CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 3 octobre 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. 12963/87   Margareta and Roger ANDERSSON   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 3 October 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. 15-76) ............    3        A.   The particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-63) ...................................    3        B.   Relevant domestic law          (paras. 64-76) ...................................   17   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 77-119) ............   22        A.   Complaints declared admissible          (para. 77) .......................................   22        B.   Points at issue          (para. 78) .......................................   22        C.   Article 8 of the Convention          (paras. 79-104) ..................................   22            a.   Whether there was an interference with the              the applicants' right to respect for their              family life (paras. 85-88) ...................   23            b.   Whether the interference was "in accordance              with the law" (paras. 89-102) ................   24            c.   The purpose and necessity of the interference              (para. 103) ..................................   26        D.   Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 105-118) ....   27            a.   Margareta Andersson (paras. 108-110) .........   27            b.   Roger Andersson (paras. 111-118) .............   28        E.   Recapitulation (para. 119) .......................   29     Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   H.G. Schermers joined by Mrs.   G.H. Thune .................................   30   APPENDIX I :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................   31   APPENDIX II:   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ...............   33   I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The first applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1951.   She is a nurse.   The second applicant 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.   3.       The application is directed against Sweden.   The Government are represented by their Agent Mr.   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, legal adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates to the restrictions of access and other contacts, notably correspondence and telephone communications, between the applicants when the second applicant was in public care.   The case raises issues under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 13 February 1987 and registered on 25 May 1987.   The Commission decided on 12 October 1988, 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 with regard to the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention except for the justification of the care order as such.           The Government's observations were dated 8 February 1989 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated 31 March 1989.   6.       On 10 July 1989 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   On 8 September 1989 the Commission granted legal aid to the applicants.   7.       At the hearing, which was held on 10 October 1989, the applicants were represented by Mrs.   Siv Westerberg.   The applicants were also present at the hearing.           The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, and as adviser Mrs.   Birgitta Ganting, legal adviser at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.   8.      Following the hearing the Commission, on 10 October 1989, declared admissible the complaints relating to the prohibition on access, including contacts by telephone and correspondence, and the absence of an effective remedy with regard to these restrictions (Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention).           The Commission also decided not to take any further action in respect of the alleged interference with the effective exercise of the right of individual petition, and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   9.        On 20 November 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 submit in the light of a list of questions put by the Commission.   The applicants submitted observations by letter dated 22 December 1989 and the Government by letter dated 11 January 1990.   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.   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                            S. TRECHSEL                            F. ERMACORA                            E. BUSUTTIL                            G. JÖRUNDSSON                            A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                            A. WEITZEL                            J.C. SOYER                            H.G. SCHERMERS                            H. DANELIUS                       Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                       Sir Basil Hall           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 3 October 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, is held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       Particular circumstances of the case   15.      On 5 June 1985 the chairman of the Social Committee No.   I of the Social Council (socialnämndens socialutskott I, hereinafter "the Social Council) of Växjö decided that Roger Andersson (the second applicant) 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. Margareta Andersson (the first applicant) refused to accept the measures proposed by the social authorities to help Roger.   She moved from Växjö to Nybro.   The report concluded that the serious disturbances in Roger's state of health and in his development, in connection with Margareta Andersson'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 to his health and development.   It was also feared that Margareta Andersson would seriously impede the continued investigation.   16.      On 11 June 1985 the social authorities decided to prohibit contact between the applicants pending the decision of the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Kronoberg County on the care issue.   However, some contact by telephone was permitted.   The modalities were to be fixed by the responsible doctor.   The prohibition was to be reviewed as soon as it could be considered not to be harmful to Roger to have contact with his mother.   Margareta Andersson appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court.   17.       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 to Roger's health and development as well as the fact that the continued investigation may be seriously obstructed."   18.      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 cope with 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 Margareta Andersson was in such a bad condition.   19.      Margareta Andersson appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping, which rejected the appeal in a judgment of 27 June 1985.   