CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 22 octobre 1993

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 19823/92                                    T. H.                                   against                                   Finland                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 22 October 1993)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.          INTRODUCTION            (paras. 1-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              A.     The application                  (paras. 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              B.     The proceedings                  (paras. 5-11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              C.     The present Report                  (paras. 12-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.         ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS            (paras. 17-112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              A.     The particular circumstances of the case                  (paras. 17-85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              B.     Relevant domestic law                  (paras. 86-112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9                    a.    The 1983 Act on Custody and Visiting                       Rights with Regard to Children                       (paras. 86-97). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9                    b.    The 1898 Guardianship Act                       (paras. 98-101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13                    c.    The 1975 Act on the Enforcement of                       Decisions Concerning Custody and Visiting                       Rights with Regard to Children                       (paras. 102-109). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14                    d.    The 1889 Penal Code                       (paras. 110-112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17   III.        OPINION OF THE COMMISSION            (paras. 113-147) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19              A.     Complaints declared admissible                  (paras. 113-114) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19              B.     Points at issue                  (para. 115). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19              C.     Article 8 of the Convention                  (paras. 116-146) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19                    a.    The existence of "family life" between                       the applicant and S.. . . . . . . . . . . . .20                    b.    Whether there has been a lack of respect                       for the applicant's family life . . . . . . .21                    Conclusion                  (para. 147). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24              D.     Article 5 of Protocol No. 7                  (paras. 148-150) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24                    Conclusion                  (para. 151). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24              E.     Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                  (paras. 152-162) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24                    Conclusion                  (para. 163). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26              F.     Article 13 of the Convention                  (paras. 164-166) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26                    Conclusion                  (para. 167). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26              G.     Recapitulation                  (paras. 168-171) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26   SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. DANELIUS, JOINED BY MM. NØRGAARD, JÖRUNDSSON, SOYER, REFFI AND CONFORTI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28   CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. ROZAKIS, JOINED BY MM. MARXER AND CABRAL BARRETO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30   PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. LOUCAIDES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31   DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. TRECHSEL, WEITZEL AND SCHERMERS AND MRS. THUNE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32   DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. SCHERMERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33   DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. THUNE AND MR. PELLONPÄÄ. . . . . . . . .34   APPENDIX I        : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . .36   APPENDIX II       : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . .37   APPENDIX III      : CALENDAR OF MEASURES TAKEN DURING THE                    SECOND SET OF CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS. . . . . . . .53   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 applicant is a Finnish citizen born in 1953 and resident at Jäniksenlinna. