CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 mars 1990

.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 }    Application No. 12574/86     Birgitt and Lars Erik NYBERG   against   SWEDEN     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 15 March 1990)     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             page   I.    INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) ...........................    1        A.   The application          (paras. 2-4)   ....................................    1        B.   The proceedings          (paras. 5-10) ....................................    1        C.   The present Report          (paras. 11-14) ...................................    2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 15-96) ............    3        A.   The particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-76) ...................................    3            a.   The first application to the Commission              (paras. 16-18) ...............................    3            b.   The request for extended access              (paras. 19-25) ...............................    3            c.   The request that the care be terminated              (paras. 26-29) ...............................    4            d.   The prohibition on removal              (paras. 30-33) ...............................    5            e.   The first decision of the Parliamentary              Ombudsman (paras. 34-35) .....................   10            f.   The proceedings relating to the transfer of              the legal custody of Björn, the enforcement              proceedings and the new decision to prohibit              the applicants from removing Björn              (paras. 36-53) ...............................   11            g.   The incident in the Federal Republic of              Germany (paras. 54-63) .......................   15            h.   The second decision of the Parliamentary              Ombudsman (paras. 64-71) .....................   16            i.   Further particulars concerning the contacts              between the applicants and Björn              (paras. 72-76) ...............................   18        B.   Relevant domestic law          (paras. 77-96) ...................................   19            a.   The Social Services Act and the 1980 Act              with Special Provisions on the Care of              Young Persons (paras. 77-92) .................   19                aa.   Compulsory care (paras. 78-86) ..........   19                bb.   Prohibition on removal (paras. 87-92) ...   21            b.   The Parental Code (paras. 93-96) .............   23   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 97-172)   ...........   25        A.   Points at issue          (para. 97) .......................................   25        B.   Article 8 of the Convention          (paras. 98-144) ..................................   25            a.   The period when the care order was in force              (paras. 103-109) .............................   27            b.   The period when the prohibition on removal              was in force (paras. 110-142) ................   28                aa.   Whether there has been a lack of respect                   for the applicants' family life                   (paras. 110-112) ........................   28                bb.   Whether there has been an interference                   with the exercise of the applicants'                   right to respect for their family life                   (paras. 113-116) ........................   28                cc.   Whether the interferences were "in                   accordance with the law"                   (paras. 117-131) ........................   29                dd.   Whether the interferences pursued a                   legitimate aim (paras. 132-135) .........   31                ee.   Whether the interferences were "necessary                   in a democratic society"                   (paras. 136-142) ........................   32            c.   Summing up (para. 143) .......................   33        C.   Article 3 of the Convention          (paras. 145-149) .................................   34        D.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 150-153) .....   34        E.   Article 13 of the Convention          (paras. 154-165) .................................   35        F.   Recapitulation          (para. 166) ......................................   37   Concurring opinion of MM. J.A. Frowein, S. Trechsel and Sir Basil Hall ............................................   38   Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   H. Danelius joined by Sir Basil Hall ............................................   39   APPENDIX I:   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ...................   40   APPENDIX II: DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY .............   42   I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application   2.       The 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.   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mr.   Lennart Hane, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.   3.       The Government are represented by their Agent Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The applicant's son was taken into public care, but the care order was subsequently lifted and replaced by a prohibition on the removal of the son from his foster home.   The case relates to the public care and the prohibition on removal as well as to various measures taken by the social authorities in connection therewith.   The applicants complain that their right to respect for their family life has been violated.   The applicants furthermore complain of lengthy and unfair proceedings and of absence of effective remedies.   They invoke Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 9 June 1986 and registered on 2 December 1986.   The Commission decided on 13 March 1987 not to take any action under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure.   On 7 May 1987 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were dated 4 September 1987 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated 17 November 1987.   6.       On 16 October 1987 the Commission decided that legal aid should be granted to the applicants.   7.       On 6 July 1988 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           At the hearing, which was held on 4 October 1988, the applicants were represented by Mr.   Lennart Hane assisted by Mrs.   Gunilla Hane.   The applicants were also present at the hearing.           The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and as advisers Mrs.   Christina Bergenstrand, legal adviser at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, and Mr.   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, legal adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   8.      Following the hearing the Commission, on 4 October 1988, declared the application admissible.   9.      On 17 January 1989 the text of the decision on admissibility was communicated to the parties who were invited to submit any additional observations or further evidence they wished to put before the Commission.   On 11 March, 8 July, 7 October and 9 December 1989 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   10.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Active consultations with the parties took place between October 1988 and August 1989.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                         MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                            J.A. FROWEIN                            S. TRECHSEL                            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           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 15 March 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           (1)      to establish the facts, and           (2)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found                 disclose a breach by the State concerned of its                 obligations under the Convention.   13.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.   14.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular circumstances of the case   15.      