CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 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. 12963/87                         by Margareta and Roger ANDERSSON                         against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 October 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL                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 13 February 1987 by Margareta and Roger ANDERSSON against Sweden and registered on 25 May 1987 under file No. 12963/87;           Having regard to the written observations submitted by the Government on 8 February 1989 and the applicants on 31 March 1989 as well as the parties' submissions at the hearing held on 10 October 1989;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.           The first applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1951.   She is a nurse.   The second applicant, Roger, is the first applicant's son and a Swedish citizen.   He was born on 23 July 1974.   Both applicants are resident at Nybro, Sweden.   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mrs.   Siv Westerberg, a lawyer practising at Gothenburg.   Particular circumstances of the case           On 5 June 1985 the chairman of the Social Committee No. I of the Social Council (socialnämndens socialutskott I) of Växjö decided that Roger should be taken into public care on a provisional basis under Section 6 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga, hereinafter referred to as "the 1980 Act") and that during the period of investigation he should be placed at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Växjö.   The provisional care decision was based on a report of 5 June 1985 made by the social authority of Växjö. From the report it appears that the applicants were under observation by the social authorities since Roger was born.   When he started school in 1981 it was observed that his general adjustment and social maturity were insufficient.   He was shy, inhibited and insecure.   The first applicant refused to accept the measures proposed by the social authorities to help Roger.   She moved from Växjö to Nybro.   It is concluded in the report that the serious disturbances in Roger's state of health and in his development, in connection with the first applicant's behaviour, indicated that he had been treated in a mentally harmful manner for a considerable period of time.   He was considered to be in immediate need of care on account of an increasingly serious risk for his health and development.   It was moreover feared that the first applicant would seriously impede the continued investigation.           On 11 June 1985 the social authorities decided to prohibit contact between the applicants awaiting the decision of the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Kronoberg County on the care issue.   The prohibition was to be reconsidered as soon as it could be considered not to be harmful to Roger to have contact with his mother. The first applicant appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court.           The provisional care order was submitted for confirmation to the County Administrative Court, which upheld it on 14 June 1985, giving inter alia the following reasons:           "From the investigation in the case it appears inter         alia that Roger's behaviour in school has been reserved         and inhibited and that he has isolated himself from his         schoolmates.   During the spring term 1985 he has been         absent from school to a great extent and from 3 May he has         completely failed to attend.   Extensive help and support         have for a long time been offered to Margareta Andersson.         She has refused to accept it.   When the social authorities         of Växjö contacted the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric         Clinic at Växjö, Roger and Margareta Andersson moved to         Nybro.   The schools of Växjö and Nybro have expressed strong         concern about Roger's mental health.   Considering this and         the statement made by Deputy Chief Doctor Mauri Rautavuori,         the County Administrative Court finds that there are such         deficiencies in the care of Roger that it is probable that         care will be provided for him under Section 1 second         paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act and that a court decision on         public care cannot be awaited considering the risk for         Roger's health and development as well as the fact that the         continued investigation may be seriously obstructed."           In a judgment given on the same day the County Administrative Court upheld the decision of 11 June 1985 to prohibit contact between the applicants.   The Court's judgment was based on a statement made by the expert witness Deputy Chief Doctor Mauri Rautavuori of the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic.   He stated that Margareta Andersson felt more agony and anxiety than Roger in the situation they were in.   He considered it necessary to control her contact with Roger as it would be too dramatic for Roger if she was allowed to visit him.   It was so painful for Margareta Andersson to be separated from Roger that she could not handle the situation.   She needed as much help as Roger and he must not be given the task of taking care of his mother.   Doctor Mauri Rautavuori concluded that a prohibition of access was necessary as long as the first applicant was in such a bad condition.           The first applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping against the judgment and the decision whereby the County Administrative Court had confirmed the provisional care order and the prohibition on access.   The Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal in a judgment of 27 June 1985.   The first applicant made a further appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which on 26 July 1985 decided not to grant leave to appeal.           On 28 June 1985 the Social Council applied to the County Administrative Court for a decision that Roger be taken into public care pursuant to Section 1 second paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act.   The application was based on a report of 20 June 1985 made by the social authority.   The Court held a hearing in the case.   By a judgment of 17 July 1985 the Court decided in favour of the Social Council's application, giving inter alia the following reasons:           "From the investigation in the case it does not appear that         Margareta Andersson's way of keeping her home can be criticised.         As far as it can be assessed, the material conditions are         satisfactory.   However, the investigation shows that the         conditions in the home are likely to jeopardise a young         person's emotional and social development.   Before the County         Administrative Court Margareta Andersson has expressed the view         that the information in the Social Council's application is         essentially incorrect.   In view of the investigation of the         case, Margareta Andersson must hereby be considered to         confirm the allegation that she is unable to understand Roger's         situation.   It has clearly appeared from Roger's behaviour that         his social and emotional development is deranged.   It is         therefore essential for Roger that he receives help and support         to overcome his problems.   In view of Margareta Andersson's         attitude it is not likely that the necessary measures can be         taken by her or with her approval.   The task of rehabilitating         Roger must therefore be entrusted to the social authorities.         The Social Council's application shall therefore be granted."           The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal.           On 15 July 1985 Roger ran away from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Växjö where he had been placed when provisionally taken into care.   He returned to the Clinic on 27 August 1985 and was brought home on 3 September 1985 after the first applicant had made a written agreement of 26 August 1985 with the Social Council that the public care of Roger should be carried out in her home.   The agreement contained provisions concerning the care of Roger and the social authority's measures of assistance to the applicants.   As a result of this agreement, the first applicant withdrew her appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal.           As from March 1986 Roger did not attend school and on 28 April 1986 the Chairman of the Social Committee No.   I of the Social Council of Växjö decided to place him at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic awaiting a transfer to a foster home.   The Social Committee decided on 22 May 1986 to place Roger in a foster home at Glimåkra.           On 29 April 1986 Roger was taken to the Clinic and on 13 May 1986 he ran away.   He was brought back to the Clinic by the police on 5 August 1986.           The first applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court against the decision to place Roger in a foster home.   The Court held a hearing at which she was present and assisted by counsel under the Legal Aid Act (rättshjälpslagen) and the second applicant was represented by official counsel (offentligt biträde).   The Court rejected the appeal by a judgment of 19 August 1986, in which it stated:           "Margareta Andersson has inter alia stated the following:         She has now realised that Roger's development could be at         risk.   The risk is not as serious as to warrant placing         him in a foster family.   The deficiencies are not only due         to her.   She has endeavoured to make Roger go to school         but he has not received enough support from the school.         Kristina Wintler, the home therapist, has not succeeded in         establishing any contact with Roger.   She and Roger have         felt that Kristina Wintler was more controlling them than         helping.   Roger's needs would be satisfied in a better way         with a male home therapist with technical interests.   After         having been fetched by the police Roger is upset and angry         with the authorities.   Roger will not remain in the foster home.         Most of what is stated in the investigation report made by         the social secretary, Rolf Olsson, is untrue.   This summer         she has rented a summer-house and has been out camping with         Roger, after he absconded from the Children's and Juveniles'         Psychiatric Clinic.   Roger has been calm and harmonious and         has been seeing two children of his own age.   The reason why         she and Roger have stayed away during the summer is that         Roger needs his summer holiday.   If he had not had it he         would have made up for it by not attending school in the autumn.         The Social Council states that the home where it is intended         that Roger should be placed is a private home for care and         residence.   It is a very qualified home where the spouses         professionally take care of children.   The wife is a trained         social pedagogue and the husband has general practical         experience.   They get support from the Children's Psychiatric         Clinic at Kristianstad and from the officials of the social         authority at Broby.   The home is situated at Glimåkra where         the spouses live in an old farm.           