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Heikki Salo, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.   3.     The application is directed against Finland. The respondent Government are represented by Ambassador Tom Grönberg, Director General for Legal Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Helsinki.   4.     The application concerns the non-enforcement of court decisions regarding the applicant's custody and visiting rights in respect of his daughter S., the transfer of custody of S. from the applicant to S.'s maternal grandparents and the length of custody proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 and Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 10 April 1992 and registered on 13 April 1992.   6.     On 29 June 1992 the Commission decided to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. It further decided to give the application precedence.   7.     The Government's observations were submitted on 10 October 1992 and the applicant's observations in reply on 10 November 1992.   8.     On 23 October 1992 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.   9.     On 9 February 1993 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 as well as his complaint under Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention regarding the length of the second set of the custody proceedings. The remainder of his complaints and the complaints introduced by the applicant in the name of S. were   declared inadmissible. The Commission also requested the parties to submit further observations on the merits of the admitted complaints.   10.    Further observations on the merits were submitted by the Government on 19 March and 28 September 1993 and by the applicant on 18 March, 22 April and 11 October 1993.   11.    After declaring the complaints admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   Active consultations with the parties took place in February and March 1993. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   12.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA   13.    The text of this Report was adopted on 22 October 1993 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)     to establish the facts, and   ii)    to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a       breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the       Convention.   15.    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 as Appendix II.   16.    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   17.    The applicant is the father of S., born on 8 September 1983. On 30 April 1985 the applicant's wife, the mother of S., committed suicide. According to the applicant, he then agreed with S.'s maternal grandparents (hereinafter "R.N." and "S.N.") that they would provisionally take care of S. until he had solved the problems caused by the death, including a re-organisation of his farming activities enabling him to resume the care of S. During this period S. spent the weekends with the applicant.   18.    According to the applicant, R.N. and S.N. demanded, in November 1985, at a time when S. was staying with him, that S. come to stay with them or otherwise S.N. would commit suicide. The applicant complied. Soon thereafter he was informed by R.N. and S.N. that they would not return S. Conciliation efforts involving the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) of Tuusula were unsuccessful.   19.    On 9 December 1985 the applicant lodged a report with the Chief of the Rural Police District of Tuusula who, in his function as Bailiff (ulosottomies, utmätningsman), refused executive assistance and directed him to institute enforcement proceedings before the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Uusimaa in its function as Executor in Chief (ulosotonhaltija, överexekutor).   20.    R.N. and S.N. subsequently brought an action against the applicant before the District Court (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätten) of Tuusula, requesting that custody of S. be transferred to them.   21.    On 28 January 1986 the action was dismissed, R.N. and S.N. having been considered to lack locus standi.   22.    In February 1986 the applicant requested the County Administrative Board to take measures in order to have S. returned. In an opinion submitted by the conciliator appointed by the Social Welfare Board the circumstances in which the applicant lived were not found to prevent such a return.   23.    On 2 May 1986 the County Administrative Board rejected the request, noting that S. had been staying with R.N. and S.N. with the applicant's consent. Having regard to, inter alia, the time which had elapsed from the moment when S. had been moved to stay with R.N. and S.N., as well as to the interaction between S. and the applicant, the Board considered that her return could be contrary to her interests. The Board therefore directed both parties to institute custody proceedings before the District Court.   