   25.      On 31 March 1983 the Social District Council decided that the first applicant had a right of access to Lisa in the foster home every second month.   26.      The first applicant, represented by legal counsel, appealed to the County Administrative Court of Stockholm against the Social District Council's decision to issue a prohibition on removal.   She claimed, in the first place, that the prohibition on removal be quashed and, in the second place, that the prohibition be limited in time.   The Court held a hearing in the case on 13 September 1983.   It heard chief doctor EL at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Halmstad and Lisa's natural father.   The Court also heard an expert from the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen).   The County Administrative Board had also submitted a written opinion to the County Administrative Court.   This opinion read inter alia as follows:   "The mother appears to be an unreasonable woman who at any price wishes to gather around herself the children which she has borne without having regard to the children's emotions or feelings.   It is said that she has never admitted that the children needed care and fostering outside the home despite considerable criminality and misuse of drugs by the parents, which to the County Administrative Board seems to be an unlikely high tolerance of misuse and criminality in connection with the care of children.   In line with this is her hostility towards the foster home and the authorities which have taken care of Lisa while the mother herself has been uncapable of caring for the child - and which still prevents her from establishing contact with the child.   ...   - The mother's unreasonable attitude appears to the County Administrative Board as an important element in this context. Lisa would, if she were moved to her home, need therapy against problems of separation.   She would also need continued contact with the foster home.   The experience which has been gathered of the first applicant until today shows that she cannot be induced to co-operate.   The co-existence between the natural parents seems to be on the woman's conditions.   The natural father does not play any role in this context but can according to the woman leave if he jeopardises the removal of Lisa.   - All available experts advise against a removal in this case.   The child's feelings towards its parents have nothing to do directly with the conditions at the birth.   The emotional ties come from the daily satisfaction of the child's need of physical care, nourishment, love and stimulation.   - The first applicant's home is obviously physically rehabilitated but there still remain a lot of more subtle values to restore, such as warmth, harmony and reasonable attitudes in order to create a better functioning contact between Lisa and the first applicant. -   The County Administrative Board considers that Lisa should remain in the foster home.   This proposal is, in the Board's opinion, in line with the intentions of Section 28 of the Social Services Act concerning prohibition on removal.   Lisa has at present enough difficulty to live with the knowledge that she is not the foster parents' own child or with the threat that at any time she may be forced to leave the only security she knows.   When Lisa grows older, experience tells that the curiosity for the natural parents and her own origin will come.   Only then is she ripe to take the first steps towards a reunification.   Until then the County Administrative Board considers that a removal to the natural parents is in conflict with the child's best interest."   27.      At this stage a further medical certificate, dated 7 September 1983, had been issued by the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic.   It stated inter alia the following:   "For our part it is self-evident that Lisa must stay in the foster home.   The research during the last decades in the area of child psychology and psychiatry has been comprehensive.   It has shown that the child-parent relationship is of an enormous importance to the child and what it can mean to break it up.   A breaking up of this relationship always implies a psychological trauma for the child.   One of our tasks at the children's psychiatric clinic is to take a stand as to whether a child should be placed in a foster home or not.   In these cases the decisive question is what has the least detrimental effects for the child, to remain in an unsatisfactory environment or to come to a new home.   In the case of Lisa it is another matter.   She lives in a good home environment which well satisfies her needs. It is accordingly in this case not a question of moving Lisa for her own best.   Our assessment is still that a removal of Lisa would imply a risk for her mental health which is not of a minor nature."   28.      On 10 October 1983 the County Administrative Court granted the appeal insofar as it set a time-limit until 31 March 1984 for the prohibition on removal.   The reasons of the Court read as follows:   "Under Section 28 of the Social Services Act the Social Council may for a certain period or until further notice prohibit the guardian of a child from taking the child from a foster home if there is a risk which is not of a minor nature that the child's physical and mental health will be damaged if it is separated from the foster home.   Among the circumstances which should be taken into consideration the preparatory works relating to this provision refer first and foremost to the age of the child, its degree of development, abilities and emotional ties.   Furthermore, it is taken for granted that account is taken of the time the child has been taken care of in a place other than with its natural parents, the living conditions which the child has and which it will receive if moved.   It is furthermore said that the parents' contacts with the child during the time they have been separated should be taken into account.   As regards first of all the conditions in the foster home there is no indication other than that Lisa has received ...   ... the best possible care in the foster home.   Lisa's foster brother Jimmy, who is one year younger than Lisa, also lives in the foster home.   As regards the spouses Eriksson's home, it is, since a couple of years, situated at Köttkulla near Ulricehamn.   There is no information other than that the conditions in the home have continued to develop favourably. The first applicant stays at home and her husband works outside the home.   In this home lives Lisa's younger brother Jonas, born in 1981, and a sister who is a teenager.   The natural parents' contacts with Lisa have become more regular only during the last two years, under the assistance of among others Mrs.   HS.   Thus until 1982 there have been meetings between Lisa and the parents in June and in August at Halmstad, in September at Köttkulla and in November at Oskarström.   Lisa has met her mother on some occasions during 1983, the latest being on 25 August when the brother Jonas also accompanied them to Oskarström.   