CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 mars 1989

.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. 13641/88 by Valerie BRYCELAND against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 March 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   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 2 February 1988 by Valerie BRYCELAND against the United Kingdom and registered on 15 February 1988 under file No. 13614/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows: THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1959 and resident in London.   She is represented by P. William Ackroyd, a solicitor practising in London.           The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is the mother of four children.   Her first daughter L. was born on 29 December 1975 during the applicant's first marriage.   After the applicant's divorce in 1977-78, the applicant lived for two years with the father of her second daughter K., who was born on 7 December 1978.   On 1 July 1980, the applicant married again and gave birth to her son M. on 10 September 1980.   The applicant has been recently divorced.   From 1981, the applicant lived with D. L. who was father to her fourth child, a son C., born on 20 September 1983.           When D. L. first began living with the applicant, the applicant's children were put on an "at risk" register by the London Borough of Croydon, as a result of his previous conviction for assault on a child and the local authority apparently threatened to remove the children, though no such action was taken.   The applicant moved to Southwark with D. L. and, while pregnant with C., began taking heroin, with the result that she became addicted.           In July 1984, D. L. hit the applicant's son M. and the applicant took her children to live with her mother and sought help from Southwark Social Services.   Shortly afterwards, all four children went into voluntary care and the Social Services arranged for the applicant to spend two months in the drug unit at Bethlehem hospital. However, two months did not prove long enough and the children continued to live with foster-parents, Mr. and Mrs.   N., whom the applicant had known in 1980 as neighbours.           In or about January 1985, the applicant moved back to Croydon and the two boys M. and C. came back to live with her, the girls remaining in voluntary care as it was felt that the applicant should not try to resume care of all four children at once.   The two girls L. and K. however came to stay at weekends and returned home completely at Easter 1985.           The applicant had registered as a drug addict in January 1985 at a drug clinic to continue to receive help to end her addiction.   In July 1985, Croydon Social Services discovered the fact that she was a registered addict and instituted care proceedings, having removed the children under a Place of Safety Order.   In or about October 1985, they obtained a care order in respect of the children, the Court finding that the children were in moral danger and in need of care and protection.           The children returned to Mr. and Mrs.   N. and the applicant visited them weekly, while continuing her treatment at the drug clinic where they were reducing her prescription in the hope of ending her addiction.   The applicant's social worker apparently refused to find the applicant a place in hospital, since he felt she was not committed to giving up drugs.         In February 1986, the applicant was admitted to a "detox" centre for heroin addicts.   After a 3 week stay, the applicant, who had developed a drug-related psychosis, was transferred to Bethlehem Psychiatric Unit.   In July 1986, the applicant was given a place at Oak Lodge and remained there until July 1987, when she moved into her present home.   Since her admission to the "detox" centre, the applicant has not taken heroin and suffered only one lapse when she took a dose of heroin substitute.   The applicant had the intention of resuming care of her children when she had re-established herself and maintained contact with Mr. and Mrs.   N. for this purpose.           Meanwhile, following a case-conference attended by the applicant on 27 November 1986, the Social Services decided that the applicant should have less contact with the children.   They reduced access visits to once per month and arranged for Mr. and Mrs.   N. to apply for custodianship of the children.   The application was due to be heard on 2 July 1987, but Mr. and Mrs.   N. withdrew their application before the hearing.           A representative of the Family Rights Group enquired on the applicant's behalf of the appeal procedures available to challenge the decision to reduce access and was informed by letter dated 10 December 1986 that an appeal lay to the Director of the Social Services.   By letter dated 19 January 1987, the applicant appealed to the Director requesting that the decision be reconsidered.   The Director by letter dated 27 February 1987 informed the applicant that after studying the situation, he felt that monthly access would be most in the interests of the children, but that he would expect this to continue without any further reduction in the future.   The applicant was later informed that the next stage of the appeal procedure would be to submit the case to the Child Protection and Special cases Sub-Committee of the local authority and that there was no provision for parties to attend in person.           Access arrangements were reviewed by the sub-committee at a meeting on 22 June 1987, where it was decided that not less than monthly access was in the best interests of the children; that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, there should be no further reduction in access; and that access should take place at the foster home but this situation should be kept under review in light of any change which indicated that the children might benefit from time spent with their mother elsewhere.           In July 1987, the applicant left Oak Lodge and moved into a one bedroom flat.   She began training to be a Youth Worker.           