She made a further appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which on 26 July 1985 refused leave to appeal.   20.      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 and by a judgment of 17 July 1985 granted the Social Council's application, giving inter alia the following reasons:   "From the investigation in the case it does not appear that there is any reason to criticise the manner in which Margareta Andersson manages her home.   As far as it can be ascertained, 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 to receive 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."   21.      Margareta Andersson appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   22.      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 Margareta Andersson 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, Margareta Andersson withdrew her appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   23.      As from March 1986 Roger did not attend school and on 28 April 1986 the Chairman of the Social Council decided to place him at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic pending his transfer to a foster home.   The Social Council decided on 22 May 1986 to place Roger in a foster home at Glimåkra.   24.      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.   25.      Margareta Andersson 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 Roger 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 stated inter alia 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 than helping them.   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 Roger is to 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 stated inter alia 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. To let Roger return home would not be a solution.   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 stated inter alia the following: She has worked as a home therapist in the Andersson family since autumn 1985.   On the 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 involve 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."   26.      On 23 August 1986 Roger was transferred to the foster home at Glimåkra.   27.      Margareta Andersson appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Jönköping.   The Court held a hearing on 16 September 1986, at which Margareta Andersson 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 1980 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."   28.      Margareta Andersson appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court which, by a decision of 19 December 1986, refused leave to appeal.   29.      In the meantime, on 6 August 1986, the social welfare officer in charge of the applicants' case decided under Section 16 (1) of the 1980 Act to prohibit access between the applicants.   The decision reads inter alia as follows:   "Since it is considered necessary in view of the purpose of the care, the undersigned officer in charge, having been duly authorised by (the Social Council) and pending (the Council's) meeting, has decided that prohibition of access between (the applicants) under Section 16 (1) of the 1980 Act shall apply as from today and until further notice.   The decision shall be reviewed as soon as personal contact between the mother and the child is no longer considered to be harmful to the child."   30.      On 21 August 1986 the Social Council decided   "in accordance with Section 16 (1) of the 1980 Act that prohibition of access should apply between the applicants until further notice and awaiting that suitable access could be arranged without involving harm to the child."   31.      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 Margareta Andersson'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 Roger had twice run away from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic, that Margareta Andersson had been involved in these incidents 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 her 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 he did not succeed, from the foster home at Glimåkra.   Money and such messages were hidden among clothes and other things she brought to Roger.   In the report it was said that, if the purpose of the care was to be achieved, it was necessary to temporarily prevent Margareta Andersson completely from having "any form of contact with Roger".   32.      Margareta Andersson appealed to the County Administrative Court requesting the prohibition of access to be revoked and claiming the right to speak to Roger on the telephone.   33.      The Court held a hearing 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 necessary 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 no indication 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, in view of 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 fail.   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 Council 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 Council, 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."   34.      Margareta Andersson appealed 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."   35.      Margareta Andersson appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which refused leave to appeal in a decision of 19 December 1986.   36.      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 applicants allege that, on 19 February 1987, when Margareta Andersson, 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.   37.      In a memorandum of 4 March 1987 by the responsible social welfare officer it is said that Margareta Andersson had on two occasions visited Roger at the home of Mr. and Mrs.   Helgesson (the extra foster family - cf para. 41).   It is further stated that:   "The modalities of the contacts until further notice are that they shall take place at the couple Helgesson's home; that the (foster father) should be present during the visits and that Kristina Wintler... participates.   The prohibition covers telephone communications and correspondence. Margareta Andersson has the possibility at certain times of the week to have telephone contact with Roger's doctor and with Mrs.   Helgesson.   She also has telephone contact with (the foster father).   Letters from Margareta to Roger shall first be scrutinised by (the foster father)...   The doctors... where Roger is cared for... have been... told that Margareta may not visit Roger alone..."   38.      Margareta Andersson submitted a request to the Social Council 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 rejected the request on 9 April 1987.   It stated inter alia that:   "continued prohibition of access, under Section 16 (1) of the 1980 Act, shall apply until suitable access can be arranged without harm to the child".   39.      Subsequently, in a decision of 14 May 1987, the Social Council stated that its previous decision:   "could be interpreted to mean that a total prohibition of access applied.   