CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 octobre 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12574/86                       by Birgitt and Lars Erik NYBERG                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 October 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   C. L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 9 June 1986 by Birgitt and Lars Erik NYBERG against Sweden and registered on 2 December 1986 under file No. 12574/86;           Having regard to:   -        the first report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure of the Commission;   -        the Government's written observations dated 4 September 1987;   -        the applicants' written observations in reply dated         17 November 1987;   -        the second report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure of the Commission;   -        the submissions of the parties at the hearing on         4 October 1988;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties' submissions, may be summarised as follows:           The applicants are Mr. and Mrs.   Nyberg, born in 1944 and 1954 respectively.   Mr.   Nyberg is a Swedish citizen and Mrs.   Nyberg is a German citizen.   They reside at Neukirchen-Vluyn in the Federal Republic of Germany.   Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr.   Lennart Hane, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The applicants have two sons: Björn born in 1981 and Ralf born in 1984.           On 3 December 1981 the Social District Council No. 6 (sociala distriktsnämnden nr. 6) in Stockholm decided to take Björn into care pursuant to Sections 25 (a) and 29 of the 1960 Act on Child Welfare (barnavårdslagen).   On 23 February 1982 the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Stockholm decided to take Björn into care under Section 1 para. 2 sub-para. 1 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga).   The reasons for the care order were that the mental state of the parents involved a danger to Björn's development.   Björn was placed in a foster home at Skirebo outside Jönköping on 8 October 1982.           On 25 October 1982 the applicants submitted a request to the Social Council that the care of their son be terminated.   The request was rejected by the Council on 16 June 1983.   The applicants' appeals to the County Administrative Court, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) and the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) were unsuccessful.   The Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal on 12 January 1984.           On 5 July 1984 the applicants introduced an application (No. 11180/84) before the Commission alleging inter alia that the refusal to return their son to them was a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   After having obtained the Government's and the applicants' written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, the Commission declared the application inadmissible on 5 March 1986.   The Commission stated in its decision that the refusal to terminate the care order, although constituting an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention, was justified under the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the health and rights of others.           On 11 September 1984 the applicants requested the Social District Council No. 6 in Stockholm to make arrangements in order to establish contacts on a regular basis between the applicants and their son Björn.   They suggested that meetings should be arranged at least twice a month with a view to reuniting Björn with his parents.           On the same day the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Stockholm asked for the Social Council's opinion on account of the applicants' request for an extended right to contact with their son.   On 29 November 1984 the Social Council in its opinion to the County Administrative Board stated that the applicants should be given the opportunity to meet their son every five weeks.   The Social Council did not make a decision under Section 16 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons, which regulates the right of parents to have contact with a child taken into public care.           The applicants complained to the County Administrative Board which on 7 March 1985 instructed the Social Council to investigate and decide the matter urgently.   The County Administrative Board emphasised that it was important that the Social Council, in case its opinion differed from that of the parents as to the frequency of their contact with the child, make a decision under Section 16 of the 1980 Act.   As the parents can appeal against such a decision it gives them the opportunity of having the question decided by a court.           From the investigation made by the social authorities, which was completed on 24 September 1985, it appears that in November 1983 the parents complained that they were not allowed to see Björn often enough.   It also appears that attempts at that time were made to reach the applicants by telephone but with no result since their telephone had been disconnected.   In December 1983 the applicants did not turn up at a meeting with Björn since Mrs.   Nyberg who was pregnant had gone to Germany to give birth to the child.   