24.    Custody proceedings were instituted by both parties. Following a hearing on 16 July 1986 the District Court decided to obtain the Social Welfare Board's opinion. It further provisionally ordered that S. was to stay with R.N. and S.N. and granted the applicant certain visiting rights.   25.    R.N. and S.N. refused to comply with the order insofar as it granted the applicant visiting rights.   26.    On 30 September 1986 the County Administrative Board ordered R.N. and S.N. to comply with the order under penalty of administrative fines (uhkasakko, vite) of 2.000 FIM each.   27.    In a preliminary opinion of 28 October 1986 to the District Court the Social Welfare Board considered it to be in S.'s interests to have a relationship with both R.N. and S.N. and the applicant. It noted that S.'s right to see her father had not been enforced, but found nothing to prevent S. from continuing to stay with R.N. and S.N.   28.    On 31 October 1986 the District Court held a further hearing and again adjourned the case. The applicant was again granted provisional visiting rights.   29.    R.N. and S.N. refused to comply with the order.   30.    In an opinion of 12 January 1987 to the District Court Mr. Erkki Rutanen, a psychologist, considered that S. should be returned to the applicant. According to the Centre, the contact between the applicant and S. was mutual, namely through playing and discussions.   31.    On 14 January 1987 the applicant and S. met in the presence of officials of the Child Guidance Centre (kasvatusneuvola, uppfostrings- rådgivningen) of Central Uusimaa and R.N. and S.N.   32.    On 21 January 1987 the County Administrative Board rejected the applicant's request for execution of the District Court's order of 16 July 1986. It further found that, as his visiting rights had been amended by the District Court on 31 October 1986, the order imposing an administrative fine on R.N. and S.N. in case of non-compliance with the earlier decision concerning visiting rights had ceased to be valid.   33.    In an opinion of 22 January 1987 to the District Court the Child Guidance Centre considered that custody of S. should remain with the applicant. The opinion stated, inter alia:         (translation from Finnish)         "...       [R.N.'s and S.N.'s] negative attitude towards [the       applicant] as well as their frightening picture of the way       in which their daughter died prevent the development of a       normal relationship between [S.] and [the applicant] and       make S. fear [him]. [The applicant] can accept that [S.] is       fond of [R.N. and S.N.]. These, however, treat [her] in a       possessive way and view any attachment by [her] to [the       applicant] as a loss of [her]. For example, in one       situation subject to [our] investigation, where, apart from       both parties, three officials were present and no danger       could have been caused by [the applicant], [S.N.] 'tied'       [S.] to herself by preventing her from moving around freely       in the room and even from having eye-to-eye contact with       [the applicant].         On the basis of our investigations and our knowledge of       child and family psychology we conclude that [the       applicant] is better suited than [R.N. and S.N.] to provide       an environment supporting her healthy mental development       and that it is in her interests to live permanently with       [the applicant] ..."   34.    In a final opinion of 23 January 1987 the Social Welfare Board considered that custody of S. should remain with the applicant and that she should live with him.   35.    On 26 January 1987 the District Court confirmed the applicant's custody of S. and ordered that she be handed over to him.   36.    On 10 March 1987 the County Administrative Board ordered R.N. and S.N. to comply with the District Court's decision of 26 January 1987 under penalty of administrative fines of 8.000 FIM each.   37.    R.N. and S.N. persisted in their refusal.   38.    On 6 May 1987 R.N.'s and S.N.'s appeal against the District Court's decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki.   39.    On 7 May 1987 the County Administrative Board ordered R.N. and S.N. to return S. to the applicant and to pay 2.000 FIM each of the previously imposed fines.   40.    On 13 May 1987 the applicant requested the Chief of the Rural Police District of Järvenpää to execute the County Administrative Board's decision.   41.    On 20 May 1987 it was discovered that S. had been moved to an unknown place.   42.    On 29 May 1987 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern), alleging that the authorities had failed to take sufficient measures in order to find and return S.   43.    On 23 June 1987 the Court of Appeal rejected R.N.'s and S.N.'s appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision of 10 March 1987.   44.    On 30 July 1987 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) granted R.N. and S.N. leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 6 May 1987 and ordered a stay of execution of the decisions of 6 May and 23 June 1987 or, alternatively, that execution be suspended.   