From what has been established about the circumstances surrounding the meetings, it is probable that (the first applicant's) behaviour is not the only reason for the meetings not having been more frequent.   The foster parents and also the attitudes of other persons involved in the question of the removal of Lisa have probably had an important influence. Mrs.   EL has in several written opinions and at the Court's oral hearing expressed the opinion that the child psychiatric treatment of Lisa has had, as its main objective, not to promote an immediate removal of Lisa but instead to improve the contacts between Lisa and the parents.   At the same time it has been clarified that the psychiatric treatment of Lisa takes as its starting point Mrs.   EL's opinion that Lisa should stay forever in the foster home.   Finally, it should be mentioned that the Social District Council, in connection with the appealed decision, stated that the removal of Lisa should be the long term aim for the work of the Council in the matter.   Lisa has stayed in the foster home since shortly after her birth.   Obviously she is now, at the age of five years, strongly rooted in this home.   She has met her natural parents only to a small extent.   A removal of Lisa to the natural parents must therefore be presumed to imply considerable risks for Lisa's health.   However, it has been established, inter alia, through Mrs.   EL's testimony that Lisa is a normally developed five year old girl who intellectually is rather over than under the average level. This and the other circumstances make it sufficiently probable that a removal of Lisa - in any case after certain further preparatory contacts with the natural parents - will imply only a passing disturbance in her development.   The County Administrative Court has therefore finally concluded in the case that the appealed decision should be limited in accordance with the first applicant's second motion.   As a result the prohibition on removal may, during a clearly limited period, be used in order to further build up the relations between Lisa and her parents."   29.      The Social District Council appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm requesting that the prohibition be unlimited in time.   The first applicant, represented by legal counsel, requested in the first place that the prohibition be quashed and in the second place that the judgment of the County Administrative Court be confirmed.   30.      The Administrative Court of Appeal held a hearing in the case. It heard the chief doctor Mrs.   EL and Lisa's foster mother.   The National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen) submitted, on 13 February 1984, an opinion to the Court.   This opinion read inter alia as follows:   "As regards the assessment from a child psychiatric point of view it is noted that the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Halmstad has clearly expressed the opinion that a removal of Lisa from the foster home ought not to take place. This view is, in the opinion of the National Health and Welfare Board, well-founded as based on knowledge of the development and need of children applied to the special situation of Lisa.   It is the opinion of the National Board of Health and Welfare that a change of foster parent is always a serious interference for a child and should not take place unless there are strong reasons for it, for instance that the child is badly cared for where it is staying.   Through child psychological research and clinical experience it is known that separations can imply a risk of serious mental damage to the child.   In this case the now six year old Lisa has, since a very young age, been staying in the present foster home, where she has developed well together with the adults to whom she is attached. She is in an important phase of development and has not yet attained the age and maturity where she can decide for herself. She ought not to be placed in such a situation of choice.   There are no established contacts with the natural parents despite efforts which have been made.   From the documents it appears that the father has not participated in the meetings with the foster parents which were arranged during 1983.   He has not seen Lisa since 1982.   In this case new facts have been added which change the picture of the parents' home.   From (the documents received from the court) it only appears that the rehabilitation of the parents has developed well.   From a telephone contact with the social director of Ulricehamn on 17 January 1984 it appeared that the father had lost his temporary job and had started to drink alcohol again.   He has been convicted of drunken driving and lost his driving licence.   The mother's post as a child-minder for a child is a temporary post while the ordinary employee is on maternity leave.   There is however no criticism levelled against the mother in her work.         ...   Against the background of the facts of this case, it is the assessment of the National Board of Health and Welfare that Lisa, if she is moved from the foster family, will be subjected to a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harm to her psychological health and development.   It is therefore important that she can stay in the foster home   ..."   31.      By judgment of 6 March 1984 the Administrative Court of Appeal amended the judgment of the County Administrative Court to the effect that the time-limit for the prohibition on removal was set at 30 June 1984.   The Court's reasons read as follows:   "A placement of a child in a foster home should in principle aim at a reunification of the child and the parents.   The care should terminate when the circumstances which were at the basis for the care decision no longer exist.   A prohibition on removal under Section 28 of the Social Services Act is mainly supposed to be a temporary measure to prevent that the parents immediately take the child home at an unsuitable time or in abrupt forms.   The efforts to reunite may however take time in order not to result in persistent damage as a result of the removal.   On 21 January 1983 the Social District Council terminated the previous decision on the care of Lisa under the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons and in connection therewith it declared that the long term aim of the Council was that Lisa should be reunited with her natural parents.   From the investigation in the case nothing has appeared which gives reason to doubt that the first applicant is well suited to take care of children.   In the home lives Lisa's younger brother Jonas.   In addition (the first applicant) has, as municipal child-minder, the care of a further child in the home.   In its decision of 31 March 1983 the Social District Council has decided that (the first applicant) should have a right to access to Lisa every second month in the foster home.   