In July 1984 Björn's foster parents received a post card from the applicants saying that they had returned to Sweden and wanted to meet Björn as soon as possible. During their stay in Germany they had written a few letters to Björn and had talked to him over the telephone on a few occasions.   The applicants met with Björn in September 1984.   It was then decided that they should see him every five weeks.           On 3 October 1985 the Social Council decided that Björn could meet his parents one day every three weeks at a place chosen by Björn's parents but not at the foster home, and that a special contact person (kontaktman) should be present at the meetings.           On 19 December 1985 the Social Council reviewed that decision. A new investigation had been carried out in which it was concluded that Björn's frequent visits to his parents in Stockholm affected him negatively.   Since the Social Council's decision Björn had visited the applicants on three occasions together with a contact person.   The Council now decided that the meetings should take place every three weeks, alternately at the parents' home and the foster parents' home.           In January 1986 the applicants brought an appeal against that decision but withdrew it in view of the Council's decision to terminate the public care of Björn.           In the meantime, on 19 October 1984, the applicants submitted a further request to the Social Council that the care of the son be terminated.   On 23 January 1985 the Council requested a child psychiatric opinion which was received on 23 June 1985.   The Council also found it necessary to supplement the investigation with a psychiatric opinion on the applicants and requested such an opinion in April 1985.   The opinion dated 7 June 1985 was received by the Council in June 1985.   It was issued by an assistant chief doctor at the Enskede Skarpnäck Psychiatric Institute.           The child psychiatric opinion, which was issued among others by a specialist in child psychiatry at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Jönköping, was criticised by the applicants and withdrawn by the doctors who issued it.   A new opinion based on a new investigation was issued by a chief doctor and a qualified psychologist at the Clinic on 9 September 1985.   The applicants did not participate in the latter investigation which thus concentrated on Björn's development.   Since the two opinions contained completely different conclusions, the Social Council decided to ask the National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen) for a new assessment of the child.   On 15 November 1985, the National Board replied that it could not make such assessments.   The Social Council then decided to ask the National Board for an assessment of the child psychiatric opinion of 9 September 1985 in order to obtain an opinion as to whether further psychiatric examinations were necessary.   On 27 January 1986 the National Board replied that the investigation which was at the basis of the opinion was sufficient for an assessment as to what was in the best interest of the child.           The social investigation made subsequent to the request that the public care of Björn should be terminated was completed on 23 January 1986.   The conclusion of the investigation was that there were no longer sufficient reasons to uphold the public care order concerning Björn.   It was found, however, that there was a considerable risk that Björn's health and development could be seriously damaged if Björn was separated from his foster parents.           On 6 February 1986 the Social Council decided to terminate the care of Björn and to issue a prohibition for the applicants to separate Björn from the foster home where he was living.   The latter decision was taken pursuant to Section 28 of the Social Services Act (socialtjänstlagen).           This section provides, in its first paragraph:           (Swedish)   "Socialnämnden får för viss tid eller tills vidare förbjuda den som har vårdnaden om en underårig att ta denne från ett hem som avses i 25 §, om det finns risk som inte är ringa för att barnets kroppsliga eller själsliga hälsa skadas om det skiljs från hemmet."   (English translation)   "The Social District Council may for a certain period of time, or until further notice, prohibit the custodian of a minor from taking the minor away from a (foster home), if there is a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harming the child's physical or mental health if the child is separated from that home."           The said prohibition was valid until further notice.   The Council expressed the opinion that it was important to create good opportunities for Björn to build up and develop a relationship of confidence with the applicants.           The applicants appealed to the County Administrative Court against the decision regarding the prohibition on removal (flyttningsförbud).   Following a hearing before the Court on 28 May 1986, the Court, in a judgment of 6 June 1986, confirmed the prohibition on removal, but ordered that it should only apply until 15 December 1986.   In the judgment the following reasons are stated:   "On the basis of the investigation in the case, the Court finds, inter alia, the following facts established.   Björn was placed on 8 October 1982 in the foster home of the spouses Maud and Göran Henriksson in Skirebo outside Jönköping.   In the home there is, apart from the spouses, a foster brother who is four years older than Björn.   