45.    On 17 May 1988 the Supreme Court rejected R.N.'s and S.N.'s appeal and quashed the order for a stay of execution.   46.    On 18 May 1988 the applicant requested the Chief of the Rural Police District of Järvenpää to take measures in order to have S. returned.   47.    In the meantime, R.N. and S.N. requested a stay of execution and an annulment of the Supreme Court's decisions of 17 May 1988.   48.    On 10 June 1988 the applicant renewed his request of 18 May 1988, this time to the Chief of the Rural Police District of Mäntyharju, where S. had been found.   49.    On the same day R.N. and S.N. requested the Social Welfare Board to investigate whether the execution of the Supreme Court's decision would be in S.'s interests. The matter was subsequently transferred to the National Board for Social Welfare (sosiaalihallitus, socialstyrelsen).   50.    On 6 July 1988 the Chancellor of Justice found no reason to take measures with regard to the applicant's complaint, as following the County Administrative Board's decision of 7 May 1987 measures had immediately been taken in order to have it executed. He further referred to the subsequent order by the Supreme Court for a stay of execution of the decisions of the Court of Appeal of 6 May and 23 June 1987 as well as R.N.'s and S.N.'s request for a stay of execution of the Supreme Court's decisions of 17 May 1988.   51.    On 13 September 1988 the Supreme Court rejected R.N.'s and S.N.'s request for a stay of execution, as well as their request for an annulment of the Supreme Court's decisions.   52.    In the spring of 1989 the National Board for Social Welfare ordered R.N. and S.N. to allow S.'s mental state and her attitude towards the applicant to be investigated.   53.    On 30 May 1990 the National Board recommended the Social Welfare Board to take measures so as to have custody of S. transferred to R.N. and S.N., to have the applicant granted visiting rights and to have another person appointed S.'s guardian.   54.    At the request of the Social Welfare Board the Guardianship Board (holhouslautakunta, förmyndarenämnden) of Tuusula on 25 July 1990 submitted an opinion according to which the applicant had handled his guardianship in a satisfactory manner. The Guardianship Board concluded that the applicant should continue both as S.'s custodian and guardian.   55.    On 13 August 1990 the Social Welfare Board requested the District Court to transfer custody of S. to R.N. and S.N. Although considering that the applicant was suitable to be responsible for S.'s upbringing and that he could offer her a good home environment, the Board had regard to the fact that S. had lived with R.N. and S.N. as from 1985. The Board further noted that S.'s right to see the applicant had not been enforced during her stay with R.N. and S.N. and therefore requested that the applicant be granted visiting rights. It was finally proposed that the applicant remain S.'s guardian.   56.    The case was first before the District Court on 19 September 1990, but was adjourned, the Court having decided to obtain an opinion from the Guardianship Board.   57.    In a further opinion of 31 October 1990 the Guardianship Board proposed that the applicant be dismissed as S.'s guardian.   58.    On 14 November 1990 the District Court decided to obtain a further opinion from the Child Guidance Centre (kasvatus-neuvola, uppfostringsrådgivningen) of Central Uusimaa. S. was provisionally ordered to stay with R.N. and S.N. and the applicant   granted certain visiting rights.   59.    R.N. and S.N. refused to comply with the court order insofar as it concerned the applicant's visiting rights.   60.    On 20 December 1990 the applicant requested the County Administrative Board to take measures to execute the court order.   61.    On 1 January 1991 the Child Guidance Centre of Central Uusimaa ceased to exist. Its functions were taken over by the Child and Family Guidance Centre (perhe- ja kasvatusneuvola, familje- och uppfostrings- rådgivningen) of Tuusula.   62.    On 31 January 1991 the applicant renewed his request of 20 December 1990 to the County Administrative Board.   63.    On 28 March 1991 the County Administrative Board ordered R.N. and S.N. to comply with the court order of 14 November 1990 under penalty of administrative fines of 5.000 FIM each.   64.    R.N. and S.N. persisted in their refusal.   65.    In an opinion of 7 May 1991 to the District Court the Child and Family Guidance Centre of Tuusula confirmed the views submitted by the Child Guidance Centre of Central Uusimaa in its opinion to the District Court on 22 January 1987. It noted that R.N. and S.N. had refused to participate in interviews for the purpose of carrying out a further investigation, and that they had also refused to subject S. to such an investigation. It further referred to a statement in the opinion of 13 December 1989 submitted by a working group of the Lastenlinna children's hospital, according to which, although S. related to R.N. and S.N. as her psychological parents, there were no mental obstacles for her to meet the applicant, and that, on the contrary, such meetings were in her interests.   