The Deputy Chief Doctor of the Children's and Juveniles'         Psychiatric Clinic at Växjö, Mauri Rautavuori, heard as         an expert witness, has inter alia stated the following:         Roger is very reserved and careful in his contacts with         the personnel at the Clinic.   However, it is easier for         the personnel to get their questions answered now than         it was when Roger stayed at the Clinic one year ago.         Roger has not developed like a normal twelve-year-old boy.         He has very little experience of close social contact with         children of his own age.   He has not got a profound basis for         further developing his personality.   There is a considerable         risk that Roger develops feelings of inferiority and also         a risk of anti-social behaviour and of symptoms of dependence         that can lead to psychotic behaviour.   Margareta Andersson         is tied by Roger's demands and Roger is the one who decides.         Roger has got a potential for development in another home.   It         is not a solution that Roger returns home.   Margareta Andersson         has tried to manage Roger but has not succeeded in spite of         the help she has received.   The only way to help Roger, so         that he can take the responsibility for his own life and his         own behaviour, is to place him in another family.           Kristina Wintler, heard as a witness, has inter alia stated         the following: She has worked as a home therapist in the         Andersson family since autumn 1985.   On average she has spent         approximately four hours a day from Monday to Friday in the home.         Her main task was to ensure that Roger went to school by         taking him there.   However, this did not work and her         contribution became directed to what she could do in the home.         Margareta and Roger Andersson were reserved towards everyone         and it was difficult to engage them in any activity.   She         never got any real contact with Roger.   Sometimes she could         come close to him when he was interested in something.   Maybe         it would have been better to have a male home therapist.         Roger had the power at home.   When she intervened against         Roger, Margareta Andersson interfered.   Margareta Andersson         cannot cope with the situation when she is alone with Roger.         She tried but did not succeed.   The school declares that         nothing more can be done about Roger's situation.   Although         there was a conference concerning Roger every week during the         autumn term 1985 and the beginning of the spring term 1986         nothing could be done to help him.           The County Administrative Court makes the following         assessment.   During the time Roger has stayed at home he         has been the object of extensive care measures which have         not led to the intended result.   Margareta Andersson has not,         with the help she has received, managed to give Roger the         care he needs.   In order to let Roger develop favourably he         must be placed in another home.   The change in the care of         Roger that has been decided by the Social Council must be         considered to be in Roger's best interest.   The appeal shall         therefore be rejected."           On 23 August 1986 Roger was transferred to the foster home at Glimåkra.           The first applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Jönköping.   The Court held a hearing in the case on 16 September 1986, at which the first applicant was present and the applicants were represented in the same way as in the County Administrative Court.   The Administrative Court of Appeal in its judgment of 17 October 1986 rejected the appeal while making the following assessment:           "According to Section 11 paragraph 2 of the 1980 Act         the Social Council can let the child stay in his own home,         if this is considered to promote his care.   Roger has         been taken into care according to the Act because the         conditions in Margareta Andersson's home were unsuitable for         him and because of Margareta Andersson's inability to give         him the care and security he needed.   In spite of this the         Social Council let Roger return to Margareta Andersson's home         after only a short stay at the Children's and Juveniles'         Psychiatric Clinic, be it with intensive measures of         support.   He was thereafter permitted to stay there for         approximately one year.   During this time Margareta Andersson         has had the opportunity of showing that Roger could be given         the support he needed for his development at home.   However,         no change has occurred, which has been shown particularly by         the school situation.           It is evident that Roger must be given the opportunity of         developing under other conditions.   Care in a qualified foster         home should be envisaged in the first place, as Roger would         then have better possibilities to develop normal social         relations and build up his own identity.   The Social Council         therefore had good reasons for their decision to transfer         Roger from Margareta Andersson's home."           The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court which, by a decision of 19 December 1986, refused to grant leave to appeal.           As a result of the fact that Roger had twice run away from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic the social welfare officers in charge of his case decided on 6 August 1986 to prohibit contact between him and the first applicant.   The decision was taken under Section 16 paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act and was confirmed by the Social Council on 21 August 1986.   