There is no indication in the case that Björn has received other than the best possible care in the foster home.   As regards the spouses Nyberg a durable stabilisation appears to have occurred as regards their mental health.   Birgitt Nyberg works as a home assistant and Lars Erik Nyberg receives sickness benefits.   He has regular contact with a psychiatric care centre for medication. Björn's younger brother Ralf, born on 14 January 1984, lives with the spouses Nyberg.   Lars Erik Nyberg takes care of Ralf during the day while Birgitt Nyberg works.   The spouses' ability to function as parents has been shown by Ralf's favourable development.   It is undisputed in the case that the spouses would be able to take care of and foster Björn. Birgitt Nyberg had the responsibility for the care of Björn during his first eight months.   Thereafter the separation from the mother took place as a result of her sudden sickness.   After the separation the spouses, in particular Birgitt Nyberg, endeavoured to maintain contact with Björn. A couple of lengthy interruptions have occurred in the contact when the spouses Nyberg stayed in the Federal Republic of Germany.   In 1986 some contact occurred between Björn and his parents.   Björn has slept overnight once in his parents' home.   No contact could take place in May.   The Social Council has invoked a statement from the Children's and Juveniles' Clinic of the Central Hospital of Jönköping dated 9 September 1985 concerning Björn.   In the statement the investigators, the chief doctor, Ingrid Laurell, and the qualified psychologist, John-Erik Ottosson, consider that Björn is in all respects a normally developed boy.   He has no child neurotic disturbances.   Emotionally he is secure and settled in his foster family where he has spent almost three-quarters of his life.   As a result of Björn's young age it is, of course, evident that his security and identity are attached to the foster parents. According to the investigators' opinion, there ought to be very strong reasons for moving him from the foster home, having regard to the long time he has lived there and the connection he has.   In the investigators' opinion there is a risk which is not of a minor nature that Björn's mental development will be jeopardised by his removal from the foster home, if it is not ascertained in advance that Björn's relationship with the natural parents is of such a nature that Björn can identify them as alternative psychological parents along with the foster parents.   In a statement of 27 January 1986 the National Board of Health and Welfare expressed its opinion on the position taken by the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Jönköping that Björn should not be removed from his foster parents.   In the opinion of the National Board this position is well-founded on the basis of knowledge of children's development and needs as applied to Björn's special situation.   The National Board has considered that Björn, if he is moved from the foster home, will be subjected to a risk of damage to his mental health and development which is not to be considered as being only of a minor nature.   It is desirable that he should be allowed to stay in the foster home.   The National Board of Health and Welfare considers that Section 28 of the Social Services Act is applicable.   The spouses Nyberg have invoked a certificate by the certified psychologist Lars Billing.   In a statement the County Administrative Board of the County of Stockholm took the view in brief that it is at present not possible to move Björn to his natural parents and that, therefore, a prohibition pursuant to Section 28 of the Social Services Act ought to be maintained but that preparatory measures ought to be taken in order to reunite Björn with his parents.   At the request of the spouses Nyberg, evidence has been given by a psychiatrist in private practice, Olle Björkström, the certified medical doctor Gunnel Hörnqvist, and the certified nurse Nancy de Sousa.   Björkström has in essence said the following: As the situation now is with the defective contacts Björn has had with Birgitt Nyberg, it is a fact that the foster parents are Björn's primary and psychological parents.   Björn's solidarity is with them.   It would be very strenuous for Björn if he were to move home to his biological parents. His primary parent-child relationship would then be broken, which would imply a great trauma for him.   Hörnqvist has considered that the spouses Nyberg would manage to take care of Björn and to tackle the problems which would arise if he moved home.   Hörnqvist considers that Björn has a living contact and a deep relationship with, in particular, Birgitt Nyberg.   It would therefore not be a serious risk if Björn came home.   Nancy de Sousa met Björn in September 1984 and March 1986 during his visits to the spouses Nyberg.   She indicated what she saw during these visits and stated that they were favourable and without any problems.   The Deputy Chief Doctor Frank Ståhl at the Sankt Göran's hospital, who is a specialist in children's and juvenile psychiatry, has been heard as an expert.   Ståhl stated mainly the following:   As a result of the separations during Björn's first years, he is more sensitive than others to a break-up from the environment in which he now finds himself, and it involves as such a considerable risk of damage to his psychological health, which is not of a minor nature.   