This was not the case, as appeared from the investigation on which the decision was based - a prohibition of access does not apply, but access shall be restricted."   40.      The Council then decided that continued restrictions of access should apply and 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 and the foster father should be present at the meetings.   41.      The Social Council's decisions were based on a report by the social authority of 30 March 1987.   According to the report, the supplementary 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 supplementary foster home on a few occasions during the autumn of 1986.   Immediately after one of these meetings Roger tried to run away.   42.      Margareta Andersson 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 access.   43.      The County Administrative Court held a hearing on 21 May 1987 at which Margareta Andersson was present and assisted by counsel and Roger was represented by official counsel.   At the request of the Social Council the foster father, Henry Meijer, was heard as a witness and, at Margareta Andersson'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 Council's decision by providing that only the spouses Helgesson were to be present at the meetings between Roger and Margareta Andersson. 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 understand 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 incorrect.   There is no indication that Margareta Andersson is more capable of taking care of Roger now than at the time when he was taken into care or at the time when he was transferred to the foster home.   To interrupt the care and Roger's favourable development would be clearly harmful to him.   The conditions are not such that the care can be terminated.   Concerning the restriction of the right of access the Social Council has stated that there is no restriction as to how many meetings can be arranged.   The restriction also includes a prohibition of contact by letters or telephone. According to Section 16 of the 1980 Act the Social Council may restrict the guardian's right of access, when this is necessary in order to carry out the care of the child.   When applying this provision the aim should be not to restrict the right of access more than is absolutely necessary. Margareta Andersson has shown at the hearing before the County Administrative Court that she does not understand Roger's need for care.   Her only aim is Roger's return home. Her conduct creates a conflict of loyalties for Roger. Margareta Andersson's actions when Roger ran away from the Child Clinic at Växjö, Roger's attempt to run away after her visit to the foster home, and Roger's behaviour when she visited the hospital at Kristianstad, show that a restriction of access is necessary for the successful care of Roger.   The County Administrative Court finds that the Social Council had good reasons to restrict the right of access including contact by letters or telephone.   Margareta Andersson has stated that she does not intend to visit Roger if Henry Meijer (the foster father) is present during the visits.   The County Administrative Court finds it important that the Social Council's decision be modified so as to make Margareta Andersson visit Roger.   This can initially only be done if Henry Meijer is not present during the visits.   In order to facilitate the establishing of contact no one else appointed by the Social Council should be present.   During the visit, which is to take place in the spouses Helgesson's home, it is enough if the spouses Helgesson are present.   No other change should be made in the decision on restriction of access."   44.      Margareta Andersson appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   The Court held a hearing on 2 July 1987 at which Margareta Andersson was present and she and Roger were represented in the same way as in the County Administrative Court.   In a judgment of 10 July 1987 the Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the County Administrative Court and stated inter alia the following:   "Public care under the 1980 Act has been provided for Roger in a judgment that has acquired legal force.   The issue in this case is firstly whether the care should be terminated.   According to Section 5 of the Act the care should be terminated when it is no longer necessary.   In support of her request Margareta Andersson has, through her counsel, mainly alleged that the public care interferes with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and accused the social authorities of false motives and misuse of power.   There is no indication that public care is no longer necessary. Margareta Andersson's first claim must be rejected.   It should be added that the Administrative Court of Appeal can only apply Swedish law in force.   The extensive criticism of the system, on which the appellant, through her counsel, has mainly based her claim, cannot be decisive for the Administrative Court of Appeal's assessment of whether the public care should be terminated.   The possibilities for Margareta Andersson to regain the actual care of her son, which should be the obvious aim, depend on whether she, in the present situation, can co-operate with the social authorities and the family with whom Roger is staying. At the hearing it was said that Margareta Andersson had visited Roger on 24 June at the spouses Helgesson's home at Sibbhult. The visit was the first meeting between the two since February and turned out well.   The exact conditions for the future contacts - as well as the future care - depend to a great extent on Margareta Andersson's attitude and conduct. The Administrative Court of Appeal considers that further successful contact must be established at the home of the Helgessons before other kinds of contact can be allowed. Margareta Andersson's second claim is therefore also rejected.   The Administrative Court of Appeal has no legal competence to decide where Roger should stay.   Since Margareta Andersson has made serious - although essentially unsubstantiated - accusations against the foster home at Glimåkra, the Administrative Court of Appeal considers that the degree of truth in the accusations should be investigated by the social authorities as well as the possibility of placing Roger in a foster home in which Margareta Andersson might have more confidence."   45.      Margareta Andersson appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.   She complained inter alia that Roger had been refused the right to receive correspondence from her and other persons.   The Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal in a decision of 20 August 1987.   46.      In November 1987 Margareta Andersson again requested, in the first place, that the care of Roger be terminated and, in the second place, that there be no restriction of her right of access.   The Social Council rejected the requests on 15 December 1987.   47.      Subsequently, on 5 February 1988, the Social Council made a new decision on Margareta Andersson's right of acce