As a result of the decision, the first applicant was prohibited from contacting Roger by telephone and from corresponding with him.   The decision was to be in force until further notice, awaiting that the first applicant's access could be arranged without any harm being caused to Roger.   The basis for the decision was a report of 15 August 1986 made by the social authorities of Växjö.   From the report it appears that the first applicant's own behaviour and Roger's reactions with regard to her behaviour were decisive when the prohibition of access was issued. It was noted that she had taken part in Roger's previous escapes and that she had made statements about leaving the country or moving away to some place unknown to the authorities to avoid being persecuted. It was deemed necessary, for the time being, to prevent the first applicant from seeing Roger.   It was found that she had not been co-operative in any way while Roger stayed at the Clinic.   When she was refused contact with him she had instead given him money and written messages telling him that she would soon help him to escape from the Clinic or, if this did not succeed, from the foster home at Glimåkra.   Money and such messages were hidden among clothes and other things she brought to Roger.           The first applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court requesting that the decision to prohibit access be revoked and claiming the right to speak to Roger on the telephone.           The Court held a hearing in the case at which Margareta Andersson was present and assisted by counsel.   By a judgment of 12 September 1986, the Court decided not to examine the appeal insofar as it concerned the prohibition of telephone communications and to reject the remainder of the appeal.   The reasons of the Court read as follows:           "Margareta Andersson has stated inter alia the following:         The prohibition of access decided by the Social Committee         goes beyond what is needed to carry out the care.   The         decision was taken before Roger was transferred to Glimåkra.         The conditions have changed now that Roger is living at         Glimåkra.   There is nothing to indicate that she has a         negative influence on Roger.   She has not interfered with the         present care and she has not tried to sabotage the measures         now taken.   The resentment she has shown is based on the         fact that she does not understand why there has to be any         care.   It is true that the bags with clothes that she gave         Roger when he stayed at the Children's and Juveniles'         Psychiatric Clinic contained money and a card with a message         that she would help him to leave the place.   This does not         mean that she encouraged him to run away.   It was her way         of telling Roger that by appealing against the care decision         she would try to get him home.   Roger has a lot of         difficulties in the foster home at Glimåkra.   When speaking         with the foster home over the telephone she has been informed         that Roger sits alone in his room crying.   He wants to go         home.   Moreover he is being used as domestic help there.   He         has to wash up and clean.           The Social Council has stated that, bearing in mind what         has happened in the case, it has been necessary to prohibit         access.   This includes a prohibition for Margareta Andersson         to speak to Roger on the telephone.   The Council has done a         lot to get closer to Margareta Andersson and to create         an effective co-operation with her.   This has not been         successful.   They do not wish to risk that the new efforts         turn into a failure.   The Children's and Juveniles'         Psychiatric Clinic has emphasised that a failure could         involve a considerable risk to Roger.   Statements made by         Margareta Andersson show that she is prepared to take         Roger away.   Roger is developing well in the foster home.         The Council's aim is to improve the co-operation with         Margareta Andersson.   The intention is that at least one         month should pass after the transfer before there is any         contact between Margareta Andersson and Roger.   If a         suitable agreement can be made with Margareta Andersson         the Council intends to let her see Roger at the forthcoming         turn of the months September/October.           The County Administrative Court makes the following         assessment.   The decision to take Roger into public care         under the 1980 Act and his transfer to Glimåkra are based         on the fact that Margareta Andersson has been unable to         give Roger the care he needs.   On two occasions, when Roger         has been staying at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric         Clinic at Växjö, he has run away and with the help of         Margareta Andersson managed to stay away for long periods of         time.   During Roger's last stay at the Children's and Juveniles'         Psychiatric Clinic Margareta Andersson tried to give him a         message which, in his eyes, must have implied that she would         take him away from the Clinic.   Considering what has been         mentioned above and that the care that has just started should         continue without interruptions and that Margareta Andersson         should not influence Roger, the County Administrative Court         finds that the Social Committee has good reasons for its         decision to prohibit access.   However, if a functioning         co-operation with Margareta Andersson can be achieved, a         meeting should take place between Margareta Andersson and         Roger as planned by the Social Council.           