The foster parents are the most important persons for Björn in his life.   Birgitt Nyberg does not sufficiently understand Björn's need of his foster parents.   Björn is now settled in the foster home and to move him would involve strain.   Björn must now get a clear message as to where he belongs.   It is important that he may have a relationship with his natural parents.   What is at present particularly damaging for Björn is the conflict between the foster parents and the natural parents.   Under Section 28 of the Social Service Act the Social Council may, when the child's best interests so require, for a certain period, or until further notice, prohibit the person who has the care of the minor from taking the child away from a foster home if there is a risk which is not considered to be of a minor nature that the child's physical or mental health would be jeopardised if he is separated from the home.   Only a temporary disturbance or any other temporary inconvenience is not a sufficient reason for issuing a prohibition.   When placing a child in a foster home the normal objective should be the reunification of the natural parents and the child.   A prohibition under Section 28 of the Social Services Act ought to be seen as a temporary measure, valid until such time as a child, without risk for any damage which is indicated in the said prohibition, can be separated from the foster home.   The facts which should be considered in cases concerning prohibitions on removal are inter alia the child's age, his or her degree of development, abilities and emotional relationships, the time the child has been cared for in other places than with the parents, the present living conditions of the child, and those which he or she would have after a removal, as well as the contact between the parents and the child during the time they have been separated.   The County Administrative Court makes the following assessment.   Björn will be 5 years old in September.   During his first eight months he stayed with Birgitt Nyberg.   As from the age of one year he has lived in the foster home.   The spouses Nyberg's suitability to take care of Björn is not questioned.   Since the circumstances which led to Björn being placed in the foster home have ceased to exist, the aim must be that Björn should be reunited with his parents.   The experts who have submitted their opinions in the case have by and large jointly expressed themselves against Björn's removal to the natural parents.   They have based themselves on the emotional bond which has arisen between Björn and the foster parents and the long time he has lived in the foster home.   The facts of the case show that the spouses Nyberg have maintained contact with Björn but that the contact has been made more difficult during recent times.   There is now a situation filled with conflicts between the spouses Nyberg and the foster parents which is to Björn's detriment.   The Court finds it established in the case that there is a risk, which is not of a minor nature, that Björn's mental health would be jeopardised if he were now separated from the foster home.   The prohibition on removal should therefore at present be maintained.   Irrespective of whether a prohibition on removal is limited in time or not, it is the obligation of the Social Council to see to it that appropriate preparations are made promptly with a view to the reunification in order that the child should not become more attached to the family which it should leave.   From the facts of the case it appears that Björn is a normally developed boy without any disturbances. If he does not in the near future live with his natural parents and his brother, the prohibition on removal can, in the long run, turn out to be in conflict with Björn's best interests.   The County Administrative Court considers that if Björn as soon as possible receives a clear message that after a certain time he should move home to his parents and his brother and that preparations are made with frequent contacts with his parents, Björn would not run any risk of more than temporary disturbances when moving.   The conflicts between the foster parents and the spouses Nyberg must not be an absolute impediment to active measures of preparations for Björn's removal.   Making an overall assessment, the County Administrative Court finds that there are reasons to limit the prohibition on removal in time for no longer than half a year.   The Court takes it for granted that the Social Council will actively further the reunification of Björn and the natural parents and that the Council will intensify its work in this respect.   Great responsibility is incumbent upon the foster parents.   They must participate positively and actively and help and support Björn.   The spouses Nyberg and the foster parents must try to reach agreement and see to the best interests of Björn."           Both the applicants and the Social Council appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm.   The Court held a hearing in the case on 17 September 1986 and delivered judgment on 7 October 1986.   The Court ordered that the prohibition on removal should apply no longer than to 1 March 1987.   