The applicants have two sons, Björn, born on 16 September 1981, and Ralf, born on 14 January 1984.   a.       The first application to the Commission   16.      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 Child Welfare Act (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 main reason for the care order was that the mental state of the parents was considered to involve a danger to Björn's development.   Björn was placed in a foster home at Skirebo outside Jönköping on 8 October 1982.   17.      On 25 October 1982 the applicants requested that the care of their son be terminated.   The request was rejected by the Social 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.   18.      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 parties' 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 health and for the protection of the rights of others.   b.       The request for extended access   19.      On 11 September 1984 the applicants requested the Social District Council 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.   20.      On the same day the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Stockholm asked for the Social Council's opinion on 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.   21.      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.   22.      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 the Federal Republic of 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 wished to meet Björn as soon as possible.   During their stay in the Federal Republic of Germany they had written a few letters to Björn and had talked to him over the telephone on a few occasions.   The applicants met Björn in September 1984.   It was then decided that they should see him every five weeks.   23.      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.   24.      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.   Following 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.   25.      In January 1986 the applicants brought an appeal against that decision but later withdrew it in view of the Council's decision to terminate the public care of Björn.   c.       The request that the care be terminated   26.      In the meantime, on 19 October 1984, the applicants again requested that the care of the son be terminated.   On 23 January 1985 the Social 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 was received by the Council in June 1985.   It was issued by an assistant chief doctor at the Enskede Skarpnäck Psychiatric Institute.   27.      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 later withdrawn by the doctors who issued it.   A new opinion based on a new investigation was issued by a chief doctor and a certified psychologist at the Clinic on 9 September 1985.   The applicants did not participate in the latter investigation which focused on Björn's development.   Since the two opinions contained completely different conclusions, the Social Council asked 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 asked 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.   28.      The social investigation made after 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.   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.   29.      On 6 February 1986 the Social Council decided to terminate the care of Björn.   d.       The prohibition on removal   30.      At the same time, the Council prohibited the applicants from separating Björn from the foster home where he was living.   The prohibition on removal (flyttningsförbud) was valid until further notice.   This decision was taken under Section 28 of the Social Services Act (socialtjänstlagen).   The Council stated that it was important to create good opportunities for Björn to build up and develop a relationship of confidence with the applicants.   31.      The applicants appealed to the County Administrative Court against the decision regarding the prohibition on removal.   The Court held a hearing on 28 May 1986 at which the applicants were present and represented by counsel.   In a judgment of 6 June 1986 the Court confirmed the prohibition on removal, but ordered that it should only apply until 15 December 1986.   The reasons of the Court read as follows:   "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 at 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 certified 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 natural 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 Services 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 five 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 live in the near future 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 receives as soon as possible 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 preparation 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."   32.      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, at which Birgitt Nyberg was present and both applicants were represented by counsel, 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 were to move immediately 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."   33.      The applicants and the Social Council appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which in a decision of 7 November 1986 refused leave to appeal.   e.       The first decision of the Parliamentary Ombudsman   34.      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 access to Björn had been unduly long (more than one year).   He stated that the Social Council should have taken a decision under Section 16 of the 1980 Act when giving their opinion to the County Administrative Board in November 1984.   By not doing so the Social Council deprived the applicants of the right to have their request examined by a court.   35.      The Parliamentary Ombudsman also stated 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 in view of the Social Council's obligation under Section 5 of the 1980 Act to monitor carefully the care of a young person who has been taken into care under the 1980 Act, and Section 9 of that Act which provides that cases concerning care orders shall be dealt with promptly.   He pointed out that the first delay was caused by the fact that the request for the child psychiatric opinion was not made until 23 January 1985. As regards the Social Council's request of September 1985 for a new psychiatric assessment of Björn, the Parliamentary Ombudsman pointed out that the Social Council ought to have known that the National Board of Health and Welfare does not carry out investigations.   f.       The proceedings relating to the transfer of the legal         custody of Björn, the enforcement proceedings and the         new decision to prohibit the applicants from removing Björn   36.      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.   37.      In the social investigation it is stated inter alia 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 wish to see them.   The conclusion was reached that Björn had lost an essential part of his emotional attachment to his mother and that he identified himself with his foster parents and felt that he belonged in his foster family.   38.      On 26 January 1987 the applicants applied to the County Administrative Court of Jönköping for the enforcement of the return to them of their son Björn in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Parental Code.   39.      On 30 January 1987 the County Administrative Court 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.   40.      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 the applicants had not co-operated sufficiently in order to make the removal as smooth as possible for Björn.   41.      On 23 February 1987 the Social Council requested a medical 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 favourable 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."   42.      In view of this opinion the Chairman of the Social Council decided on 26 February 1987 to issue a new prohibition on removal, this time valid until further notice.   43.      On 5 March 1987 the Social Council provisionally upheld the Chairman's decision.   44.      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 period 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, under Chapter 21 Section 7 second paragraph of the Parental Code, may 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 action 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 wh