According to Section 20 paragraph 3 of the 1980 Act a         decision of the Social Council may be appealed to the County         Administrative Court when the Council has decided about access         to the child under Section 16.   The County Administrative         Court finds that the Social Committee, by prohibiting telephone         contact with Roger, has limited Margareta Andersson's access         according to Section 11 of the Act.   According to Section 20         of the Act such a decision cannot be appealed."           The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal in a judgment of 11 November 1986 on the following grounds:           "According to Section 16 of the 1980 Act, the Social Council         may restrict the guardian's right of access to the child,         when it is necessary in order to carry out the care.   Such         a restriction may concern a prohibition of correspondence or         telephone communications between the parent and the child as         well as keeping the place of residence of the child secret.         When the provision is applied the aim should be not to         restrict the right of access more than is absolutely necessary.           The appealed decision to prohibit access includes, according         to the Social Council's statement at the hearing before the         County Administrative Court, a prohibition of correspondence         and of telephone communications.   The entire decision is based on         Section 16 of the Act.   The County Administrative Court should         therefore have examined those parts of the decision which         concerned prohibition of correspondence and of telephone         communications.   Margareta Andersson's appeal should         accordingly be examined with respect to the restriction as         a whole.           In the judgment of the County Administrative Court, which was         upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal, it was decided         that Roger should be transferred from   his mother's home to         a foster home.   The care outside the parental home is aimed         at solving Roger's problems and at removing the deficiencies         which prevailed at Margareta Andersson's home.   During the         care period the Social Council shall in principle try to         maintain contact between Roger and Margareta Andersson, but         it can be forced by the circumstances to restrict contact         under the above-mentioned Section of the Act.           From the documents and from the investigation in the case,         carried out before the judgment of the Administrative Court of         Appeal mentioned above, it appears that Margareta Andersson lacks         understanding for Roger's need of care and that she is opposed         to Roger being placed outside her home.   Margareta Andersson         has prevented earlier attempts to place Roger away from home         by fetching Roger and by staying with him in a place unknown         to the authorities.   What happened during her last meeting         with Roger as well as what she has stated before the         Administrative Court of Appeal give reason to presume that she         will not accept that Roger remain in the foster home.           It is an absolute condition for the success of the care         in the foster home that Roger feels secure when staying there.         The foster parents must furthermore be given the possibility         to deal peacefully with Roger's problems.   As soon as         Margareta Andersson is able to accept the care that is being         provided and the transfer to the foster home and is able         to participate in the care, she should have the opportunity         of seeing Roger.   However, Margareta Andersson has shown that         for the time being she is not prepared to take part in the care         in this way.   In these circumstances there are good reasons         for the decision of the Social Council to prohibit access,         including the prohibition of correspondance and of telephone         communications."           The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which refused to grant leave to appeal in a decision of 19 December 1986.           Roger fell ill with diabetes in the beginning of 1987 and was placed in a hospital for care.   He stayed in the hospital from 3 until 25 February 1987.   The circumstances concerning his stay in the hospital are disputed by the parties.   The applicants allege that the first applicant wrote letters to Roger which were seized by the hospital personnel and handed over to the foster father who never forwarded them to Roger.   They further allege that on 19 February 1987, when the first applicant after several requests finally obtained the right to visit Roger in the hospital, she was thrown out from the hospital by force by the foster father who had arrived while she was there.   This happened when she tried to help Roger who was being assaulted by the foster father.           The applicants have further pointed out that their representative, Mrs.   Westerberg, tried to convince the hospital personnel not to send Roger back to the foster home.   Because of Roger's expressed fear to go back, she considered that there was a great risk that he would attempt an escape which could seriously endanger his health, considering his disease.   However, Roger was sent back to the foster home.           The Government submit that during Roger's stay in hospital, much effort was put into making the first applicant visit him.   She was very upset and seemed to screen herself off from the contacts taken to agree on the form for such visits.   