In the reasons for its judgment the Court stated inter alia the following:   "The Administrative Court of Appeal finds, as did the County Administrative Court, that there is a risk which is not of a minor nature that Björn's health and development would be jeopardised if he immediately were to move from the foster home.   The County Administrative Court has therefore had reasons to issue a prohibition on removal.   From the investigation in the case it appears that the contacts between the parents and the child have been good most of the time when Björn lived in the foster home.   It furthermore appears from the investigation, inter alia from the testimony of Dr.   Hörnqvist, that it has been possible to maintain a rather deep emotional contact between Björn and, in the first place, his mother, during the time he has stayed in the foster home.   In view of this, and having regard to the other facts of the case, there is reason to believe that it is possible to arrange for a relatively quick reunification without there being any risk for Björn's health.   When deciding on the date until which the prohibition on removal should be valid, it must be kept in mind that Björn, on some occasions, has shown that he does not wish to visit the parents and that two visits in May 1986 could not take place as a result of his refusal to follow them to Stockholm.   It should further be observed that Björn has not met his parents since the end of May 1986.   On the other hand, great importance must be attached to the fact that Björn, according to the medical certificates which have been invoked in the case, is in all respects a normally developed child both physically and mentally.   The measures taken by the Social Council so far, in order to create the basis for a reunification between Björn and his natural parents, have been insufficient.   Thus it must be considered that the occasions on which there have been contacts between them have been too few and too short and that, also in other respects, they have been designed in a way which has not been favourable to strengthening the links between Björn and his parents.   Nor has sufficient regard been had to the conflicts which have arisen between, in particular, Birgitt Nyberg and the foster parents.   The Administrative Court of Appeal takes it for granted that the Social Council, in pursuing the objective of reuniting Björn with his natural parents will, through different measures, intensify its work in this respect.   Furthermore, the Court also takes it for granted that the spouses Nyberg will completely and fully co-operate in order to make the removal as smooth as possible for Björn and that the foster parents will also co-operate for this purpose.   In view of what has been said above, the Court finds that some further time is necessary for the preparatory measures before the prohibition on removal can be terminated."           The applicants and the Social Council appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which in a decision of 7 November 1986 refused to grant leave to appeal.           Following complaints from the applicants the Parliamentary Ombudsman (justitieombudsmannen) stated in a decision of 19 June 1986 that the Social Council's examination of the applicants' request for an extended right of contact with Björn had been unduly long (more than one year), thereby depriving the applicants of the right to have this request examined by a court, and that the fact that the applicants' request for a termination of the care order had only been dealt with after almost one and a half years was unacceptable.           On 18 December 1986 the Social Council decided to institute civil proceedings before the Stockholm District Court (tingsrätt) requesting that the legal custody of Björn be transferred from the applicants to the foster parents in accordance with Chapter 6 Section 8 of the Parental Code (föräldrabalken).   The Social Council invoked an investigation, made by a welfare officer, of 5 December 1986 and the written consent of the foster parents.   In the Social Council's application for a summons, dated 25 November 1986, it is stated that there was a risk that Björn's mental health would be harmed if he was separated from his foster parents and that it would obviously be in his best interests to stay with them.           In the investigation it is inter alia stated that Björn, during the period January 1986 to May 1986, by strong emotional reactions in connection with the meetings with his parents, showed that he did not want to see them.   The following conclusion was reached:   "Even though Birgitt Nyberg has been Björn's primary parental figure for the first eight months of his life, through his long separation from her, Björn has lost an essential part of his emotional attachment to her.   For natural reasons Björn is identifying himself with his foster parents and feels that he belongs in his foster family.   A separation from the foster parents would inevitably involve a crisis for Björn."           On 26 January 1987 the applicants applied to the County Administrative Court for the enforcement of the return to them of their son Björn in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Parental Code.           On 30 January 1987 the County Administrative Court of Jönköping ordered that the Head of Section at the social authorities of Jönköping, Mrs.   Ingrid Westerlund-Henja, should try to achieve a voluntary transfer of the child from his foster parents to the applicants.           