66.    On 8 May 1991 the District Court rejected the Social Welfare Board's request of 13 August 1990.   67.    Following separate appeals by R.N. and S.N. as well as the Social Welfare Board, the Court of Appeal on 24 July 1991 ordered a stay of execution of the District Court's decision of 8 May 1990.   68.    On 25 September 1991 the Court of Appeal, by a majority, partly quashed the District Court's decision and transferred custody of S. to R.N. and S.N. The Court of Appeal found that there were particularly weighty reasons for maintaining the factual care situation, as S. had been living with R.N. and S.N. since 30 April 1985. It further noted that according to the opinion of the children's hospital her most important relationship was that with R.N. and S.N., that she conceived their home as her own, that it was important that this relationship and home environment should not be significantly changed, but that she should be able to meet the applicant and create a realistic relationship with him.   69.    The Court of Appeal further had regard to the opinion of 7 May 1991 by the Child and Family Guidance Centre of Tuusula. The Court finally noted that references had been made to S.'s own wish not to see the applicant. However, having regard to her age and the fact that she clearly had not been able to form such an opinion without being affected by others, it found that no significant importance could be attached to it.   70.    The Court of Appeal further granted the applicant visiting rights. During the first three months he and S. were to meet for four hours the first Saturday of the month on premises chosen by the Social Welfare Office of Tuusula and in the presence of an official of that Office. Subsequently they were to meet the first and third weekends of the month between Saturday 12.00 hrs and Sunday 12.00 hrs. In the summer S. was to stay with the applicant for two weeks. S. was further to spend Christmas 1991 with R.N. and S.N. Subsequently her stays during special holidays were to rotate between R.N. and S.N. and the applicant.   71.    The Court of Appeal further considered that the applicant should remain S.'s guardian.   72.    On R.N.'s and S.N.'s appeal the Court of Appeal on 19 December 1991 quashed the Country Administrative Board's decision of 28 March 1991 in view of the District Court's decision of 8 May 1991 whereby it had revoked its order of 14 November 1990.   73.    On 21 January 1992 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for a hearing and refused the applicant leave to appeal.   74.    On 22 June 1992 the applicant again lodged a request for enforcement with the County Administrative Board, this time requesting execution of the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 September 1991. He referred, inter alia, to the fact that in 1991 all three meetings planned between him and S. had failed, as R.N. and S.N. had refused to bring S. to the meetings. They had further refused to respond to attempts to arrange further meetings between the applicant and S.   75.    In their submissions to the County Administrative Board R.N. and S.N. argued that the applicant had himself broken off his family life with S. already years ago and that coercive enforcement measures could not be applied, as S. clearly objected to meeting the applicant. They referred to an opinion by Ms. Anne Ketonen, a psychiatrist, according to which the use of such measures in order to force S. to meet her unknown father would contravene her interests. A further expert opinion by Ms. Terttu Arajärvi, a professor of psychiatry, had concluded that S. was at present unwilling to meet the applicant and that this opinion was mature enough to be taken into account.   76.    The applicant considered that the opinion of Ms. Ketonen was inaccurate and unreliable and that the opinion of Ms. Arajärvi only showed how much influence R.N. and S.N. had had and were having on S.'s opinions, as S. had stated that she did not want to see the applicant because she "did not like him". S. had seen the applicant most recently at the meeting arranged by the Child Guidance Centre on 14 January 1987, during which, according to the opinion of the Centre of 22 January 1987 the contact between her and the applicant had been mutual. Judging from Ms. Arajärvi's opinion, however, S. no longer remembered her meeting with the applicant in 1987. Moreover, the Family and Child Guidance Centre had concluded, as late as in May 1991, that there were no mental obstacles to prevent S. from seeing the applicant and that, on the contrary, such meetings were in her interests.   77.    