On 19 February 1987 she came to the hospital to visit Roger.   She then tried to take Roger with her, which was prevented by a doctor.   The foster father was also present on this occasion.   When he arrived at the hospital there was a row.           The first applicant reported the above-mentioned incidents, including what she considered to be theft of letters she had sent to Roger and the money enclosed in them, to the police, but the public prosecutor decided on 8 May 1987 to discontinue the criminal investigation against the foster father and the hospital personnel. The first applicant's appeal against the decision was rejected by the Director of the Malmö Public Prosecution Authority (åklagar- myndigheten) on 13 August 1987.   In the criminal investigation a statement by a doctor, who witnessed the scene between the first applicant and the foster father, is included.   He states that when the first applicant arrived at the hospital the hospital personnel contacted the foster father as they had been instructed that the first applicant was not allowed to be alone with Roger.   When the foster father arrived the first applicant stated that she did not wish to be in the same room as the foster father.   She then attacked him, she hit him on his chest and arms with her fists.   At the same time Roger grabbed a clothes-hanger and started hitting the foster father over the back.   The doctor stopped Roger from hitting the foster father. He saw the foster father grab the first applicant's wrists and force her out of the room.           From a medical certificate dated 24 February 1987 it appears that the first applicant had bruises on her arms and legs that could have been caused when the foster father forced her out from the hospital ward.           The first applicant submitted a request to the Social Committee in 1987 that, in the first place, the care of Roger be terminated and, in the second place, there be no restriction of the right of access.   The Social Council's Social Committee No.   I rejected the request on 9 April 1987.   Subsequently, in a decision of 14 May 1987 the Social Committee decided that the meetings between the applicants should be planned and carried out with the assistance of the social authority in Växjö.   The meetings should take place at the spouses Helgesson's home at Sibbhult, which was an extra foster home, and the foster father should be present at the meetings.   This decision was an explanation of their previous decision, which was not meant as an absolute prohibition of access.           The Social Council's decisions were based on a report by the social authority of 30 March 1987.   According to the report, the extra foster home which was linked to Roger's foster home should function as support and as a supplementary family and enable Margareta Andersson and Roger to meet there without disturbing the work of the regular foster family.   A special assistant was employed to work in the foster home.   Furthermore, a supervisory contact was established with the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Kristianstad.   Roger was initially taught in the foster home but was gradually transferred to school.   Margareta Andersson met Roger in the extra foster home on a few occasions during the autumn of 1986.   Immediately after one of these meetings Roger tried to run away.           The first applicant appealed against the decisions of 9 April and 14 May 1987 to the County Administrative Court, requesting, in the first place, that the public care be terminated and, in the second place, that there be no restriction of the right of access.           The County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case on 21 May 1987 at which the first applicant was present and assisted by counsel and the second applicant was represented by official counsel. At the request of the Social Council the foster father, Henry Meijer, was heard as a witness and, at the first applicant's request, Mats Eriksson, the home therapist in the foster home, was also heard.   The Court gave judgment on 1 June 1987, in which it rejected the appeal. It amended the Social Committee's decision by providing that only the spouses Helgesson were to be present at the meetings between Roger and the first applicant.   The following reasons were given:           "Roger has been in public care under the 1980 Act since         17 July 1985.   After an initial stay at a Child Psychiatric         Clinic Roger was allowed to stay at home for almost eight         months.   Since 23 August 1986 he has been staying in the         foster home at Glimåkra.   The decision on public care as well         as the subsequent decision to transfer Roger are based on         Margareta Andersson's inability to provide the care and security         that Roger needed.   During Roger's stay at home he was the         object of qualified supportive measures without any change         being accomplished.   Roger now stays in a qualified foster         home.   During his stay there he has changed in a noticeable and         favourable way.   He has become considerably more open.   He         takes part in the school teaching and travels to school         and back on his own.   He visits the kindergarten and takes         part in its activities.   He has a friend with whom he         associates.   All this confirms the previous assessments that         Margareta Andersson has been unable to give Roger the care he         needed and that public care under the Act was necessary.         Apparently Margareta Andersson has not wanted to realise         Roger's favourable development.   The picture she gives of the         foster home and the way Roger is treated there is completely         without nuances and in the County Administrative Court's view      &#xa0