On 9 February 1987 the Social Council requested the District Court to transfer, by a provisional decision, the legal custody of Björn to the foster parents.   The reasons given for the request was the applicants' application of 26 January 1987 for the enforcement of the return to them of Björn and the fact that according to the Social Council they had not, in the way the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm had provided in its judgment of 7 October 1986, completely co-operated in order to make the removal as smooth as possible for Björn.           On 23 February 1987 the Social Council requested an opinion from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Jönköping as to whether Björn would be able to endure the meetings with his parents without becoming mentally injured.   In the opinion, which was issued on 25 February 1987 by the doctors who had issued the opinion of 9 September 1985, the following was stated:   "Since measures to create contact have not been brought about until 3 February 1987, in spite of the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal of 7 October 1986, it has been necessary under considerable lack of time and in a doubtful manner to try to create contact between Björn and his natural parents in such a way that, in our opinion, it has not facilitated Björn's attachment to his natural parents.   To continue trying to create contact in the same manner is considered by the under-signed to be directly harmful to Björn's mental health and development.   ... It is our unambiguous opinion that until a functioning contact and a positive attachment can be brought about between Björn and his natural parents and all those involved have done what is possible to help Björn with the separation from the foster parents, who naturally are his psychological parents, a transfer of Björn to his natural parents will bring about an apparent risk that Björn's mental health and development will be seriously harmed."           In view of this certificate the Chairman of the Social Council decided on 26 February 1987 to issue a new prohibition on removal, this time valid until further notice.           On 5 March 1987 the Social Council provisionally upheld the Chairman's decision.           On 10 March 1987 the County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case concerning enforcement under Chapter 21 of the Parental Code and on 16 March 1987 it delivered judgment.   The applicants' request for enforcement was granted.   The Court ordered that the child be temporarily placed for a maximum of five days at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic of Jönköping and that thereafter the child should be transferred to the applicants.   The foster parents were ordered to leave the child with the Clinic not later than 24 March at 10.00 hours.   In the judgment the following reasons are indicated:   "In the situation which is at hand in the present case, the Court may under Chapter 21 Section 7 second paragraph of the Parental Code refuse enforcement if, in view of the child's best interest, it is necessary that the question of the legal custody of the child be examined by an ordinary court.   It appears from the investigation that (the applicants), with some exceptions, have had continuous and good contact with Björn and that they have all the time had the intention of taking care of him themselves.   In view of this and of the   other facts, there is no obstacle to the enforcement on the ground that it would be necessary to re-examine the question of the legal custody of Björn.   The fact that proceedings concerning this question are now pending does not affect this conclusion.   It can be established that the preparatory measures which according to the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal were necessary in order to terminate the prohibition on removal have not been implemented to the extent or in the manner envisaged.   The Social Council's measure to request before the District Court a transfer of the custody of Björn within a rather short time after the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal appears remarkable and has not been designed to facilitate the preparatory measures.   The manner in which contacts took place between Björn and his natural parents during the month of February did not facilitate his relations to them either.   At least during the last year there has been a conflict between the natural parents and the foster parents.   The conflict has become worse recently.   In the opinion of the Court the result is that it will presumably be very difficult to achieve Björn's gradual adaptation to his natural parents as intended in the judgments concerning the prohibition on removal.   The issue in the case is therefore whether nevertheless the conditions for enforcement are fulfilled.   According to Chapter 21 Section 6 second paragraph of the Parental Code, the County Administrative Court may refuse enforcement if there is a risk, which is not of a minor character, that the child's bodily or mental health may be harmed.   In that context not only should the risks of the actual transfer and the resulting problems of adaptation be taken into account, but also what in the long run must be considered to be in the best interest of the child.    In view of the statements of Mrs.   Ingrid Laurell and Mr.   