At the hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal it appeared that one or more representatives of the Social District Council had been present on these sporadic occasions of contact decided by the Council, that on these occasions (the first applicant) had never been given the opportunity to be together with Lisa alone and that the foster mother had not considered that the time was yet ripe to inform Lisa that it is Lisa's mother who visits the foster home.   (The first applicant) has not yet been allowed to meet Lisa in her own home.   The Administrative Court of Appeal makes the following assessment.   More than one year has elapsed since the Social District Council decided that the care under the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons should terminate and that the Council should promote the reunification of Lisa and her natural parents.   From the investigation of the case, there is no appearance of (the first applicant) not having accepted what the Social District Council has prescribed as regards her access to Lisa during this period.   The Administrative Court of Appeal finds that what the Social District Council has done so far, as preparatory measures for the removal of Lisa, has obviously not been calculated to promote the conditions for such a reunification to any measurable extent.   The situation today as regards the removal of the child to the parents can be assessed not to be different from what it was one year ago. Lisa still does not even know that it is her mother who visits her in the foster home.   The antagonism which the County Administrative Court found to exist between the foster mother and (the first applicant) still prevails according to what has appeared before the Administrative Court of Appeal at the hearing.   This antagonism is however, in the opinion of the Administrative Court of Appeal, not necessarily an absolute obstacle to active preparatory measures for the transfer of the child.   It is undisputed in the case that the transfer of Lisa to the parents' home without preparatory measures must be presumed to imply considerable risks to the child's health.   (The first applicant) has declared that she is well aware of these risks and she has said that she does not wish to take the child home finally until this can be done without any risk of harming the child.   Making an overall assessment of what has been established in the case the Administrative Court of Appeal finds nevertheless that there are reasons for a temporary prohibition on removal.   In view of what has been established it is reasonable to limit the prohibition on removal in time.   The preparatory measures which have so far been taken have, as far as it appears from the case, not been such that a removal of the child can take place within the time-limit prescribed by the County Administrative Court.   The Administrative Court of Appeal, which assumes that the Social District Council, in pursuing its aim to reunite the child and the natural parents, will as soon as possible try new possibilities and intensify its work in this respect, finds that some more time for preparatory work is necessary before the prohibition on removal can be lifted."   32.      Both the first applicant, with the assistance of legal counsel, and the Social District Council appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten).   The first applicant later withdrew her appeal.   33.      In its judgment of 11 October 1984 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the appeal of the Council by confirming the Council's decision of 21 January 1983 to the effect that the prohibition should be valid until further notice.           The Court gave the following reasons for its judgment:   "Under Section 28 of the Social Services Act, the Social District Council may, where the interests of the child so require, prohibit the guardian from removing a child from a foster home provided there is a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harming the child's physical or mental health if it is moved from the home.   When a child is placed in a foster home, the aim should normally be to bring the child and its parents together again.   A prohibition under Section 28 of the Social Services Act ought to be regarded as a temporary measure while awaiting an appropriate time for moving the child from the foster home without the risk of such detrimental effects as indicated in the said section.   The following circumstances should inter alia be taken into consideration when deciding on a prohibition on removal: the child's age; stage of development; character and emotional relations; the time the child has been taken care of by someone else than its natural parents; the present living conditions of the child and those it will have as well as the contact between the parents and the child during the time they have been separated.   Since (the first applicant) has withdrawn her appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court must examine whether the prohibition on removal shall be in force until further notice, as claimed by the Social District Council, or limited in time, in accordance with the position adopted by the first applicant.   The examination of the question of the duration of a prohibition on removal must be made in the light of the existing risk to the child's physical or mental health if separated from its home. If, already at the time of the issue of the prohibition, it is considered, with sufficient certainty, that such a risk will not be at hand after a certain date - when certain actions may have been taken or the effects thereof have occurred - the prohibition ought to be limited until that date.   However, if it is uncertain when the child could be transferred to the parents, without this involving a risk which is not of a minor nature, the prohibition ought to be in force until further notice and the question of a transfer raised again at a later stage when the risk of harming the child's health could be better assessed.   Irrespective of the duration of the prohibition, the Social District Council is obliged to see to it that appropriate actions aiming at a reunification are taken without delay.   Such actions are required in particular when the Council, in accordance with what has been said, has found reasons to order a prohibition until further notice. Otherwise there is a great risk that, in the meantime, the child will become more closely linked to the family it is about to leave.   The efforts to establish a contact between Lisa and her natural parents, which began already some three years ago, have as far as can be seen from the documents not progressed any further than to the point that Lisa occasionally has seen them together with her present family and generally - as a result of the orders given by the Social District Council - also in the presence of an adult outsider.   The meetings have been coloured by the antagonism between the adults of the two families, and Lisa, who appears only at a late stage to have realised who her natural parents were, has reacted before and after these meetings with anxiety and with a psychological state of strain.   What has appeared concerning the intensity of Lisa's reactions clearly shows that a longer period of time than