In response to the applicant's request for measures to be taken by the Social Welfare Board of Järvenpää, now the competent local authority, the Board on 25 June 1992 stated that the Child and Family Guidance Centre of Järvenpää had offered R.N. and S.N. "an opportunity to obtain assistance and to discuss the matter concerning visiting rights". R.N. and S.N. had refused, however, to contact the Centre. The Social Welfare Board referred to a letter from the Centre of 16 June 1992 according to which, in those circumstances, "nothing else could be done by the Centre".   78.    On 10 November 1992 the applicant renewed his request for enforcement of 22 June 1992.   79.    In response to the applicant's request of 22 June 1992 the County Administrative Board on 31 December 1992 ordered R.N. and S.N. to comply with the Court of Appeal's decision under a penalty of administrative fines of 5.000 FIM each.   80.    The County Administrative Board rejected the applicant's request that S. be physically transferred from R.N. and S.N., as such a measure could only be applied in order to enforce a custody decision. The Board noted, however, that R.N. and S.N. had totally refused to co-operate in order to let the applicant meet S. Considering S.'s age and R.N.'s and S.N.'s strong influence on her opinions, S. could not be considered so mature that her will should be taken into account.   81.    The County Administrative Board had regard, inter alia, to an opinion submitted by the conciliator appointed by the Social Welfare Board of Järvenpää. The conciliator noted inter alia that R.N. and S.N. had agreed to the applicant seeing S. in their home. The applicant, however, had categorically refused to have anything to do with R.N. and S.N. The conciliator had met S., but only in the presence of R.N. and S.N., as she had refused to talk to the conciliator in private. When questioned about the father, S. had become very reserved. She had, however, objected to meeting the applicant. The conciliator concluded that S.'s opinion should be taken into account.   82.    The Board's order was appealed against by R.N. and S.N.   83.    R.N. and S.N. subsequently refused to bring S. to a meeting between her and the applicant planned by the Social Welfare Board of Järvenpää for 3 April 1993.   84.    On 2 September 1993 the Court of Appeal held a hearing regarding R.N.'s and S.N.'s appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision of 31 December 1992.   85.    At present the applicant cohabits with a woman, with whom he has two children.   B.     Relevant domestic law   a.     The 1983 Act on Custody and Visiting Rights with Regard to       Children (laki 361/83 lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta, lag       361/83 ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt)   86.    Chapter 1, Section 1, para. 1 reads:         (Finnish)         "Lapsen huolto. Lapsen huollon tarkoituksena on turvata lapsen       tasapainoinen kehitys ja hyvinvointi lapsen yksilöllisten       tarpeiden ja toivomusten mukaisesti. Huollon tulee turvata       myönteiset ja läheiset ihmissuhteet erityisesti lapsen ja hänen       vanhempiensa välillä."         (Translation)         "Custody of a child. The aim of custody of a child is to ensure       the child's balanced development and well-being, having regard       to the special needs and wishes of the child. Custody shall       [further] ensure positive and close relationships, in particular       between the child and his or her parents."   87.    Section 2, para. 1 reads:         (Finnish)         "Tapaamisoikeus. Tapaamisoikeuden tarkoituksena on turvata       lapselle oikeus pitää yhteyttä ja tavata vanhempaansa, jonka       luona lapsi ei asu.         (Translation)         "Visiting rights. The aim of visiting-rights is to ensure the       right of the child to keep contact with and see that parent, with       whom the child is not living."   88.    Section 3 reads:         (Finnish)         "Lapsen huoltajat. Lapsen huoltajia ovat hänen vanhempansa tai       henkilöt, joille lapsen huolto on uskottu.         Lapsen huolto päättyy, kun lapsi täyttää kahdeksantoista vuotta       tai sitä ennen menee avioliittoon."         (Translation)         "The custodians of a child. The child's custodians are his or       her parents or [other] persons to whom care of the child has been       entrusted.         Custody of a child ends when the child reaches the age of       eighteen or, prior to that, gets married."   89.    Section 4, para. 3 reads:         (Finnish)         "Huoltaja edustaa lasta tämän henkilöä koskevissa asioissa,       jollei laissa ole toisin säädetty."         (Translation)         "The custodian represents the child in his or her personal       matters, unless otherwise prescribed by law."   90.    Chapter 2, Section 6, para. 1 reads:         (Finnish)         "Huoltajat lapsen syntymän perusteella. Lapsen vanhemmat, jotka       lapsen syntyessä ovat avioliitossa keskenään, ovat kumpikin       lapsensa huoltajia. ..."         (Translation)         "Custodians on the basis of the child's birth. The parents of a       child who are married to each other when the child is born are       both the custodians of the child ... ."   