John Erik Ottosson and the other facts, it appears clear that there is a risk that Björn's mental health might be harmed by a transfer.   In the case before the County Administrative Court of Stockholm concerning prohibition on removal the expert on children's and juveniles' psychiatry, Mr.   Frank Ståhl, stated inter alia that Björn must receive a clear message as to where he belongs and that what is most harmful to him is the conflict between the foster parents and the natural parents.   The Court concurs with this opinion.   There is thus also a risk that Björn's mental health may be harmed if the conflict and the uncertainty as to where he belongs continue.   Björn, who is not yet six years old, is a normally developed boy.   It is established that there were previously good contacts between him and his natural parents.   The certified doctor Mrs.   Gunnel Hörnqvist stated in the case concerning the prohibition on removal that Björn had close contact and deep relations, in particular with Mrs.   Nyberg.   Even if the   contact between them has not been so good in the special circumstances which have prevailed recently, there is good reason to believe that the previous good relations will be restored.   The numerous proceedings which have been instituted and which are still going on concerning Björn have resulted in great strain for all the parties involved, and have evidently worsened the conflict between the natural parents and the foster parents.   This, of course, affects Björn.   It must, from his point of view, be important to terminate the 'fight' over him.   As long as he stays in the foster home it is likely that the 'fight' will continue.   The natural parents have, of course, a justified claim to have their child back.   As has been said above, it appears impossible to achieve Björn's gradual adaptation to them. Making an overall assessment of the risk to him which a transfer would involve compared to the risks which continued uncertainty and continued conflicts would involve, the Court finds that the most weighty arguments are in favour of enforcement now."           On 19 March 1987 the Social District Council decided, thereby confirming their provisional decision of 5 March 1987, to prohibit the applicants from moving Björn from the foster home since there was a risk which was not of a minor character that Björn's mental health and development would be harmed if he was separated from the foster home. The decision was based on an investigation made by Social District Council No. 6 in Stockholm and completed on 9 March 1987.   The investigation contains a report on the different occasions in February 1987 when Björn met his parents.   In the investigation it is stated inter alia that when the meetings started Björn had not seen his parents since June 1987, that the conditions at the meetings had been strained particularly for Björn, that Birgitt Nyberg had stated that she found it hard to establish a good contact with Björn when the welfare officers were present and that the scheduled meetings were interrupted on 25 February 1987 after a recommendation from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic in Jönköping.           Both the applicants and the foster parents appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal against the judgment of the County Administrative Court of 16 March 1987.   Before the Administrative Court of Appeal preparatory sessions were held in order to try to solve the dispute on a voluntary basis.   In the course of these sessions the parties agreed to co-operate for the purpose of transferring Björn to the applicants.   The foster parents promised to endeavour to have the case on legal custody before the District Court withdrawn.   Mrs.   Nyberg promised to endeavour to have a police report in Germany against the foster father withdrawn.   Following these sessions the Administrative Court of Appeal of Jönköping decided on 1 April 1987 to adjourn its examination of the case.           On 2 April 1987 the Social Council decided to maintain its action before the District Court of Stockholm concerning the transfer of the legal custody of Björn from the applicants to the foster parents and to maintain the prohibition on removal under Section 28 of the Social Services Act.   The decision was not unanimous and the chairman expressed a separate opinion.           On 3 April 1987 the foster parents wrote a letter to the District Court repeating the agreement reached with the natural parents before the Administrative Court of Appeal and expressed their surprise over the Social Council's decision.           On 15 April 1987 the Social Council decided to withdraw its action before the District Court concerning the transfer of the legal custody and to revoke the prohibition on removal.   The application before the District Court was withdrawn by the Social Council on 21 April 1987 and removed from the Court's case list on 13 July 1987.           The applicants claimed that the District Court should oblige the Council to pay their legal costs.   The reason given for this was that the Council intentionally or by neglect had caused unnecessary proceedings.   The Court rejected the applicants' claim.   The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which found that there were special reasons to oblige the Council to pay their legal costs since the Council withdrew its action after a considerable delay.           