On 18 January 1988, the Social Services reviewed the case again, noting the applicant had attended all the monthly visits to her children.   It was decided that monthly access continue but that a social worker should visit the applicant's accommodation and that a social worker and the foster parents should find out the children's wishes and feelings regarding access.           In February 1988 the applicant instructed her solicitors to apply to the Juvenile Court to revoke the care orders on her children.   The Social Services agreed however that they would not dispute on jurisdictional grounds an application by the applicant within wardship.   The applicant obtained legal aid and issued an originating summons in wardship.   Following an order on 21 June 1988, the children have been confirmed as wards of court.   Since then, the applicant has been granted further access namely, 2 periods during which the applicant may take her eldest daughter out during part of a day.   The guardian ad litem appointed by the Juvenile Court continued to represent the children.   In a report dated 3 June 1988, she stated that the change in the applicant over the last 3 years was remarkable and that she now appears to be a thoughtful young woman who views the future positively.   She reported that the applicant had been drug free since 1987, was starting to establish a career for herself and that although the applicant wishes to resume care of her children, she recognised that the children's best interests were paramount and would accept whatever that might entail.   The guardian ad litem recommended that access be increased, to allow the applicant to take out her 2 daughters at fortnightly intervals between the monthly visits.           The guardian ad litem has since been replaced before the High Court by the Official Solicitor.   The High Court would again consider the applicant's access to her children on 27 February 1989.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant's complaints relate only to the decisions on access culminating on 22 June 1987.   In this regard, the applicant complains that the law relating to children taken into care is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention in that parents are not entitled to a fair and public hearing.   The applicant complains that she is denied any right to challenge in a court of law the amount of access which she is allowed.           The applicant complains that the legislation and application of the legislation as indicated by recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights is in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and is not necessary in a democratic society.   The applicant complains that the decision-making machinery concerning parental contact with children in care does not afford her an adequate opportunity to influence or to participate in the decisions and therefore violates her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.   In particular, the applicant complains of the failure of the local authority to provide access which could develop into reintegration of the children into family life with the applicant.           The applicant also complains that she does not have an effective remedy in respect of her complaints contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.           The applicant further submits that, for the purposes of Article 26 of the Convention, there has been no final decision in respect of her complaints, the situation being a continuing one in which the applicant is denied any right to challenge in a court of law the amount of access which she is allowed. THE LAW           The applicant has complained that she is denied access to court to challenge decisions concerning access, that the decision-making machinery concerning access of children in care fails to protect her interests and that she has no remedy for her complaints.   She invokes Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.           The Commission recalls that it must confine itself, as far as possible, to an examination of the concrete case before it and may not review the law in abstracto.   The Commission therefore may only examine the applicant's complaints insofar as the system of which she complains has been applied against her (see e.g.   Eur.   Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, para. 54).   It follows that the Commission can only examine the decisions taken and procedures implemented in the present case.           The Commission recalls that following the case-conference of 27 November 1986, the local authority decided to reduce access from once per week to once per month and that this decision was reviewed by firstly, the Director of Social Services and secondly, the special sub-committee of the local authority, which on 22 June 1987 upheld the decision to reduce access.           The Commission considers that it is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked by the applicant. Article 26 of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".           In the present case the decision of the sub-committee of the local authority, which was the final decision regarding the subject of the applicant's complaints, was given on 22 June 1987 whereas the application was submitted to the Commission on 2 February 1988, that is more than six months after the date of this decision.   It is true that the applicant submits that, in particular, the lack of access to court is a continuing situation and that the decision of 22 June 1987 cannot be regarded as the "final decision" within the meaning of Article 26.   However, this factual situation arose on 22 June 1987 and must therefore in the Commission's opinion be regarded as the "final decision" also for the purposes of the complaint of non-access to court.   Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of the six month period.           It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.          Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission                 (H.C. KRÜGER)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)