91.    Section 9, para. 1 reads:         (Finnish)         "Tuomioistuimen päätös lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta.       Tuomioistuin voi päättää,       ...         4)    että lapsen huolto uskotaan vanhempien ohella tai sijasta       yhdelle tai useammalle henkilölle, joka on antanut tähän       suostumuksensa;         5)    että lapsella on oikeus pitää yhteyttä ja tavata       vanhempaansa, jonka luona lapsi ei asu."         (Translation)         "The court's decision regarding custody and visiting-rights. The       court may decide,       ...         4)    that custody of the child shall be entrusted to one or       several persons having consented to this, either together with       or instead of the parents;         5)    that the child shall have the right to keep contact with       that parent, with whom it is not living."   92.    Section 9, para. 2 reads:         (Finnish)         "Jos vanhemmat tai toinen heistä ovat lapsensa huoltajia, voi       tuomioistuin uskoa lapsen huollon 1 momentin 4 kohdan mukaisesti       vanhempien sijasta yhdelle tai useammalle henkilölle vain, jos       tähän on lapsen kannalta erittäin painavia syitä."         (Translation)         "If the parents are or one of the parents of the child is the       child's custodian[s], the court can entrust custody to one or       several persons other than the parent[s] in accordance with       para. 1 no. 4 only if, from the child's point of view, there are       particularly weighty reasons for this."   93.    Section 9, para. 4 reads:         (Finnish)         "Tuomioistuimen on ratkaistessaan lapsen huoltoa ja       tapaamisoikeutta koskeva asia otettava huomioon lapsen etu ja       lapsen omat toivomukset siten kuin 10 ja 11 §:ssä säädetään."         (Translation)         "When deciding a matter concerning custody and visiting-rights       with regard to a child, the court shall consider the interests       and wishes of the child according to what is stated in       Sections 10 and 11."   94.    Section 10, para. 1 reads:         (Finnish)         "Huoltoa ja tapaamisoikeutta koskevan asian ratkaiseminen. Lapsen       huoltoa ja tapaamisoikeutta koskeva asia on ratkaistava ennen       kaikkea lapsen edun mukaisesti. Tässä tarkoituksessa on       erityisesti kiinnitettävä huomiota siihen, miten huolto ja       tapaamisoikeus parhaiten toteutuvat vastaisuudessa."         (Translation)         "Decisions regarding custody and access. Decisions concerning       custody and access with regard to a child shall be based       primarily on the interests of the child. Particular regard shall       be had to the optimal implementation of custody and visiting-       rights in the future."   95.    Section 11 reads:         (Finnish)         "Lapsen toivomusten ja mielipiteen selvittäminen. Lapsen huoltoa       ja tapaamisoikeutta koskevassa asiassa on selvitettävä lapsen       omat toivomukset ja mielipide sikäli kuin se on lapsen ikään ja       kehitystasoon nähden mahdollista, jos vanhemmat eivät ole asiasta       yksimieliset, jos lapsi on muun henkilön kuin huoltajansa       hoidettavana taikka jos tätä muutoin on pidettävä lapsen edun       kannalta aiheellisena.         Lapsen mielipide on selvitettävä hienovaraisesti ja ottaen       huomioon lapsen kehitysaste sekä siten, että tästä ei aiheudu       haittaa lapsen ja hänen vanhempiensa välisille suhteille."         (Translation)         "The investigation of the child's wishes and opinion. In a matter       concerning custody and visiting-rights with regard to a child the       child's own wishes and opinion shall, if possible, be obtained,       having regard to the child's age and maturity and provided the       parents are unable to reach an agreement, if the child is being       cared for by someone else than its custodian or if, for some       other reason, consultation shall be regarded as necessary in the       interests of the child.         The child's opinion shall be obtained tactfully, having regard       to its stage of maturity and without causing harm to the       relations between the child and its parents."   96.    Chapter 3, Section 17, paras. 1 - 2 read:         "Väliaikaiset määräykset. Kun lapsen huoltoa tai tapaamisoikeutta       koskeva asia on vireillä tuomioistuimessa, voi tuomioistuin antaa       väliaikaisen määräyksen siitä, kenen luona lapsen tulee asua ja       tapaamisoikeudesta sekä tapaamisen tai luonapidon ehdoista. Jos       tähän on erityistä syytä, tuomioistuin voi määrätä, kenelle       lapsen huolto uskotaan, kunnes asiasta lopullisesti päätetään.         Tuomioistuimen antamaan väliaikaiseen määräykseen ei saa hakea       muutosta."         (Translation)         "Provisional orders. When a custody or access matter is pending       before a court of law, the court may issue an interim order as       to where the child should live, the right of access and the       conditions attached thereto. For special reasons the court may       also issue an i