The social authority covered the foster parents' costs for legal aid in the custody proceedings out of its expense account.   This was decided on 26 March and 26 May 1987 by two social welfare officers.           On 21 April 1987 the foster parents and Björn arrived at the applicants' home at Neukirchen.   On 23 April the foster parents left Björn with the applicants and the family is since then re-united.           On 14 May 1987 the Administrative Court of Appeal removed the case concerning the enforcement of the return of Björn to his parents from its list of cases.                   -------------------------------------           Previously, on 29 May 1986, the applicants had been allowed to meet their son Björn for the day in order to have some contact with him.   In view of the fact that the child's grandmother had not had the opportunity of meeting the child for a long time, the parents decided, thereby violating the conditions for the right of contact with the child, to travel to the Federal Republic of Germany on a visit and took the child with them.           When the foster mother came to pick up Björn at his parents' home in the evening nobody was there.   She informed the social authorities.           On 29 May 1986 the Deputy Chairman of the Social Council decided to take Björn into public care and to ask for assistance from the police authority in order to have the decision enforced.   The applicants were reported to the police for having taken Björn away without permission, but no action was taken against them.           The social authorities contacted the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in order to find out if there was any possibility to have Björn returned to Sweden and were informed that there were no treaties or conventions between Sweden and Germany regarding a situation like the one in question.           On 30 May 1986 the foster parents talked to Björn's father over the telephone.   They were informed that Björn's parents intended to spend some time in Germany.           On 31 May 1986 the foster father went to Germany with a friend.   Before he left he had contact with one of the social welfare officers dealing with the case of Björn.   She ordered air tickets, in the social authority's name, for the foster father and his brother. She also ordered return tickets, including one for Björn.   She booked tickets on a flight to Amsterdam.   The bill was sent to the social authority but forwarded to the foster parents.   The reason why the social welfare officer helped to book the tickets was that it was Saturday and the foster father could not raise the money needed for the trip.   She also understood that the foster parents were concerned about Björn.   It is disputed between the parties whether the authorities were aware of the foster father's intention to take Björn away from the applicants.           The foster father arrived at Neukirchen-Vluyn, where Björn was staying with the applicants, on 31 May 1986.   On the following day, late in the afternoon, the applicants took a walk with their two sons. A car approached them from behind.   Out of the car came the foster father, apprehended Björn and took him into the car, which then disappeared quickly.   Thereafter the foster father went to Sweden with Björn via Amsterdam.           This incident was reported to the police.   On 1 August 1986 the Regional Prosecutor (regionåklagaren) of Jönköping decided not to institute criminal proceedings since it was considered that the foster father's action was founded on his care for Björn and that criminal proceedings were not required in the general interest.   In view of this decision no investigation was initiated by the prosecutor regarding the officials at the Social District Council.   Upon appeal the Prosecutor-General (riksåklagaren) saw no reason to amend the decision of the Regional Prosecutor and on 27 October 1986 he decided not to take any action.           When Björn had returned to Sweden the foster parents paid the money back that the social authorities had advanced for the air ticket.           A social welfare officer on 10 June 1986 decided to grant the foster parents an allowance of 5,825 SEK. The only note made about the allowance was that it was a special measure of support.   When asked about the allowance by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in the course of her investigation, the social welfare officer said that it was a special measure of support in view of the difficulties the foster parents experienced when Björn had returned to them.   In an application for compensation to the foster parents for their travel expenses, submitted by the social authority to the Berg-Rolanska Foundation, it appears that the entire cost for the travel, including air tickets, hotel and a rented car, was 12,825 SEK and that the social authority had granted an allowance of 5,825 SEK. The foster parents had their expenses fully covered by financial contributions from the Swedish Save the Children Federation and from the Berg-Rolanska Foundation.                   -------------------------------------           On 24 May 1988 the Parliamentary Ombudsman took a decision concerning the social welfare officers' and the Social District Council's handling of Björn's case from 29 May 1986 and onwards.           The Ombudsman considered that the assistance